Why blog about sex? Why not?

A truly burning question...

Sex blogs: why bother?

So, some blogging bounder in Shanghai has raised the skirts of the local women and the ire of the local media. So, once more, sexblogging is in the news, and everyone's asking the important questions: Free speech? Censorship? Rights of anonymity? But they're leaving out the most important one: sexblogging - WHY?

I'd never heard of this "Sex and Shanghai" blogspot effort before today, nor of its writer and porktoganist Chinabounder, who according to an article by Jon Watts in this morning's paper, has somewhat gone to ground after threats and rumblings from "Chinese internet vigilantes" who vowed to have him expelled from the country, to castrate him, or worst of all, to have his blog taken down.

*****
No problem, though - I can always just go and pick another of the thousands upon thousands of sex blogs that seem to be girding their loins and penetrating the blogosphere; because let's face it, they all read the same. It's all "tensed muscles" this and "moist undercarriage" that: graphic details of the precise curl of some anonyknobber's merkin and five hundred variants on the concept of "sweaty".

*****
But even though I know these things in theory, in practice, the whole concept suddenly eludes me once more; why, in the name of all that is holy, would anyone want to write about their erstwhile activities in underwear (or more usually, without)? Why would I want to read about it? And how come they all seem like they're having better sex than me?

I know some sex bloggers - I've been to the pub with them, they're nice people and incredibly normal and yet, all the time, I sit there and look at them and know too much about them, and blush. The mystery is removed from the friendship, and I can do nothing but glow hotly, like a boiled plum (in the face). When you can list the foreign objects that have been inserted into the lunch companion you've only met briefly, twice, it's difficult to think about anything else. It's like hearing the phrase "follow through" on a first date; it's not insurmountable, but it doesn't half put you off.

Yes, all right, you like having sex. Yes all right, you like to write about it, and you like to have other people comment on that fact. Surely there are some qualms about the right to anonymity of your partners, but we can leave that to another day, should you wish...

And I understand your point: other personal bloggers choose to write about tube trains and cats and cheese sandwiches; why shouldn't you write about your own - and I apologise for this in advance - rides, pussies and yes, the contents of your very own lunchbox? Especially, and this must be said, especially when, for a bunch of geeks, you all seem to have rather unbounded sexual proclivities.

Perhaps that's it. Perhaps I just can't stand to read because I'm jealous. I'm jealous that a growing community of bloggers want to stand on a table, face the world and shout "Look at me! I've got a stiffy!". I just don't know what I'm supposed to say in return, except perhaps "Well, good for you."

The best answer I can give for this question is ..an old joke.

Let me know if you've heard this one...well, I'm telling it anyway.

A priest is sitting in the confessional when he hears someone enter. He goes through the ritual to hear the confession, and he hears an old man's voice say, "Father, last night I went out to a club, and I hit on this woman young enough to be my granddaughter. I took her home, got her naked, and we had mad, passionate, insane, crazy, hot and heavy, sweaty grunt sex. I banged her blue. I made her scream over and over until she collapsed from exhaustion. Then, when she woke up this morning, I did it to her again."

The priest says, "Well, my son, fornication is a grave sin, so say five Our Fathers, ten Hail Marys..."

The old man in the confessional says, "DOn't bother, Father. I'm Jewish."

"You're not even Catholic? Then why are you here? Why are you telling me this?"

The old man says, "I'm not just telling you, Father, I'm telling everyone!"

Why blog about sex? Why do dogs lick their balls? Because they can. (Sorry, last old joke. Promise.)

Simply put, people have the urge to blog about sex because they feel proud of their ability to do so. Whether it's about their fantasies or their real sex lives, or what makes them rant and rave about the Holy Terrors' War On Whoopie, blogging about sex is blogging about power, to some extent.

Sex itself is about power. By that, I mean that it's empowering. Seducing someone demonstrates power. Turning someone on is a form of power. Making someone cum is a form of power. And being able to write about sex is powerful, as well. Even if it's from the relative anonymity of the blogosphere. It sounds like Ms. Pickard is exactly right in her opinion that maybe she's jealous of the people who have the courage or fortitude to strut their stuff and say, "I'm getting some, and I'm not just telling Father Aloysius, I'm telling everyone!"

I suppose blogs are the perfect place to brag, anyway. It's not as if you can talk at the church social or the company retreat about how last weekend you fisted some woman you'd known for all of thirty minutes while her husband did your wife doggie style not three feet away.

All I can say to Ms. Pickard and others who don't care for all the sex blogs out there is....if you don't like 'em, don't read 'em.

No, I haven't forgotten

I know, I know. Nearly a week since my last post. Sometimes real life intrudes and prevents you from doing the fun stuff.

Anyway, there hasn't been much new to go over. Most of the news coverage is about the aftermath of Katrina, Iraq, etc., and I'm not one to post just for the sake of posting, such things as, "I put my left shoe on this morning instead of my right, just to be zany."

I don't even post pics of boobage for the sake of posting.



Okay, maybe just one pic, but I feel guilty.

Anyway, I haven't forgotten. In any case, sorry. Back to the grindstone.

An Update on the Black Jack family that wasn't...

From the Christian Science Monitor:

The article discusses anti-cohabitation laws in seven states, and how they're affecting 1.6 million people. Specifically, the article addresses a family in Black Jack, Missouri, which I discussed here.

In Black Jack, the city council voted last Tuesday to overturn an ordinance that had kept at least one family with unmarried parents from getting a housing permit. The law had prohibited more than three people not related by "blood, marriage, or adoption" from living together to prevent crowding - not for moral reasons, the mayor has said.

The good folks of Black Jack appear to have done the decent, sensible thing, but it appears from the article that this issue isn't going to go away, and it's going to end up eventually being tied to the gay marriage debate.

Here's that thought I was chewing on: The linchpin of the whole anti-gay marriage argument is that heterosexual marriage is simply best for the kids. Something about that marriage license makes all the difference in the world.

As an example, another quote from the article:

"Our forefathers were wise, and such laws as the cohabitation law here in North Carolina are really important for holding up moral standards," says the Rev. Mark Creech, director of the Christian Action League. "Cohabitation simply imitates marriage, but without actually creating the internal, the emotional, the moral and the legal structure that protects couples."

Okay, that naturally begs the question, "If marriage is so great, why not let gay people marry so they can enjoy its benefits, too?" They don't want to answer that question.

But I digress. Anyway, the point is that the court opposition to gay marriage is based on the premise that heterosexual marriage is simply best for the kids. But if heterosexual UNmarried cohabitating couples seem to be raising kids just fine (they don't seem to be doing much worse) then it's difficult for that argument to hold water.

If Ms. Shelltrack and Mr. Loving, (the unmarried couple in Black Jack) had taken their case to court, they'd have probably said something like, "Our kids have all the benefits children of married couples have. They're not discriminated against for being bastards, if we separate they're entitled to parenting time with each of us and child support, there's nothing they're being deprived of that children of married couples have. So there's no good reason to require us to be married."

If the court in question applies logic and common sense, it should say, "Previous decisions have said that marriage is the best way to raise children. Since this doesn't necessarily appear to be the case anymore, there's no reason to discriminate against couples who don't fit the one-man/one-woman mold."

At that point, gay couples ought to be ready to barge into the courtroom and shout, "Eureka! We don't fit that mold, either! If the state can't discriminate against unmarried heterosexual couples, it can't discriminate against homosexual couples, either!"

In a perfect world, anyway. Or at least a fairly decent world.

More shit-for-brains insanity from the Holy Terrors on Plan B

Wish I could trackback on blogger. Ah, well. The comment's priceless.

Comment Of The Day

by digby
Dover Bitch responding to the JC Watts inanity on Plan B:

Yesterday, they said life begins with conception.

