Saturday, September 30, 2006

Does Porn Reduce Rape?

Anthony D'Amato, a Northwestern Law Professor thinks so.
He connects an 85% reduction in reported rapes over 25 years to increased access to porn, especially through video rentals and sales and the internet.

The report itself is here.

I'm impressed by the fact that Dr. D'Amato worked on Nixon's pornography commission, and I confess that since I don't know squat about methodologies of sociological studies, his conclusions sound true. I'd like them to be true. I've seen other studies drawing the same conclusions.

And yet...

Dr. D'Amato's connection seems thin, to me. Not to mention his rationale for why this appears to be the case.

"In my article I mentioned one possibility: that some people watching pornography might 'get it out of their system' and thus have no further desire to go out and actually try it. Another possibility might be labeled the 'Victorian Effect:' the more people covered up their bodies with clothes in those days, the greater the mystery of what they would look like in the nude...But today, internet porn has thoroughly de-mystified sex." (p.6).

I just don't buy the idea that some sexual predator finds himself sitting on the couch after having watched porn and says, "Boy, I'm bushed. I think I'll skip terrorizing women tonight and go straight to bed."

If anything, I think the "De-mystification" angle is closer to the truth. The more people are aware of sex and sexual boundaries, the more they discuss them and are open about them, the more likely it is that there won't be any "misunderstandings" and missed signals. One of my former bosses said of Kobe Bryant that "He confused 'Don't! Stop!' with 'Don't stop!'"

Not to sound like I'm making light of rape and rape victims, but I suspect a significant portion of reported rapes stem out of such "misunderstandings," and don't really fit the "predator lurking in the shadows" model.

In any case, I also think reduced numbers of rapes aren't because of greater access to porn, but both phenomena are connected to greater communication and understanding of sexual issues.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Friday, September 29, 2006

Know Thy Enemy---Marilyn Musgrave

I'm not only embarrassed to be from the same state as this knucklehead, I'm embarrased to be a member of the same species.



Republican Marilyn Musgrave is the U.S. Congresswoman from the Colorado 4th District, which encompasses Fort Collins, Greely, and much of the state's eastern plains. She's an uber-supporter of Dubya's policies , (which by itself is deeply disturbing and speaks volumes about the sort of person she is). She's also been named by BeyondDelay.org as one of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress. Quite an achievement for someone only in her second term.

However, Congresswoman Musgrave's main claim to fame is her pet cause, (read, "obsession") namely a U.S. Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. She's been the main sponsor of the proposed amendment in the House in recent months, although she's failed so far. Nevertheless, she's still beating that horse.

How important is it to her to prevent gays from marrying?

At the Family Research Counsel's "Values Voters Summit," Congresswoman Musgrave said,

But, you know, when I was in the last weeks of my last campaign, you know what I was thinking? Where’s our side? What are they doing? And I believe that when you’re in a cultural war like this, you have to respond with equal and hopefully greater force if you want to win this battle. But this battle is the most important issue that we face today, and what an honor it has been to serve in the United States Congress and carry the Marriage Amendment.

*****

The future is grim unless we do what we need to do to win this battle.

More important than the Iraq war? More important than school shootings? More important than budget deficits? More important than rampant corruption in Congress? Keeping gays from marrying is more important than all that?

The good news is that Congresswoman Musgrave's single-mindedness seems to be working against her.

Musgrave’s Priorities at Issue in Increasingly Close Colo. 4 Race
By Greg Giroux
1:10 PM; Sep. 28, 2006

Colorado’s 4th Congressional District has been Republican “red” for decades. But continued debate over Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave’s staunch social-issues conservatism, and the emergence of Democratic state Rep. Angie Paccione as a solid challenger, have prompted CQPolitics.com to change its rating on this year’s 4th District contest to Leans Republican from Republican Favored.

While the political demographics of the district continue to provide Musgrave with a tangible edge, the ratings change indicates that the race is now considered highly competitive and that an upset by Paccione is a more plausible possibility.

*****

A main thrust of Paccione’s campaign is that Musgrave has become so consumed by her signature social issue — a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage — that she has failed to work on important issues for the district.

“She’s had a very singular focus on this wedge issue, and that’s been all that she does,” Paccione said in an interview. “She doesn’t do anything for the district. I call it the ‘Musgrave fatigue.’ People are tired of her — they’re tired of the fact that that’s the only thing that she’ll push.”