Today, they say life begins with intercourse.

Tomorrow, they will tell us life begins with dinner and a movie.

Here's the original transcript, courtesy of Digby.

BLITZER: Joining us now in our "Strategy Session," radio talk show host Bill Press and CNN political analyst, former Republican Congressman J.C. Watts.

In this Plan B decision, the morning-after contraception pill, in effect, Hillary Clinton came out with a strong statement: "While we urge the FDA to revisit placing age restrictions on the sale of Plan B, it is real progress that millions of American women will now have increased access to emergency contraception."

Women 18 and older can just go in and buy the pill. Seventeen- year-olds and under have to get a doctor's note.

J.C. WATTS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well...

(LAUGHTER)

WATTS: ... Wolf, I don't know what is the difference in, you know, harming the child the night or the day after. I still don't think that changes the debate. Those...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: You think this is abortion?

WATTS: I do. I think -- I still don't think it changes the debate one bit.

I think those who are opposed to abortion are going to be opposed to this. Those who support abortion, they will like this decision, as -- as Senator Clinton said. It's abortion the day after.
So, it doesn't change the debate any. And I do. I agree that the FDA has made a huge mistake in this ruling.

BLITZER: The other side, Wendy Wright of Concerned Women of -- For America, says, "The FDA's irresponsible action today takes those rights out of a parent's hands and gives them to ill-intentioned perpetrators."

Clearly, they're very unhappy with this FDA decision.

BILL PRESS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, you know, that's too bad, Wolf. I think this is a major breakthrough for American women.

And, J.C., it's hypocritical to be against abortion and to be against Plan B. We heard Sanjay Gupta, who knows more about this than you and I do, at the top of the show, say, if a woman is already pregnant, this does nothing. This is not an abortion pill. It's a contraceptive pill. It has been used safely by European women for years. It has been held up in this year only for -- in this country only for political reasons.

And what this pill is going to result in is fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions, which I thought -- is certainly my goal -- I thought was your goal, too.

WATTS: Well, it's ironic, Wolf, that we say it's a contraceptive, but you take it the morning after.

PRESS: So what?

(LAUGHTER)

PRESS: You take one pill the day before. You can take one the morning after.

(CROSSTALK)

PRESS: It's a medical breakthrough.

WATTS: The morning after.

PRESS: It's a contraceptive.

WATTS: It's...

PRESS: And it's not funny.

WATTS: It...

PRESS: Three-and-a-half -- no.

WATTS: Bill, the bottom line is...

PRESS: It's...

WATTS: ... your mind is not going to be changed by this decision. Nor -- and nor is mine.

(CROSSTALK)

WATTS: I believe it's abortion. I believe it takes the life of a -- you don't. So...

It must be nice to be a conservative pundit. You're not bound by logic, facts, or common sense. All you have to do is shoot off your mouth and get paid for it.

J.C. Watts' rant suggests two things on the way the minds of the Holy Terrors work. Either they don't know about the difference between abortion and contraception, or they just don't care. Either way, their agenda is clear.

Sex is for making babies, and only for making babies. Anything that prevents that is bad. What gets me is that when Bill Press pointed out Plan B could cut unwanted pregnancies in half, Watts didn't have a response. Could the Holy Terrors actually WANT as many accidental pregancies as possible? I suppose they've got to get their cannon fodder from somewhere, right?

More on Plan B and promiscuity

Something interesting I found at JAMA. That's the Journal Of The American Medical Association.

Direct Access to Emergency Contraception Through Pharmacies and Effect on Unintended Pregnancy and STIs
A Randomized Controlled Trial

Tina R. Raine, MD, MPH; Cynthia C. Harper, PhD; Corinne H. Rocca, MPH; Richard Fischer, MD; Nancy Padian, PhD; Jeffrey D. Klausner, MD, MPH; Philip D. Darney, MD, MSc

JAMA. 2005;293:54-62.

Context It is estimated that half of unintended pregnancies could be averted if emergency contraception (EC) were easily accessible and used.

Objective To evaluate the effect of direct access to EC through pharmacies and advance provision on reproductive health outcomes.

*****

Conclusions While removing the requirement to go through pharmacists or clinics to obtain EC increases use, the public health impact may be negligible because of high rates of unprotected intercourse and relative underutilization of the method. Given that there is clear evidence that neither pharmacy access nor advance provision compromises contraceptive or sexual behavior, it seems unreasonable to restrict access to EC to clinics.

In other words, the Holy Terrors are full of crap.
Imagine that.

24 Ways to put some ooomph into your sex lives...

You can't say I don't offer a public service once in a while.

I can't vouch for all of these myself, but some of them at least sound interesting.

1. Make him a cuppa

Damiana tea contains a South American herb that will stimulate his nether regions.
Never heard of the stuff, but I'm willing to try it.
2. Feast on figs

3. Ditch cleansing wipes

It will rekindle those exciting first-time feelings." And the more gorgeous you feel, the more confident and relaxed you'll be.

4. Draw the curtains...

...and have sex in the afternoon.

5. Bake some buns

According to scientists, the most arousing smell for men is cinnamon buns. In a study at The Smell And Taste Research Foundation in Chicago, scientists tested more than 200 smells to find out which ones aroused men the most - and cinnamon won. I prefer vanilla, actually.

6. Switch ends

"Have sex at the opposite end of the bed," says Tracey Cox, TV sex expert and author of Quickies - Sex for Busy People "It's the lazy woman's guide to pepping up her sex life. It feels a bit different, a bit more exciting, but you haven't got to fork out on a hotel. Just move your pillows down to the other end of the bed."

7. Make it quick

"Don't beat yourself up if your sex life just consists of one-and-a-half minute quickies before the kids wake up," says Tracey. "Sex doesn't always have to last for 45 minutes and end with two orgasms. If that's what you aim for, you'll never find time so you'll go without altogether. "Just a two-minute fumble a week, with intercourse or not, will keep libidos fired up better than one long session every two months."

8. Get some garlic

It contains allicin, an active ingredient that increases blood flow to both your sexual organs, resulting in a stronger erection and better orgasms. Buy a bulb a week, crush it up and throw it into your spag bols and stir-fries.

9. Go out

A University of California study discovered that an hour in the sunshine can rev up a man's libido boosting testosterone levels by up to 69 per cent.

10. Avoid sex

"Make a pact on a Thursday not to have sex until the end of the weekend," says sex and relationship psychologist Susan Quilliam. "Not being able to have something makes us want it more. In the meantime, do lots of kissing and cuddling to get in the mood. By Sunday, you'll be dying to rip each other's clothes off." Nope. Not doing this one. Nope, nope, nope.

11. Turn the TV off

Couples who have a TV in their bedroom make love half as often as those who keep it a TV-free zone, says a new study. Susan Quilliam says: "Unless you're watching a saucy film, a TV in the bedroom will distract you both, disrupt your sleep and make you less likely to want sex."

12. Ditch the pics

"As sweet as they may be, keeping pictures of your children next to your bedside table won't do your love life any favours," says sex therapist Dr Lori Boul. "Keep the area around your bed for just the two of you and leave the pictures of your kids and mother-in-law for the living room."

13. Hold hands

"Touch each other all the time to release bonding hormones," says Dr Lori. "The touching doesn't have to be sexual - simply hold hands, snuggle on the sofa or stroke his shoulders as you walk past him."

14. Log on
Check out www.restorationtherapy.com - you can book to see a qualified therapist about a whole host of sexual problems, both physical and emotional.

15. Have a coffee

Whoever came up with the chatup line 'Fancy a coffee?' was on to something. Turns out that a mug of something hot really will get you going. Scientists from Southwestern University, Texas, have discovered that coffee boosts the female libido. You have to be an occasional drinker to feel the benefits so, for best results, ditch your six-cups-a-day habit. Yes! More validation for that cuppa Joe every day!

16. Give good text

"Text your partner three times a day," says sex counsellor Ruth Hallam-Jones. "Be flirty and tell them exactly what it is you like about them. It'll boost their day - and libido."

17. Rent a movie

No, not that sort of movie - a scary one! "Sit next to each other and watch a frightening film together," says Relate counsellor Christine Northam. "It'll raise your man's testosterone levels and he'll want to protect you, plus clinging on to each other during the hair-raising moments will bring you physically closer."

18. Buy trainers

Thirty minutes a day of moderate exercise can help to increase sex drive, say researchers. It's not just the extra energy that will help get you in the mood but if you feel more confident about your body you'll also feel sexier.

19. Eat chocolate

Ditch white or milk chocolate in favour of a rich, dark bar with at least 70 per cent cocoa solids. Cocoa contains phenylalanine, an amino acid that boosts arousal and enhances your mood.

Stick these on your shopping list to spice up your sex life:

20. St John's Wort

We all know that this herb is famous for lifting a low mood, but did you know it can also do wonders for a flagging libido? Studies have shown it helped 60 per cent of people with mild depression to get back their interest in sex.

21. Korean gingseng

This has been used as a libido lifter for more than 7,000 years. As well as improving blood flow to the genitals, it also stimulates your mental and physical energy, so it's good for people with stress-related low libidos.

22. Ginkgo biloba

Boosts blood flow enough to help maintain an erection. A Journal Of Sex Education And Therapy study involving impotent men showed that taking ginkgo had a beneficial effect after six weeks, and within six months half of the participants got their erections back.

23. Vibrance cream

A brand new cream, can boost a woman's flagging libido within minutes. During trials, 50 per cent of women felt a response within five minutes and the effects lasted between 30 and 45 minutes.

24. Zestra Feminine Arousal Fluid

In a small study, this oil was found to increase desire and arousal in women when applied during foreplay

To make up for the dry spell

All right, all right. I realize it was terribly irresponsible of me to go so long without posting, so here.

Happier, now?

Now that I think about it, I sure am.

FDA Approves Over-the-counter Plan B...Half a loaf is better than none

Geez, four days since my last post. Sorry about that.

Anyway, the FDA has finally done the right thing...sort of.

FDA EASES LIMITS ON PLAN B SALES

by Andrew Bridges

WASHINGTON - Women may buy the morning-after pill without a prescription — but only with proof they're 18 or older, federal health officials ruled Thursday, capping a contentious three-year effort to ease access to the emergency contraceptive.

Girls 17 and younger still will need a doctor's note to buy the pills, called Plan B, the Food and Drug Administration told manufacturer Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.

The compromise decision is a partial victory for women's advocacy and medical groups that say eliminating sales restrictions could cut in half the nation's 3 million annual unplanned pregnancies. Opponents have argued that wider access could increase promiscuity.

I'm not wild about the restrictions to underage access, and that's keeping in mind I've got a teenaged daughter myself. I'd hope if she were in the position of needing a morning-after pill that she'd feel comfortable coming to me with the problem, but I hate the notion that she'd have to scramble around for a doctor's okay anyway. I've got a hunch that whenever somebody considers using a Plan B contrapceptive, the first stage of the "plan" is not to panic.

That does not, however, prevent the Holy Terrors from shooting off their mouths about the whole thing. Again.

But opponent Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said Plan B's wider availability could give women a false sense of security, since it isn't as effective as regular birth control. Wright also worries that adult men who have sex with minor girls could force the pills upon them.

"Statutory rape is a very serious problem. This decision is going to allow statutory rapists to rely on this drug to cover up their abuse," Wright said.

What is this woman smoking? To think that somehow sexual predators are dancing in the streets at the chance to add Plan B to their arsenal of weaponry is worse than ludicrous. It's the stuff of a bad porn novel.

(I was going to link to Lewis "Scooter" Libby's bad porn novel, "The Apprentice," but I don't want to encourage that sort of thing. Underage sex slaves? Bestiality? Ugh. Instead, I'm linking to Susie Bright's thoughts on the piece of crap).

A Comment On My Last Homosexual Agenda Post

The original post is here, just a few days ago.

It wouldn't be any trouble to scroll down, of course, but I decided to post the comment in its entirety.

Anonymous said...
So you want us to leave you the f--alone, eh? Then why do you force us to witness your displays of "gayness" (i.e. TV shows, store displays, parades, T-shirt, "pride" events, indoctrination of children in public schools, indoctrination of employees, forcing taxpayers to pay for your benefits, go through "diversity training," etc. etc.)And yes, you are forcing it on the rest of us; if we don't comply, you call us a "bigot." But you go on fooling yourself that you're somehow "tolerant." What a joke.

I'm doing this because, Swear To Dog, I had a very similar conversation about this subject just a few days ago.

Believe it or not, some of my best friends are conservatives, and some of them even fit into the Holy Terror mode about which I rant all the time. We get along just fine, personally, and we often get into "enthusiastic" discussions about our opposing views on virtually everything. Frankly, heated political and philosophical arguments are, for me, just about as much fun as a fellow can have and keep his clothes on.

Anyway, last week I was chatting and having a few beers with one of my righty friends, Bob.

"Look, J.T.," Bob said. "I don't have a problem with what those homos do in their own bedrooms, and I kinda see your point when you talk about 'mind your own business,' but there's gotta be a limit. It's one thing to live like a queer, but it's another thing to brag about it and expect people to put up with your shit. All those gay pride parades and 'we're here, we're queer, get over it,' that kind of thing."

"Well," I said, "they seem to be proud of who they are, and they're not afraid of admitting it. Whether you think they're perverts or not, they want to be treated like norman human beings."

"But they're not normal. It's abberant behavior."

"That's your opinion."

"They choose this deviant lifestyle..."

"I don't know a single homosexual who says he or she chose to be gay," I said. "They've all said being gay is just who they are. Who they were born to be."

Bob said, "I could show you studies that say gay people choose to be gay."

I said, "And for every study you showed me, I could show you one that says just the opposite. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Whether gay people choose it or are born gay, they want to be treated like 'normal' people. And normal people are proud of who they are and they want other people to treat them like normal people. That means marriage benefits, that means no discrimination, that means having a 'gay pride' bumpersticker on their cars."

"Okay, smart guy," Bob said. "Gay people say they want to be treated like normal people, but why do they try to push their gay agenda down peoples' throats? They talk about how they want to be left alone, but why do they shove being gay in our faces if they want us to leave them alone?"

"Like I said, it's probably because they're proud of who they are and they don't want other people to treat them like shit for it. They don't necessarily want you to like them, but they want you to respect who they are, whether it's a lifestyle choice or a gay gene, and as long as they're not actually hurting you, they want you to just let them be."

Bob drained his bottle of beer and ordered two more. "They want to have their cake and eat it too," he said. "They want respect but they're not respecting my right to be offended or disgusted by them."

"Are you a Christian," I asked.

"You know I am."

"You've got the fish emblem on your car and bumper stickers that say things like, 'Honk if you love Jesus,' and 'In Case Of Rapture, This Car May Be Unmanned.'"

"Absolutely. I just said I'm a Christian," said Bob.

"You've got a Bible on your coffee table and pictures of Jesus in your house and you're proud of your faith."

"Right."

"Being a Christian is part of your identity. Whether you were born into it, or whether you chose Christianity, it's part of who you are."

"Of course. Wait a minute..."

"If someone were to tell you he thought Christians were depraved and reactionary and that most of the world's problems were caused by Christians, you'd be offended."

"You're damned straight I would, but J.T...."