“Let me tell you, the people without health care in Colorado, they couldn’t care less about the federal marriage amendment. Couldn’t care less,” added Paccione, who strongly opposes the amendment. “The kids that want to go to college and can’t afford it? They couldn’t care less about the federal marriage amendment.”


I'd be astonished if Musgrave actually loses in this ultra-red district, but the fact that it's even up for grabs speaks volumes. The fact that Congresswoman Musgrave's obsession with banning gay marriage seems to be hurting her is also telling.

Good News for Gay Marriage out of MA

A little bit of legal dancing, but this is good news.

Mass. judge OKs marriage for R.I. gays
By DENISE LAVOIE, Associated Press Writer
Fri Sep 29, 12:36 PM ET

BOSTON - A gay couple from Rhode Island has the right to marry in Massachusetts because laws in their home state do not expressly prohibit same-sex marriage, a judge ruled Friday.

Wendy Becker and Mary Norton of Providence, R.I., argued that a 1913 law that forbids out-of-state residents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be permitted in their home state did not apply to them because Rhode Island does not specifically ban gay marriage.

Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly agreed.

"No evidence was introduced before this court of a constitutional amendment, statute, or controlling appellate decision from Rhode Island that explicitly deems void or otherwise expressly forbids same-sex marriage," he ruled.


Now, what do you bet the anti-choice forces in Rhode Island are scrambling to put an anti-gay marriage statute on the books to close this little loophole?

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Art Teacher Axed Because Student Saw Nude Sculpture..in an Art Museum

Why am I not surprised this happened in Texas?

Teacher: Reprisals began after field trip

Frisco ISD: 5th-graders saw nude art; board supports principal


07:38 AM CDT on Thursday, August 24, 2006

By KAREN AYRES / The Dallas Morning News

FRISCO – A veteran Frisco art teacher says school administrators have retaliated against her because a student reportedly saw a nude sculpture during a field trip to the Dallas Museum of Art.

District officials say they are supporting a principal who reprimanded Sydney McGee over the field trip and other performance issues.

*****
Ms. McGee, who has taught in various Texas districts for 28 years, said she visited the museum and spoke with museum staffers before the trip to ensure that it was appropriate for the fifth-grade class. Ms. McGee said she does not know which piece of art offended the parent, and the district did not identify it.


Here's the article verifying Ms. McGee got the axe.

FRISCO, Texas Frisco school trustees aren't renewing the contract of a veteran art teacher who was reprimanded because a student saw a nude sculpture during a museum visit.

Sydney McGee has been on paid administrative leave from Fisher Elementary School since Friday.

McGee's contract runs through the end of the school year.

Board members declined to take questions after their closed meeting tonight. They have previously said there were concerns over McGee's performance.

Her attorney, Rogge (ROWG-EE') Dunn says he would wait for written clarification from the school district to decide how to proceed.

McGee's attorney says the teacher's troubles started after taking 89 students on a school field trip to the Dallas Museum of Art in April. The principal later admonished McGee about the trip, telling her a parent complained about a student seeing nude art.


Notice that Ms. McGee wasn't some flaky new-age whippersnapper fresh out of college. She's an art instructor with twenty-eight years experience. She got the approval of the art museum to ensure the kids would be exposed to nothing inappropriate.

What's the dividing line between nudity as art and porn? Apparently, at least in Frisco, Texas, there is none.

Stupid is as stupid does...

Stupid all the way around in South Carolina...

you had to know some bozo would pop in some porn to keep him entertained during his commute. A Tampa Bay TV station has reported that one Tracy Pope was pulled over in Aiken, South Carolina for just such an offense. While our understanding of the legal use of porn in private is touchy at best, it seems kind of obvious that sharing your taste in blue movies with the rest of the drivers around you will only attract the men in blue.

Officers said that Pope was pulled over while playing an X-rated DVD on his in-car video system, which amounts to a felony disseminating or promoting obscenity charge based on the argument that minors could have easily been exposed to the porn by looking into the vehicle through the uncovered windows.


I can get behind the notion of charging this dipshit with some kind of reckless beahvior while driving, since he's probably paying closer attention to the damn video than he is to the road...

but felony obscenity charges? notice the SC police were afraid that kids COULD have seen the porn, not that anyone DID see the porn.

the next step would be prosecuting someone for watching porn in his/her/their own living room where a minor could "innocently" be peeking through their window.

The Evils of Contraception

From Salon's Broadsheet.

More stupidity from the Holy Terrors.

Abortion foes' new rallying point
Conservatives take on contraception

By Judith Graham
Tribune staff reporter
Published September 24, 2006


Emboldened by the anti-abortion movement's success in restricting access to abortion, an increasingly vocal group of Christian conservatives is arguing that it's time to mount a concerted attack on contraception.

Their voices were raised in Rosemont on Friday and Saturday at an unusual anti-abortion meeting that drew 250 people from around the nation to condemn artificial birth control. Experts at the gathering assailed contraception on the grounds that it devalues children, harms relationships between men and women, promotes sexual promiscuity and leads to falling birth rates, among social ills.

Some of the thoughts of the so-called "Experts."

"Contraception is more the root cause of abortion than anything else," Joseph Scheidler, an anti-abortion veteran whose Pro-Life Action League sponsored the conference, said in an interview.

"I think it's great that more pro-life people are finally speaking up about it," said Helen Mazur, 27, who flew in from Philadelphia with her husband for the conference, called "Contraception is Not the Answer."

"It's always been a touchy subject, but you have to stand strong on your beliefs. Contraception is the root cause of the explosion of the amount of abortions in the world," Mazur said.

"It's new to some aspects of the pro-life world, and it's old news in other parts of the pro-life world. It's just beginning to be embraced more fully by the whole pro-life world," said Mary Turner, 42, of La Crosse, Wis.

Rev. Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, opened Saturday's session with a clear tactical agenda for the budding movement: "It's time to get serious about denying Planned Parenthood funding for birth control or sex education and abortion. We need to hold them accountable for this contraceptive welfare. We have to work very carefully to keep that sword away from Planned Parenthood."

Euteneuer believes a single argument holds the greatest potential for changing how the anti-abortion community thinks about birth control.

"Chemical contraception doesn't prevent abortions, it causes abortion," he said in an interview. "If we believe life begins at the moment of conception, we have to defend it against [this] chemical attack."

Another line of argument against contraception, that it harms relationships between men and women, is advanced by Janet Smith, professor of moral theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit.

"When people use contraception, they're not asking themselves, do I want a lifetime relationship with this person or would this person be a good parent," Smith explains. "They're simply hooking up, typically because of sex, and sliding into marriage."
The result, Smith says, is disappointment and divorce.

Damon Clarke Owens, another speaker and president of New Jersey Natural Family Planning, believes contraception changes sex from a "unconditional gift of self" to a conditional act that turns away from "God's gift of children."

"If the sex act has nothing to do with a child, then what happens if contraception fails?" he asked. "Abortion becomes a backup for failed contraception, another way of getting rid of the unwanted and devalued child."

"It's not just a side issue from pro-life, it's the core issue," Libby Gray Macke, director of Project Reality, an abstinence program in Illinois, told the crowd Friday evening. "Abstinence is the way to prevent abortion."

I wish I could say I haven't seen anything more stupid, but I've been reading a lot lately about the Bush Administration's justifications for the Iraq war.

There's no more clearly set forth evidence for the Holy Terrors' agenda. Sex for fun is bad. Sex that prevents the making of babies is bad. It's not about pleasure or feeling good about oneself or sharing an intimate connection with another human being. It's all about propagating the species. (Sorry, that's a biological reference. The Holy Terrors don't want anything to do with science. Let's make a more Biblically oriented reference.) It's about following the command to "be fruitful and multiply upon the earth," (Gen. 8-17).

What strikes me most about the Holy Terror's movement is how much they must hate women. I suppose it relates back to Eve and Original Sin and all that bullshit. A woman's purpose is simply to bear children, and anything that hinders that or enables a woman to have sexual pleasure or that empowers her or enables her to live life on her own terms is bad.

Monday, September 25, 2006

And now the gratuitious sex photo post...

since I haven't posted substantive stuff in so long.

Yes, it's gratuitous sex, and yes, it works.

I feel so sordid.



But in a good way.

On explicit sex

All right, all right, I haven't posted shit lately. Lots of stuff in my inbox, though.

Julian Davies takes issue with some of Kingsley Amis' writings.


IN HIS ESSAY WHY ARE YOU Telling Me All This? Kingsley Amis argues that sexually explicit writing betrays an unconscionable failure of tact that reduces its author "to the same moral level as the chap you make sure of avoiding at the pub".

*****

Central to Amis' argument is the view that reading and life are inseparable and that writing must therefore follow parallel conventions and employ similar kinds of discretion. He goes so far as to state that sexually explicit writing is implicitly dehumanising, that it allows no room for individuals with motives and reactions, only puppets created to titillate.