"If someone told you he found your Bible and your bumper stickers and your pictures of Jesus offensive and you were trying to shove your faith into his face, you'd stand up for yourself, right?"

"J.T., that's something completely..."

"Answer the question. If someone said, 'Your flaunting your Christianity, your promoting your Christian agenda is disgusting,' you wouldn't want to hide it, would you?"

"No, I wouldn't."

"You'd want to show it off. Even if you knew you could never make this person like you or your faith, you'd say you were at least entitled to be who you are, and that includes being proud of your bumper stickers and your pictures of Jesus and talking about your Christianity."

"You're right about that. But there's a difference between being a Christian and being gay."

"And that is? For the purposes of being proud of who you are, despite what other people, right or wrong, might think of you, what's the difference?"

Bob took a long sip of his beer. He said, "Let me get back to you on that."

He hasn't yet.

Most people want to choose for themselves...

when it comes to terminating pregnancies.

Who knew?

Roughly three quarters of likely voters (77 percent) agree that the government and politicians should stay out of a woman’s personal and private decision whether or not to have an abortion.

61 percent of voters disapprove when they hear Congress has voted 145 times in the last 10 years to restrict reproductive-health services, including abortion and birth control.

Eight out of 10 voters agree that Americans are tired of divisive attacks over the issue of abortion and want their leaders to support real solutions to prevent unintended pregnancies.

Two-thirds of voters disapprove of the laws, such as the one passed in South Dakota and Louisiana that would ban abortion in nearly all circumstances, even for victims of rape and incest or women whose health is at risk.

65 percent of voters feel less favorable toward candidates who support allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions.
61 percent of voters feel more negative toward a candidate who opposes making emergency contraception available in emergency rooms for rape and incest victims.

A "Mind Your Own Business" moment if ever there was one.

The Homosexual Agenda Revealed!!! (Again).

The Alliance Defense Fund is a pseudo-religious political action committee. James Dobson was one of the founders, which speaks volumes.

Anyway, the ADF has pored over every single episode of "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy," "Will And Grace," and the entire TV catalog for Ellen DeGeneris and Rosie O'Donnell, and they've conclusively ferreted out the Homosexual Agenda.

All the insidious details are here.

Pay special attention to the red and black boxes at the bottom of the page.

Abolish/redefine marriage, which has always been a unique, opposite-sex bond that is common across different times, cultures, and religions as a virtually universal norm.

TRUE. The norm has always been that marriage is a property right; ownership and division of land and goods, including wives and children, forging of politically and economically beneficial alliances, and ensuring that such property and business rights are perpetuated through the generations, namely by making babies to inherit those rights.

In most of these cultures, women are and have been subject to the whims and wishes of their husbands, with no rights of their own to own property or be individuals, or to even object if their husbands wish to take additional wives or even abandon them.

Inhibit free speech and free exercise of religion.

I've done a little research on the legal and theological issues here, and I think what the ADF is trying to say is that they want to still be able to yell, "God Hates Fags" whenever and wherever they want. Therefore, this one's probably TRUE, too.

Stigmatize Opponents

This one's probably TRUE, as well. Sauce for the goose, and all that.

Eliminate tax-exempt status for non-conforming religious organizations.

I have no idea where they got this one. I've asked a few gay friends if they're really pushing for this, and I got several "You gotta be kidding me" laughs, two "Oh brother" eye rolls, and one "What the fuck are you talking about" blank stare.

However, if it's true, you can understand why the Holy Terrors have their knickers in such a collective bunch. Pay taxes? The horror!

And of course, the ultimate goal:

NORMALIZE SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS

OH, THE HUMANITY! THEY WANT TO BE TREATED LIKE NORMAL PEOPLE!!! How insidious! How unspeakable! How degenerate!

And it's TRUE. One hundred percent. Or, as one of my gay friends put it, "We want people to leave us the fuck alone."

So, I suppose we should thank the ADF for bringing this to the forefront. Good work, guys.

Abstinence-only works great in Ohio...if you like teen pregnancies

Found this thru Feministing.

The original story is here.

CANTON, Ohio -- An Ohio school board is expanding sex education following the revelation that 13 percent of one high school's female students were pregnant last year.

There were 490 female students at Timken High School in 2005, and 65 were pregnant, WEWS-TV in Cleveland reported.

The new Canton school board program promotes abstinence but also will teach students who decide to have sex how to do so responsibly, bringing the city school district's health curriculum in line with national standards

Not much more to say to this, except "Wow."

I wonder if those kids can sue the school district for gross negligence. They've really been let down. Of course, the utter failure of their "abstinence only" program won't stop the Holy Terrors from screaming even more loudly that teaching kids about sex is like giving them a license to fuck.

Their "ignorance only" program certainly didn't stop kids from experimenting, did it?

The Holy Terrors Go Too Far..even for them

Found this first at Americablog.

A right-wing radio host brought this up.

OVERREACHING?
By Charles Sykes

Legislative Republicans thought they had an electoral magic bullet when they voted to put an amendment banning gay marriage on the November general election ballot. The constitutional amendment would allow them to highlight a popular issue, motivate a big conservative turnout, and help Republicans up and down the ballot stem what appears to be a Democratic tide in 2006.

*****

First, they overreached, by making the amendment far broader than it had to be, including a ban on civil unions and perhaps on an array of other domestic benefits.

Second, they miscalculated the degree to which the amendment would motivate and mobilize the left.
*****

Third, the defeat of the amendment at the polls – the first defeat of a ban on gay marriage anywhere in the country – could actually embolden Wisconsin’s courts to do what conservatives most feared: legislate it from the bench.

The constitutional amendment on the November 7 ballot reads:

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

Had Republicans stopped at he first sentence, the debate would have been squarely and unambiguously on he issue of gay marriage and the amendment likely would have passed easily. But they didn’t, and that decision has shaped the current debate and changed the political dynamic.

While the first sentence is clear, straightforward, and quite specific the second sentence is far more sweeping and ambiguous, lending itself to a wide range of interpretations. The language seems to ban civil unions but does it also extend to other benefits, as well? And if so, which ones?

Opponents have built much of their campaign, including a well-funded television ad campaign around the theme that the ban simply goes too far, threatening health care benefits, jeopardizing hospital visits and medical decisions, and denying pensions for all married couples.

This is why the Holy Terrors have to be stopped, and this is why a straight-as-an-arrow het like myself is beating the drum so much about the gay marriage issue. They have no plans to stop at simply banning gay marraige, but they're trying to shut down all unconvential marital or non-marital relationships, gay, straight, poly, mono, all of the above. The War On Whoopie doesn't just affect gay people, it affects all of us.

Holy Terrors Struggle With Sexual Sin!!!

Who knew?

I found this on Raw Story but I had to look it up for myself, here.

A survey conducted by Christianet.com concludes that even Evangelical Christians can find themselves succumbing to the sins of the flesh, debauching themselves in astonishing numbers.

According to the Christianet press release,

"The poll results indicate that 50% of all Christian men and 20% of all Christian women are addicted to pornography," said Clay Jones, founder and President of Second Glance Ministries whose ministry objectives include providing people with information which will enable them to fully understand the impact of today's societal issues. 60% of the women who answered the survey admitted to having significant struggles with lust, 40% admitted to being involved in sexual sin in the past year, and 20% of the church-going female participants struggle with looking at pornography on an ongoing basis.

The survey was conducted by asking visitors to the Christianet website to answer some questions. Now, I'm no expert on the methodology of scientific polls, but apparently you don't need to be one to have conducted this sucker. No random samplings of the general population, no adjustments for certain demographic data, no margins of error. The "poll" was conducted by people going, "One, two, three..."

What cracks me up is the survey's assessment of what constitutes "addiction" to pornography and "struggling" with "sexual sin" and the like. By answering the question, "Have you ever struggled with pornography" with a "yes" answer, you're admitting to being addicted to porn. That's quite a stretch. Hell, I probably looked at more porn during my afternoon coffee break than most of these people did in the past year, combined. For most of them, catching Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction at the Super Bowl constitutes looking at porn.



But wait, it gets better.

About 58% of those surveyed said they'd taken part in a sexual activity that is sin, and about 48% said they'd "had sexual sin in (their lives) in the last year. Wow. Staggering numbers. Call the Pleasure Police! These Puritans are perpetrating porn-related perversions like popshots!

However, since the survey itself says that masturbation and looking at porn constitutes sexual sins, by my figures about two thirds of these numbnuts consider themselves sex addicts for jacking and jilling off to a dirty magazine.

Naturally, this is cause for alarm in the eyes of the Holy Terrors. Clay Jones, one of the perpetrators of this little game of three-card monte, naturally is beating the drum that the world is coming to an end because even they can't resist to giving in to their lustful appetites.

An HIV Prevention Vaccine!!! A real good news, bad news situation

First, the GOOD NEWS:

HIV Prevention Pill Shows Early Promise

By MARILYNN MARCHIONE

The first test of a daily pill to prevent HIV infection gave a tantalizing hint of success, but a real answer must await a larger study due out next year.

The experiment, done in Africa, mainly showed that the drug Viread is safe when used for prevention. Fewer people given the drug caught the AIDS virus than those given dummy pills, but so few in either group became infected that valid comparisons cannot be made, scientists said.

Still, "it's incredibly encouraging," said Dr. Helene Gayle, president of the antipoverty group CARE and co-chair of the International AIDS Conference in Toronto, where the results were released on Saturday.

If future studies show effectiveness, the drug "would be an incredibly important new prevention tool that we should make available as soon as possible," she said.

A vaccine is considered the best hope for stopping the spread of AIDS, but scientists have not been able to make one that prevents infection. Condoms and counseling have not been enough - the virus spreads to 5 million more people worldwide each year.

The new approach involves Viread (known generically as tenofovir), a drug already used to treat AIDS. Animal research suggests that taking it before being exposed to HIV, through drugs or sex, could help prevent infection.

A study by Family Health International, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, tested it on women in Africa at high risk because of multiple sex partners (many were prostitutes). None had HIV at the start of the study. They were randomly assigned to get either daily Viread or dummy pills and all were counseled and given condoms.

No safety problems emerged - an important first step, said Leigh Peterson, project manager for Family Health. After an average of six months, only two HIV cases developed among the 427 women on Viread, compared with six infections among the 432 given the fake drug.

"We really would be irresponsible to draw conclusions at this time," because those are too few cases to make judgments on, said Dr. Ward Cates of Family Health. "But it does underscore the importance of moving forward very quickly now on the other studies on the drawing board."

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has studies under way in drug users in Thailand, heterosexual men and women in Botswana, and gay men in Atlanta and San Francisco. Plans are proceeding to add a third U.S. city, said Dr. Lynn Paxton, project leader at CDC.

The Thai results may be ready late next year and should reveal whether the strategy works. The Botswana study recently was changed to add a second drug, FTC, sold with tenofovir as Truvada by Gilead Sciences Inc. (GILD) of Foster City, Calif.

However, the Africa study shows the ethical perils in such research. It originally was to include 1,200 women - 400 each in Ghana, Cameroon and Nigeria - but Nigeria and Cameroon ended participation prematurely over concerns about whether and for how long women in the study who became infected would receive treatment for AIDS.

Family Health worked to formalize contracts with local providers for testing and treatment as appropriate so the study could go forward on a limited scope, Peterson said.

And the study itself had benefits - half as many infections occurred than had been expected in the placebo group because the women cut back on the number of sex partners and condoms were used more often.
Some researchers have been worried that the opposite might happen if people believed a pill was protecting them.

"It's good that they didn't see an increase in risk" behaviors, said Dr. Susan Buchbinder of the San Francisco Department of Public Health, who is leading the CDC study in that city.

"We know that from all the trials we have done that even in the placebo group, risk is going to go down," the CDC's Paxton said.

Another study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, is expected to start later this year in Peru. It will test Truvada in 1,400 gay men in Peru. Family Health is working on plans for a new Truvada study as well.

I found it interesting that simply being made aware of the benefits of safer sex also had a role in reducing the spread of HIV. Education works? Hmm. Who knew?

So what's the bad news?

Assuming the best case scenario happens, that this HIV prevention pill works out, what do you bet me that the Holy Terrors will scream bloody murder and actually campaign to prevent it from being distributed to the general population?

"We can't hand out pills to prevent HIV," they'll scream. "If we do, people will feel they have license to fornicate left and right, without fear of God's holy wrath!"

Think I'm joking?

A blast from the past, here.

The New Yorker interview is here.

A quote from the interview:

"Religious conservatives are unapologetic; not only do they believe that mass use of an HPV vaccine or the availability of emergency contraception will encourage adolescents to engage in unacceptable sexual behavior; some have even stated that they would feel similarly about an H.I.V. vaccine, if one became available. 'We would have to look at that closely,' Reginald Finger, an evangelical Christian and a former medical adviser to the conservative political organization Focus on the Family, said. 'With any vaccine for H.I.V., disinhibition' - a medical term for the absence of fear - 'would certainly be a factor, and it is something we will have to pay attention to with a great deal of care.' Finger sits on the Centers for Disease Control's Immunization Committee, which makes those recommendations."

The emphasis is mine.

We now interrupt your regularly scheduled political discusion...

for a word from our sponsors.



And now, we return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Holy Terrors Want The Law Broken To Stop Gay Marriages

Had to read this three times to understand it.

State board won’t put gay marriage on ballot
Associated Press
Posted Saturday, August 12, 2006

State elections officials voted Friday to keep a gay marriage referendum off the November ballot, but supporters of the measure want a federal court to intervene.

The State Board of Elections agreed with a hearing officer’s findings that there weren’t enough valid signatures to put on the ballot an advisory referendum asking voters if the state constitution should be amended to ban gay marriage.

“Unless they pull a rabbit out of a hat in federal court, it’s not going to be on the ballot,” said Patricia Logue, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

A 1996 Illinois law already prohibits same-sex marriage, but gay-marriage opponents say they fear courts could overturn the law unless the state constitution is changed. More than 40 states have taken steps to define marriage to ban same-sex marriage either through constitutional amendments or with statutes.

Organizers of the gay marriage referendum are claiming in federal court that getting a referendum on the Illinois ballot is both burdensome and unconstitutional because of the complicated process to gather and verify petition signatures, said Peter LaBarbera, executive director of the conservative Illinois Family Institute and Protect Marriage Illinois.

But LaBarbera and other gay marriage opponents were rebuffed earlier this month when a district court judge dismissed their claim so now they want a federal appellate court to intervene.

“It’s not near over,” LaBarbera said.

Last month, elections officials said there weren’t enough valid signatures in a sample check of some of the more than 330,000-plus signatures they had to consider for the petition. The requirement is that more than 95 percent of the sample’s signatures be valid and gay marriage opponents had 91 percent.

Both Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his Republican challenger, state Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka, applauded keeping the measure off the ballot, although neither supports gay marriage.

*****

A June poll showed that a majority of Illinois voters said they oppose gay marriage but only 40 percent support asking state lawmakers for a constitutional amendment to ban it, according to the poll by the Chicago-based Glengariff Group. Fifty percent were opposed and 10 percent were undecided.