*****

This is life, but fiction, I would reassert, is something else. The laws and customs that govern social behaviour may well control the characters in a story, but not its telling. The telling of any story worth the writing obeys an altogether different set of rules, rules invented on the spot for that moment and then quite possibly discarded for ever. Fiction is a domain that often runs parallel to life but is governed by artifice. Call it artifice, call it craft, call it art, but by any name it is something else, something essentially separate. We accept it has the illusion of reality but we know, or at least sense, the conventions, tricks and special dispensations it employs. For instance, we can never know with complete certainty what another person thinks. In stories we are witness to the thoughts of innumerable characters. Nothing could be more private, more personal, yet no one complains that this is an intolerable intrusion into an inviolable realm. No one calls it dehumanising.

If sex is just a physical act, why is it more private than a thought? And if sexual intimacy contains thoughts and feelings, why are they less important or relevant to storytelling than other thoughts and feelings? Are there any other areas of life where we ask writers to censor or restrain themselves as Amis does for explicit sex? We even make less fuss about violence. Just look at the rating system for films; sex is consistently rated for a more mature audience than is violence. And yet, if there were an opportunity, which would we prefer to be rid of, sex or violence?


Davies goes on to point out that the success or failure of erotic writing comes with the skill which the writer uses to deliver his or her point, not necessarily with an imagined or possibly false sense of modesty.

The real tension, I would say, is not between clarity and tact, but between any chosen approach to writing sex and the success with which it is realised. If literary restraint has any value, it is an altogether different thing from any social stricture. It is about creative judgement not etiquette. In fact, whether writing about characters having sex or a cup of tea, there is a balancing act involved. This act is about avoiding cliche or a lecturing tone or overemphasis, about finding the keenest means of expression, about distilling the essentials.


I couldn't agree more. Comparing sex in the media with, say, violence, there is of course a certain necessity for tact or subtlety, especially when minors are in the picture. However, some grown-ups like subletly, and some like graphic images and languages. Amis' perceived prudery, I suspect, comes from a powerful sense of modesty and/or personal shame about sex. That's his hang-up. I have no problem with that. For those of us with different hang-ups, I'm a little put out by the suggestion that graphic = bad when it comes to sex. Hard-core porn is simply more entertaining than the Skinemax stuff, hands down. I've tried reading some of the more explicit romance novels and I just can't get past the flowerly language. I've also read graphic stuff that makes me burst out laughing. "She moaned as his staff of love filled her gates of pleasure" is just as ridiculous as "He pounded the slut's sopping fuckbox with his massive rock-hard tool." I just prefer calling a cock a cock and a pussy a pussy, thank you.

The quality of any writing, erotic or otherwise, depends upon the skill of the artist. Subtlety doesn't necessarily win out, nor is frank language automatically better or worse, either. I prefer Anais Nin to Henry Miller just because I think she's a better writer. Not because she's more or less subdued than is Mr. Miller.

In the end, as always, it comes down to "different strokes for different folks."

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Election numbers

Colorado's voting tendencies are, to be nice, diverse. To be more direct, they're schiztophrenic.

Case in point: Two gay-rights ballot initiatives are up before the people this November. Referendum I would give gay couples the right to seek "domestic partnership status," which includes many legal rights married people enjoy, health insurance rights, pension rights, the right to make medical decisions, and so forth.

Amendment 43 is a proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution which would clearly define marriage as a one-man/one-woman only arrangement, cutting off homosexual couples from that right.

Both initiatives are winning according to the latest poll.

58% of those polled are favoring Referendum I, (the pro-gay rights initiative) and 52% support Amendment 43 (the anti-gay rights initiative). One voter in five actually favors both.

See what I mean by schitzophrenic?

I treat all this as good news. Referendum I is actually doing better than the gay marriage ban, which could still actually lose, all of which is good.

But I could even live with both measures passing, as well.

See, the real benefits of marriage don't come from the sign of the committment as much as they do from creating enforceable legal rights between two people. Marriage is first and foremost a property right, with love and committment honestly coming way down on the list of priorities.

In fact, to hear the Holy Terrors tell it, the first priority when it comes to marriage is making babies. Which, of course, gay couples can still do, anyway.

It's all good, IMHO.

Monday, September 18, 2006

This just blows me away.

Definitely NOT safe for work.