Basically, Illinois Family Institute and Protect Marriage Illinois are afraid "activist judges" are going to overturn the state's law against gay marriage, so they want....activist judges to break the law and put their initiative on the ballot, even though it would be illegal to do so.

Of course. Now it makes perfect sense. They hate activist judges only when they rule against them. Otherwise, they want judges to be as activist as possible.

What strikes me is the sense of urgency I'm picking up from the Holy Terrors, here. They've won some court cases lately yet they're practically hysterical about stopping gay marriage.

Maybe it's got something to do with the mid-term elections coming up. It's a well-known belief that Bush's "victory" in 2004 was due in part to Holy Terror "get out the vote" anti-gay ballot initiatives in several key states.

Maybe they're sensing some sort of impending doom around the corner. At the rate the G.O.P.-run Congress is getting clobbered in the polls, maybe the Holy Terrors are fearful that the tide is turning and they need to get their homophobic agenda passed as quickly as possible.

Who knows?

Benjamin's Unfamiliar Quotations

"I've been taught ever since I was a kid that sex is filthy and forbidden, and that's the way I think it should be. The filthier and more forbidden it is, the more exciting it is."

Mel Brooks.

I still can't get over the fact the dude landed Anne Bancroft.

Mel! You da man!

Missouri: The Shotgun Wedding State

An unwed couple in a long-term relationship is suing for the right to stay unmarried.

(Reuters)

By Carey Gillam

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - A Missouri couple who must get married, or move, in order to comply with a housing ordinance in Black Jack, Missouri, sued the town on Thursday, claiming rules prohibiting the unmarried couple and their children from living together are unconstitutional.

The petition, filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, challenges a Black Jack city ordinance that prohibits more than three people from living together in the same house if they are unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption.

Plaintiffs Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving and their children moved from Minnesota to Missouri earlier this year, buying a five-bedroom home in the tiny community outside St. Louis.

Shelltrack and Loving have lived together about 13 years and have two children together, along with a 15-year-old daughter of Shelltrack's from a previous relationship.

Black Jack, a town of about 7,000 that prides itself on a city Web site for its "character and stability," refused to grant the couple and their children an occupancy permit for their home because they do not meet the definition of "family" as set forth by the city, the complaint alleges.

The city has threatened to begin fining the couple as much as $500 a day, said Tony Rothert, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, which is helping represent the family in the lawsuit.

So, we've got a man and a woman in a long-term relationship, with children together, and they're not considered a family as far as Black Jack is concerned. Well, what the hell IS a family, then?

Oh, yeah. It's a man and a woman in a long-term relationship, with children together, who are actually MARRIED. To each other. Long-term relationships with kids, bad. Long-term relationships with kids AND a marriage license, good. Makes perfect sense.

Now, I'm married myself, to a wonderful woman, and I've got nothing against marriage as an institution. However, I know it's not for everybody. I have no idea why Ms. Shelltrack and Mr. Loving have never tied the knot, but since they're consenting adults, I'm sure they have their own good reasons AND, (This is important) it's NOBODY ELSE'S DAMN BUSINESS what those reasons are.

The city of Black Jack seems to be operating under the delusion that a marriage license would somehow make Ms. Shelltrack & Mr. Loving's relationship more stable, their kids more pleasant, and is good for the neighborhood. Can't have all those little bastards running around. They lower property values.

Oh, yeah. The sex is better too, I'm sure. "Shacking-up" sex is naughty and bad. "Married" sex is wholesome, fruitful, and good.

Good luck to Ms. Shelltrack and Mr. Loving.

I might have more on this later. Got a thought in my head I need to gnaw on for a while.

Speaking of thick, gooey globs of Santorum

Here's a really gross, brown sticky one.

I'm not providing a link to his site. Google it if you want, but I'm not giving him the chance to get more website hits. That would only encourage him. His name's Joe Murray and he writes for agapepress.org. I've vented about him before, but now he's being a real asshole.

His latest column expresses outrage that Senator "Man On Dog" signed the sexual orientation non-discrimination statement. (This came out before the Senator then did the chicken-shit thing and recanted it to suck up to his Holy Terror base.)

Like I said, I won't link to it, but here's the pertinent stuff.

GenderPAC, a group that describes its mission as promoting an "understanding of the connection between discrimination based on gender stereotypes and sex, sexual orientation, age, race, and economic status," has been on the prowl for a few years now attempting to tear down the societal barriers established by "gender roles." Translation -- this group seeks to rewrite the laws of nature, tamper with Mother Nature's recipe, and turn biblical gender standards on their heads. It also appears to be a front for the homosexual lobby.

In order to accomplish their mission, GenderPAC has unleashed a number of politically correct weapons from its public relations arsenal; one of them being a "diversity statement" that is to be signed by all the federal lawmakers in Washington, DC.

Since the "project" was conceived, GenderPAC has been roaming the halls of Congress seeking signatures at the bottom of its propaganda pledge. The pledge reads, "[t]he sexual orientation and gender identity and expression of an individual is not a consideration in the hiring, promoting or terminating of an employee in my office." Call it the Coco Peru clause.

*****

But just this past week GenderPAC announced a new member had arrived at their gender-neutral gala, a member who potentially outshines all the other signatories on the list. Who is this bell of the ball? Rick Santorum.

Rick Santorum, the darling of the social conservatives and two-term senator clinging to his job like a shopper to a garment at a blue-light special, has signed the pledge guaranteeing that Ru-Paul's employment application is welcomed at his office; a pledge Arlen Specter has not even signed.

*****

The Buggery Blitzkrieg that started in 2003 came fast and furious. Not unlike the French of World War II, traditionalists were quickly overrun and astonished at the lightening-fast strike that came from the homosexual lobby. From Lawrence v. Texas to Gavin Newsom's weddings by the bay, traditionalists were overwhelmed by the war that was unleashed on them.

Judge Marshall and her Massachusetts' Supremes added cover to the Buggery Blitzkrieg, permitting homosexual groups to go on the offensive, subvert the will of the people by way of the Judiciary, and force traditionalists to fight on the terms the homosexual lobby had established. But every blitzkrieg must meet its Battle of Britain, where its weakness is exposed and its tide reversed.

What was the weakness of the Buggery Blitzkrieg? Despite its fast and furious assault, it could not undo the laws of nature. While it is true that the attack initially leveled the walls protecting the institutions established to foster traditional marriage, such accomplishments began to disappear as quickly as they came.

At this point in American history, the people are not ready to toss out the fundamentals of our society -- at least not yet. The Buggery Blitzkrieg may have overrun society's institutions, but it was unsuccessful in winning society's heart. Thus, it was only a matter of time before the counteroffensive was successful.

*****

Hence, the blitzkrieg having failed, the new strategy embraces a Lifetime lobbying effort; thus bringing us back to Santorum.

I'm bringing attention to this sphincter because he demonstrates exactly how the Holy Terrors work and, worse, how he gives Christianity a bad name.

Demonize the enemy. Make them appear less than human with suggestions they violate the laws of nature. Mock them with stereotypes such as that they're all cross-dressers, drag queens and perverts. Certainly, don't treat them like they're real human beings. Use terms like "Buggery Blitzkreig" to show off one's alliterative skills (and a possible military fetish...in a previous column he referred to the "Sodomy Squadron"), if not one's ability to use Spellcheck. Finally, corrupt the name of a really decent guy by claiming to be one of His followers while spewing forth the worst sort of hateful bile.

I sometimes think there are two Bibles circulating; the Holy Terrors have one version, while mine says something different. In my Bible, Jesus talks about love, tolerance, understanding, and not sitting in judgment. The Jesus of my bible consorted with fallen women, tax collectors, the downtrodden of society, and the unjustly persecuted. He didn't say one damn word against homosexuality, but He had a lot to say against hypocrisy.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Matt. 23:23).