Some real slight of hand.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Benjamin's Unfamiliar Quotations

"In Europe men and women have intercourse because they love each other. In the South Seas they love each other because they have had intercourse. Who is right?"

Paul Gauguin

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Aussie Fashion Show features....real women!!!

The horror!! Next thing you know, they'll be wearing real clothes!!

Just kidding.

I don't have much use for the fashion industry. My Lovely Wife religiously watches Project Runway
which means I watch it too, if only because she'll tolerate my watching every single football game I can find with the remote control.

Anyway, the industry itself doesn't do anything for me, but I simply can't stand their obsession with anorexic-chic models when it comes to what constitutes "beautiful." When these bony-ass girls send CARE packages to Ethiopia, they come back with notes saying, "We've seen your pictures. Thanks, but you need this food more than we do." I mean, Kate Moss and her ilk have to run around in the shower to get wet. That's not sexy, beautiful, or even attractive.

Then I found this story out of Australia. Seems a fashion designer who'd suffered from anorexia as a kid and her partner decided to feature as models for their swimwear women who might actually wear it.

Naturally, the industry's mucky-mucks had a shit fit, but the designers, audience members, models, and potential customers loved the idea.

Fashion Week organisers IMG threw the show into jeopardy early on Wednesday after advising Ms Fogarty to use professional models.

But the designers stood their ground and the show featured size 8-12 models.

Stephanie Campbell, a nurse at the Royal Children's Hospital, said the experience was amazing.

"I thought all the girls looked gorgeous," Ms Campbell, 30, of Fitzroy, said.

Sunshine Coast university student Linda Schmid, 24, said it was great to model alongside average-sized women who were confident with their bodies.


Here's a photo gallery of the fashion show.

These women don't meet the industry's standard of beautiful, but as far as I'm concerned...

Hell yeah, they're hot. I'd fuck 'em.



Especially Linda Schmid, the one on the right. If you're ever in the U.S.A., let me know and we'll give "Having fun Down Under" a whooooooole 'nother meaning.

Monday, September 11, 2006

That whole "naked" thing, Part 4

Back to the Great Art.



Behold "Olympia" by Manet.

This one really caused a shit fit. One critic screamed, "She's not nude, she's NAKED!" What strikes you about this painting is how....brazen or shameless the model is. Her pose is provocative and unabashedly sexual. And yes, it took a while for people to get used to the idea, but this is a great work of art.

Fast-forward to the present day.



More nude women on couches, but this time they're in photographs instead of paintings. (By the way, you have no idea how hard it is to find nude photographs of women on couches with two cats in the picture, as well).

Again, the debate is sparked. Why is "Olympia" considered a work of art, but images of these two lovely ladies considered porn? Especially since "Olympia" is markedly different from Venus De Milo (from my last post) because hers is a blatantly sexually oriented pose, instead of that nude-as-the-ideal line of crap.



Again, the image of a nude woman MUST have some sexual element to the emotions it evokes. It's part of the package. Yet there's some mystical dividing line between "great art" and "pornography" so that if an observer of an image finds himself or herself aroused by the image, it's on that side of the line, whereas if the image is somehow neuter or asexual, it's considered a good thing.

I just don't get it. For me, the sort of image that is most likely to arouse any response on my part is that of the female form, and yes, the sexual element is there. It has to be. If there's no sexiness involved, it's boring.

And yet, there's a line between "art" and "porn," but nobody has a good answer for where that line is.

Except, of course, for the old legal maxim, "obscenity is whatever gives a judge a hard-on."

That whole "naked" thing Part 3

Behold the Venus De Milo.


Unquestionably, a great work of art, right?




Now behold another image.

How would you characterize this image? Another work of art? Or is it smut? Porn? A large portion of the general population would simply shit bricks at the sight of this image, even as they praise the Venus De Milo as a great work of art.

But wait a minute. They're both topless women, aren't they? One's an image carved in stone, and the other's a photograph, sure. One's in the Louvre, the other's one of millions floating around the internet. One makes people go, "ooh" and "ahh" and the other makes people go, "Wow, I've got a hard-on" or more likely, "AAAAAHHHH! Naked boobies! Call the police! Call the fire department! Call Homeland Security! Shut it down! Shut it down! Look away! Look away!"

What's the difference between the two?

We say that art is intended to stir the emotions. But what emotions? The photo of the soldiers raising the flag at Iwo Jima can easily be said to provoke a feeling of patriotism and of hope in the future, especially in the face of a bleak present. The image of Da Vinci's "Last Supper" can evoke emotions of piety and grace, for example.