"Judge not that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, let me pull out the mote out of thine eye, and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matt. 7: 1-5).

And my favorite:

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not everyone that saith unto me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matt. 7:15-23).

Call me crazy, but spewing forth vile, hateful stereotypes and sanctimonious judgments while claiming to follow Jesus' teachings smacks of hypocrisy. To me, anyway.

But again, I think I read a different Bible than they do.

What a big old honkin' glob of...Santorum

Indian giver...

Santorum takes back workplace-diversity support

Less than a week after becoming the 170th member of Congress to affirm that his office does not discriminate in its employment practices based on "sexual orientation or gender identity and expression," U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., on Wednesday rescinded his signature on the diversity statement.

*****

Santorum's signature came after a meeting during the week of July 24 between the senator and GenderPAC volunteers. After the meeting, Santorum posed for a picture with them. A copy of the senator's statement was faxed to GenderPAC on Aug. 1, and the signature was confirmed the next morning by Santorum's openly gay communications director, Robert Traynham.

On Wednesday, Santorum faxed GenderPAC a new statement that read in part, "To be clear, my office has not adopted the proposed 'diversity statement' nor the agenda of your organization. . . . My name should no longer be reported as having adopted the 'diversity statement.'"

I don't know what to make of this except to say, "How fucking stupid can one man be?" And this is more than just giving the okay to discriminate against gay people. The man is trailing in the polls by double digits. Rather than try to reach out to new voters and demonstrate he's not as homophobic as is his base, he's kissing the Holy Terrors' collective ass, alienating the few undecideds who might actually dream of believing he's not such a bad guy after all.

Does he really think he's going to draw more voters by this stupid, stupid move? It's not as if there were undecided voters somewhere in Pittsburgh going, "Hmm. He wasn't homophobic enough for my tastes. This move clinches it for me." He seems more scared of alienating the Holy Terrors than he is interested in attracting voters who are a little less reactionary.

Bush has been doing this, too. His whole veto of the stem-cell research bill was to keep the Holy Terrors happy.

Earlier, I poked fun at the Senator, that he finds it "Hard out here for a pimp..."

Harder still to be a whore, don't you think?

"What, man! Defy the devil: Consider, he's an enemy to mankind."

William Shakespeare: Twelfth Night, Act III, Scene 4.

They're bringing out the Big Guns, now.

Satan Announces Opposition To Gay Marriage
by Toby Barlow

In a crowded press conference early Tuesday morning, Satan announced his disavowal of both gay marriages and civic unions. "I know there is are a lot of people who might think I'm in favor of this," he said, "but you couldn't be more wrong. My perfect world involves the fevered debasement of flesh and the absolute corruption of the spirit, not two happy people living out in the suburbs building a life together.

*****

During the Q&A Satan was asked if he considered state-sanctioned civil unions to be a reasonable compromise. He replied no, because even though it wasn't a spiritual act like marriage, in his eyes any acceptance of love was strictly forbidden, especially if it came with good health insurance. The only behavior he could endorse, he said, were acts that promoted hate and misery, along with any prejudices that ripped communities apart.

It's International Orgasm Day!

And me without a gift card. Is it too late to go to Hallmark?

Details here.

Something interesting I found...

From the great State of Tennessee...

Voters in Rhea County have elected five new people to the County Commission and say a short-lived request for a ban on homosexualty was only one issue in the change.

*****

In March 2004, commission members voted unanimously voted to ask state lawmakers to introduce legislation amending Tennessee's criminal code so the county could charge homosexuals with crimes against nature.

Two days later, they rescinded the vote, saying they didn't understand they were voting to ban homosexuality in the county.

Newly-elected member Bill Hollin says some constituents thought the gay ban wasn't as bad as the commissioners not understanding what they had voted to do.

I find this interesting for two reasons. First, it looks like a backlash against homophobia is brewing, at least in Rhea County, Tennessee.

Secondly, it looks like the ousted county commissioners actually didn't realize the Holy Terrors' anti-gay agenda really is ANTI-GAY! Somebody at a commissioners' meeting had a great idea to score some brownie points with the Holy Terrors, only to realize, "Wait a minute. This is hate-mongering. We don't want any part of that."

It's a start. "Vote for us! We're not really homophobes. We're just stupid."

Benjamin's Unfamiliar Quotations

Today's words of wisdom:

"Is sex dirty? Only if it's done right."

Woody Allen

More on Senator "Man On Dog"

I forgot a very important piece of information about Sen. Rick Santorum the other day; he's running for re-election against Democrat Bob Casey, and he's losing, big. The Senator's not dead yet, however. A third candidate, Carl Romanelli of the Green Party, has just entered the race.

But that's not all.

Seems Mr. Romanellis' campaign is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Committee To Re-elect Pennsyvania's Senator, better known as CREEPS. (Actually, I just made that up.)

From the Philadelphia Enquirer:

Democrats say GOP is assisting Casey foe
The Green candidate refused a call to quit.
By Carrie Budoff and Mario Cattabiani
Inquirer Staff Writers

HARRISBURG - Six staffers on Sen. Rick Santorum's campaign - including an intern who tailed Democratic candidate Bob Casey Jr. in a duck costume - collected voter signatures to help place the Green Party on the fall ballot.

The intern, petitions show, collected signatures from voters in five counties in one day.

T.J. Rooney, the state Democratic Party chairman, and other Democrats disclosed details of the petition drive that they said offered further evidence of involvement from Santorum supporters to get Carl Romanelli, the Green Party's Senate candidate, on the ballot. Not only did Santorum aides help collect signatures for Romanelli, but Republicans and Santorum supporters put more than $60,000 into the petition drive.

*****

Most of the Green Party donors were Republicans, including many who contributed to Santorum's reelection campaign. Among the list were a corporate lobbyist, a former aide to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and a state Republican activist.

It's clearly a stunt to hopefully draw voters away from Casey, who's got a double-digit lead in the polls.

I know this article has nothing to do with sex, but I think it illustrates the depths Senator "Family Values" will go to keep his job. Paying a Green Party candidate to whore himself isn't the worst of ditry tricks, but it's hardly morally upright behavior.



But it does explain the suit, doesn't it? And now, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania. "Thank you for that introduction. My fellow Pennsylvanians, 'It's hard out here for a pimp...'"

I'm speechless at this one

Okay, not completely speechless, but still. And I missed it entirely, too. Stumbled across it on Nerve.

Anyway, back to the Plan B issue:

Plan B decision made before data review: FDA staff

By Susan Heavey
Fri Aug 4, 1:00 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The decision whether the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should approve wider access to a morning-after contraceptive drug was made well before agency scientists finished their final review, two FDA officials said in court documents released on Thursday.

*****

Supporters of over-the-counter sales for Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s Plan B pills have accused top FDA officials of hindering the company's bid for nonprescription sales for years, to please conservative supporters of President George W. Bush's administration.

*****

In a sworn statement in June, Dr. John Jenkins, director of the FDA's Office of New Drugs, said he learned in early 2004 that then-FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan had decided against approval before the staff could complete their analysis.

Plan B was rejected in May 2004, shortly after McClellan left the agency.

"I think many of us were very concerned that there were policy or political issues that came to play in the decision," Jenkins said in a deposition for a suit by the Center for Reproductive Rights that seeks easier access to Plan B. Jenkins later said he did not know if anyone outside FDA influenced the decision.

Another FDA official, who evaluated Plan B, alluded to White House involvement in a deposition given last month.

Dr. Florence Houn said she was also told that in January by Deputy Commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock that Plan B needed to be rejected "to appease the administration's constituents" but that it could be approved later.

Apparently, claiming to be a Christian means believing you can play God. For the FDA to prohibit over-the-counter sales of Plan B before it was done investigating it is incredible.