But how about naked people?

I think it's safe to say that the second image is clearly intended to stir emotions, but not of piety or of hope, but of emotions of a more...base nature. That is, the second image's intent is to arouse sexual emotions....desire, even lust.

My first impulse is to ask, "What's wrong with that?" I'm going to answer that question later, but first I want to get back to the Venus De Milo. Why isn't a statue of a naked woman supposed to invoke the same responses as a photo of a naked woman? I mean, we know the expected response to the second image is of sex, sex, sex. Why don't we consider the Venus De Milo's possible emotional response to likewise be sexual in nature? I mean, sure she's armless, but she's naked, too! Plus, she's Venus. The representation of the Goddess of Love. Doesn't that merit an admission that at least part of the response is sexual in nature? Not to hear the "experts" explain it.

I had an "Intro To Art" teacher in college who gave me some mumbo jumbo about how the Venus De Milo is a representation of the perfection that can be represented by the human body and that the representation of that perfection somehow renders the image...sexless. She's not an erotic statute because she's too perfect to be erotic.

What a load of bullshit.

It's just my opinion, and I could be wrong, but I fail to see how something "sexless" can be considered a great work of art. By the same token, I fail to see how an image that evokes sexual responses can be NOT considered a great work of art, but is somehow considered "obscene" and pornographic.

More later.

Friday, September 08, 2006

That whole "naked" thing, Part 2

More on the "naked images" front.

Loveland recognizes naked truth
By Jim Spencer
Denver Post Staff Columnist

Loveland

No pillars of salt surround the three bronze nudes in the sculpture "Triangle." So it's pretty certain that Loveland is not turning into Sodom and Gomorrah.

Mayberry, maybe. But not Sodom and Gomorrah.

Tuesday, the City Council wisely chose not to immerse itself in the politics of prudery, much to the relief of locals proud of their long tradition of public art. A few complaints about naked figures cast in bronze had turned into a full-blown culture war. It left the city's elected leaders pondering passage of a new law that would let them overrule a well-respected arts commission and order public art moved or censored altogether.

*****

The two measures debated and defeated in Loveland on Tuesday would have made that possible. The first would have let any registered voter appeal any piece of public art and make politicians the final arbiters of its appropriateness and placement. The second would have let the city manager prohibit placing objects that create visual distractions within roundabouts.

The bureaucracy of the appeals process aside, the city's reputation as a nationally recognized public art center was on the line. The city was just named the second best public art town in the country, behind Santa Fe. "We've been doing something right," Rousey said.

"We have a community built around art," explained Irene Thomson, a Loveland resident for 30 years. "If they pass (the new law), I guarantee you I won't vote for any of them again."

The art object that started this fight is a bronze statue of a naked man and a naked woman holding aloft a second naked woman. Objections came from religious fundamentalists because the sculpted figures are naked. Not salaciously posed. Not touching each other intimately. Just naked.

*****

As she entered the Loveland Public Library with her three young daughters Tuesday, Jennifer Thye called the proposals an embarrassment.

Thye, who said she usually falls "to the right of center politically," recently showed her 5-year-old daughter, Isabella, a photo of "Triangle."

"Some people are mad because they don't have clothes on," Thye told the little girl.

"There's a sculpture of a woman without clothes in the sculpture park," Isabella replied. "I think it's beautiful."

Those who can't see that are usually uncomfortable in their own skins. If that's true, no law will make them feel better.

I wish I could've found a photo of the sculpture in question, but no luck so far. Maybe later.

Again, I'm bringing this up because I feel it's important to highlight a little good news, once in a while. This goes back to my last post, where I brought up the point that it's refreshing to hear people say, "What's the big deal?" when it comes to images of naked people.

However, another reason I'm bringing this up is to raise an issue I find a little troubling. From the article, it's clear that to most of the people of Loveland, the statue in question is of naked people, but that there's no sexual element to its artistic value. That makes it okay. At least, in the eyes of the conventional art world.

If the image is moving or inspiring or simply beautiful, then it's art and that makes it okay. But what if it induces sexual arousal?

Well, then it's bad because it's porn.

More later.

That whole "naked" thing Part 1

First, a question.



Do you find this magazine cover offensive? A surprisingly large portion of Babytalk's readership did when the magazine hit the stands last month.

By Jocelyne Zablit in Washington
August 04, 2006 01:53pm

"I was shocked to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine," one woman from Kansas wrote in reaction to the picture in Babytalk, a free magazine that caters to young mothers.

"I was offended and it made my husband very uncomfortable when I left the magazine on the coffee table."

Her reaction was among some 5000 letters the magazine received in response to a poll to gauge reader sentiment about Babytalk's August cover photo, which shows a baby nursing.

Several readers said they were "embarrassed" or "offended" by the Babytalk photo and one woman from Nevada said she "immediately turned the magazine face down" when she saw the photo.

"Gross, I am sick of seeing a baby attached to a boob," the mother of a four-month-old said.

Another reader said she was "horrified" when she received the magazine and hoped that her husband hadn't laid eyes on it.

"I had to rip off the cover since I didn't want it laying around the house," she said.

A national television program also ran a segment on the controversy, interviewing several people in New York who expressed disgust over the cover photo.

I'm disgusted too, at how asnine people can be. It's a nursing baby! There's nothing sexual about this photo! In fact, IMHO, this is the most non-arousing image of a woman's breast anyone could come up with.

And it's not so much about the breast, either. Janet Jackson showed off more of her boob at the Super Bowl a few years ago.

And yet, people have had a shit fit about it, and I really don't understand why. That's not to say the image isn't moving and strikingly beautiful. When my Lovely Wife was nursing our kids, I could stare at her doing it for hours on end. To be perfeclty honest, I was a little envious at times at the connection my Lovely Wife had with our children when she was nursing them. The whole world seemed to stop.

Why do I bring this up now? Two reasons, I suppose. First, those anal-retentive puckered-up prudes on the far-right edge of the political spectrum are so fucking uptight they're in a hissy about anything even remotely connnected to S-E-X even when the images in question have absolutely nothing to do with sex. Exposed breast? Bad! Bad, bad, bad! It doesn't matter what context in which the breast is exposed, it's bad, goshdarn it!!!

What a tragedy. What a beautiful image. If I were an OB/GYN I'd try to blow that one up and put it on the wall in my waiting room, to encourage women to be unafraid when sanctimonious assholes blow their collective tops at the sight of a mother nourishing her child.

The second reason I'm bringing this up is to announce that the times, they are a-changing. Rather than kunckle under to the pressures of the puritanical prudes, the editorial board of Babytalk is taking pride in having shocked polite society.

From the article:

Babytalk executive editor Lisa Moran said though most of those who responded to the poll about the cover photo gave the magazine a thumbs up, she was surprised that some 25 per cent expressed outrage.

"There is a real puritanical streak in America," Moran said.

"You see celebrities practically baring their breasts all the time and no one seems to mind in this sort of sexual context.

"But in this very natural context of feeding your child, a lot of Americans are very uncomfortable with it."

She said the controversy was all the more surprising in light of concerted efforts by the US government and health professionals to encourage women to breastfeed.

"Everyone is saying that breastfeeding is best for baby, but there is so little support for it in public," Moran said.

She said the Babytalk cover photo marked the first time a major parenting magazine in the United States had dared to break the taboo about showing a woman's breast and the outrage it had prompted was not about to discourage editors from doing it again.

"This hasn't scared us off at all," Moran said. "We're thrilled and hopefully this will help women get more support for nursing."

Good for them. If we're going to unclench our collective sphincter muscles about the human body, we need to do so about the non-sexual aspects of the body as well as the sexual aspects.

Brad Pitt takes a stand

I always knew there was a reason I liked the guy.

Brad Pitt: I'll Marry When Everyone Can
AP
NEW YORK (AP) - Brad Pitt , ever the social activist, says he won't be marrying Angelina Jolie until the restrictions on who can marry whom are dropped. "Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able," the 42-year-old actor reveals in Esquire magazine's October issue, on newsstands Sept. 19.


Brad's position isn't even lessened by the fact that the object of his affections is crazy-as-a-shithouse-rat Angelina Jolie.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Virginity is Overrated

Something from Salon about thirty year old virgins... (you may have to sit through a commercial for a free day pass. well wirth thirty seconds, IMHO).
The upshot of the article is that for women who've found themselves still virgins at thirty, the perks of chastity are outweighed by the stigma, ridicule, and lack of self-esteem.

Speaking for myself, I lost my own virginity at a relatively young age, but the best thing I can say about it is that I got the awkward stuff over with early. I can also honestly say that I'd rather spend time with a lady who knows what she likes and dislikes. I've outgrown awkward when it comes to sex.