Almost. Given this pack of cowardly thugs, I have to say not much surprises me anymore.

Holy Terror Profile: Rick "Man On Dog" Santorum

Who is the enemy? Who wants to deprive us of our freedoms? Who's got a long hard one shoved up their collective asses and who wants to share the agony?

Let's start with the junior senator from Pennsylvania, Republican Rick Santorum. Rick's got the appropriate conservative credentials, but what makes him so special is his unfathomable case of "foot in mouth" disease. In 2003, he gave an interveiw to the Associated Press, comparing homosexuality to bestiality, among other things.

Sex columnist Dan Savage then demonstrated the power of the word by transforming the Senator's surname into a definition for something pretty gross.

However, becoming a synonym for something icky wasn't enough for the Senator. He's been rumored to have Presidential aspirations, so he did something Presidential aspirants often do: he wrote a book, called "It Takes A Family," an obvious dig against Sen. Hillary Clinton's book, "It Takes A Village."

Sen. Santorum's book is long, boring, contradictory, and demonstrates the Senator's unnatural obsession with U2's Bono. Most importantly, the book documents some of the Senator's weirder beliefs, such as that too many women are working outside
the home, (p. 94), public schools are weird, (p. 386), and “The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong.” (Pg. 138)

However, the junior Senator from PA saved a special message for the “Brian Lehrer” radio show on August 4, 2005. There, the Senator said, “(T)he point of marriage from a societal point of view is not to affirm the love of two people, and to make people feel good about who they are in their relationship, but in fact the point of marriage is for having children …If we change that, we devalue the institution and we change it, and re-orient it more toward parents, and away from children.”

Technically, Sen. Santorum isn't a Holy Terror. He's one of their minions, and he's not even truly in their thrall from a religous standpoint; the Senator's a Catholic. However, he's been gracious enough to give excellent voice to the Holy Terrors' way of thinking.

He's also good at playing both sides of the fence. While he condemns homosexuality as a general principle, a key member of his staff is an out gay man, and the Senator just signed a sexual orientation non-discrimination pledge.

The full story is here.

Personally, I think the Senator's anti-gay stance minght be overblown, a ploy to appeal to his core constituency. First, he seems astonishingly tolerant of gays on his staff, and second:



Tell me this outfit isn't gay. He belongs on a parade float.

Atlanta Braves Shut Out Holy Terrors

Football's more my sport than baseball, and since I live in Colorado I'm a Rockies fan normally, but I might have to start rooting for Atlanta.

Last week, the Atlanta Braves became the first team in major league baseball to sponsor a post-game Christian evangelizing event called “Faith Day.” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution provided details:

The blend of big-tent evangelism and the national pastime is expected to draw thousands of new eyes. … [The event is] designed to reach out to people looking for a spiritual purpose in life. Faith Day is the first promotion of “intentional Christian ministry” in Major League Baseball.

Except the Faith Day festivities didn’t offer a “big tent.” The event was cosponsored by right-wing group Focus on the Family, which, according to their press release, used the event to distribute promotional materials about a website they run called TroubledWith.com, which features virulently anti-gay content:

Male homosexuality is a developmental problem that is almost always the result of problems in family relations, particularly between father and son. [Link]

The following factors can also contribute to the homosexual orientation: pornography; spousal abuse in the home; molestation and pedophilia… [Link]

‘Mom…I’m Gay’: The story of one woman who heard these devastating words. [Link]

Contacted yesterday by ThinkProgress, Braves spokesperson Beth Marshall said that the Braves have asked that Focus on the Family not be affiliated with the two upcoming Braves “Faith Day” events on August 13 and August 26. Marshall declined to explain what brought about the decision to exclude Focus on the Family from the future events.

The emphases are mine. My first reaction is "woo-hoo" to anyone who stands up to the FOTF Christo-fascists, but this is more than just flipping James Dobson the bird.

A key reason the Holy Terrors have so much power is they're able to equate their own sick ideology with Christianity in general. Christianity as a whole is guilty by association with Dobson and his ilk. By continuing the Faith Day activities but specifically excluding FOTF from participation, the Braves are doing something more religious groups need to do. They're saying, "No, you DON'T speak for all followers of Christ."

Now, if the Braves could just win some games. I wonder if Dobson's going to say they've got a losing record because they "turned God away from the National Pastime."

Benjamin's Unfamiliar Quotations...

I know, I know, these things should come up more often than once in a blue moon, but I been busy.

Anyway...

"What I believe...I believe in the family; Mom, Dad, children, and Uncle Todd, who waves his penis. I believe in seven of the Ten Commandments...I believe that men should place a woman on a pedestal, high enough so that you can look up her dress...and I believe that sex is the most pure, wholesome, beautiful thing that money can buy.

Steve Martin.

Just a little more on Plan B, I promise

I really don't want to linger much on this issue, so I'll just post this item and call it a night.

Women With Easy Access to Emergency Contraception Not More Likely To Engage in Unprotected Sex, Study Says
Wednesday, January 5, 2005


The Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report

Women who have ready access to emergency contraception are no more likely to engage in unprotected sex or abandon use of other contraception methods than women who do not have easy access to the pills, according to a study published in the Jan. 5 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, USA Today reports (Rubin, USA Today, 1/5).

*****

"Our findings were that women don't change their sexual behavior when the drug is easily available, but rather that they're more likely to use it if access is easier," Raine said (Kaufman, Washington Post, 1/5).

No Difference in Pregnancy Rate
Although the researchers had expected that easier access to EC would lower pregnancy rates, the study showed that women had similar pregnancy rates whether they were provided with EC or had to go to a clinic to access the drug, the Washington Times reports. "That was definitely a disappointing finding," Raine said (Wetzstein, Washington Times, 1/5). Raine said that pregnancy rates were the same among the three groups because many women did not always use EC after unprotected sex, according to USA Today. "Very few women used it more than once," Raine said, adding, "They may not think they're going to get pregnant. They may not feel comfortable using it. They may not actually have it at the time they need it." Although some critics of EC have said that women will "come to depend" on the drug if it were more widely available, Raine said that "we're seeing the exact opposite." In an accompanying JAMA editorial, Iris Litt of Stanford University said that it was "significant that no apparent downside of EC was demonstrated."

Seems to me the key word here is "emergency" contraception. As in a "one-time only" need for Plan B. I just don't think it's likely a woman is going to say, "I really want to have sex tonight, but I don't have any contraceptives with me. Oh, well. I'll put out tonight anyway and pick up the "morning after" pill later." It's more like, "Oh, my God, the condom broke," or, worse, the example of a rape victim scrambling to prevent a REALLY unwanted pregnancy.

More "Dancing With The Devil"

Sane, sensible people are trying to get the Plan B "Morning After" contraceptive approved by the FDA for over-the-counter availability, and to get it done they've been delaying final approval of Dr. Andrew Von Eschenbach for FDA director. Dr. Eschenbach has been grilled in his confirmation hearings this week, including earlier today.

Full article here.


For my purposes, I want to just highlight this passage:

The morning-after pill is a high dose of the most common ingredient in regular birth control pills. When taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, the two-pill series can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent.

Contraceptive advocates and doctors groups say easier access to Plan B could halve the nation's 3 million annual unintended pregnancies. Opponents say wider access to the pill could promote promiscuity.

Unfortunately, the article doesn't quote these opponents directly, although I have a couple of suspects in mind. I'll dig up more clues later.

Suffice it to say, for my purposes, this couldn't be a clearer indication of the Holy Terrors' frame of mind.

They'd RATHER HAVE ONE AND A HALF MILLION WOMEN GET ACCIDENTALLY PREGNANT every year than have safe sex.