In fact, that old myth about martyrs going to heaven where they're waited upon by seventy-two virgins? And having to deal with all that, "Do you like this? What next? Where do I put my hand" stuff just seems like a lot of extra work, to me. Thanks, but no thanks.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Eating Pussy...

Wish I could trackback on blogger. Again.

Desireous had something interesting to say.

What is it about Sucking Cock

What is it about sucking cock that makes it so....addicting?

*****

I have to go at least until I make that big boy explode his load into my mouth and then only after I'm certain I've completely milked him dry. Only once I've sucked out that very last drop of man-milk can I allow that beautiful suck toy to fall from my lips. And yet I can't really put into any words why. I just know I love it and I HAVE to suck cock!

On the other side of the coin, I have to confess that I love cunnilingus, and I know exactly why. When I've got my tongue inside a woman's pussy, it's all about her. I'm not worrying about anything other than getting her off. Not worrying about staying hard or getting too excited too soon, I can focus on the task at hand and drive her wild at my leisure.

I used to think I enjoy doing it so much because that's just the generous, giving fellow I am. Nope. I've come to the realization that I get off on it. It turns me on. It's a power trip. When a woman lets you go down there, it's empowering. When you can make her cum til her limbs quiver, it's even more empowering.

Yes, I sound like I'm bragging, here, but I've never been with a woman who didn't let me get the taste of her in my mouth and on my beard, and I've been told by a panel of experts that I perform cunnilingus very, very well. I' proud of that.

I'd almost rather do it than have straight intercourse.

Uh, almost.

Stupid kids...

I lay the blame for this squarely on the Bush Administration and the Holy Terrors.

Teens often skip condoms, regardless of partner

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Many teenagers and young adults fail to use condoms consistently, regardless of whether they have sex with a serious or a "casual" partner, a new study suggests.

Researchers found that among more than 1,300 15- to 21-year-olds, those with casual sex partners had unprotected sex just as often as those in serious relationships -- about 20 times over the previous three months, on average.

Those who had casual sex were more likely to use condoms at least some of the time, the study found. But because they had sex more often, they ended up having unprotected intercourse just as frequently as their peers in steady relationships.


I confess I wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer when I was a teenager, but I was smarter than this!

I hit puberty when HIV/AIDS was first making big news. Back then, we were so scared of dying from sex we wouldn't look at a Playboy without a rubber on. Okay, maybe I was the only one that did that, but still...

The Powers That Be's refusal to adequately fund sex ed programs, and to push "ignorance only" sex ed have to bear responsibility for this.

Here's a section I found interesting...

For study participants in relationships, one of the problems seemed to be their perception -- correct or not -- that their partner did not want to use condoms.
It's important, Lescano's team writes, that teenagers be taught that consistent condom use is necessary, regardless of who their partner is or how long they've been in the relationship.

They say young people who worry their partner will be turned off by condoms need to be reminded that most people accept condom use -- and that consistent use lowers the risk of sexually transmitted diseases for both partners.

Again, maybe things were different when I was a kid, (DAMN, I sound like my father), but we'd had it drilled into our thick skulls to not even dream of having sex unless somebody was packin' protection.

Hell, I thought it was kind of arousing the first time I was with a girl and I admitted, "Sorry, I didn't bring a condom," and she said, "It's cool, I brought my own." Ready for sex at a moment's notice! I liked that.

Of course, from that point on I was always prepared. Didn't keep them in my wallet, because they made that tell-tale ring. Kept some in the glovebox of my car, in the back of my locker, (stashed in an old gym sock,) and I actually had a couple taped to the underside of the frame of my bed, next to my stack of vintage Playboys.

Ah, memories.

Monday, September 04, 2006

"This Film Is Not Yet Rated"

I want to see this.
Here's an article at Salon.com. You may have to sit through a commercial to get a free daypass, but IMHO it's worth it for access.

For the life of me, the MPAA ratings system makes no sense. It's more than just a matter of whether five seconds of onscreen pubic hair is worse than two seconds; it's about our priorities. Sex isn't a fact of life in this country, it's an obsession. And the MPAA and Hollywood are so terrified of showing people the "S" word they've become ridiculous about it.

I realize the problem of knowing what one's kids are watching on cable or via DVD, since I've got kids of my own. However, the obsession with keeping kids from seeing S-E-X onscreen is crazy when you consider how the MPAA seems to be okay with more socially acceptable and wholesome images onscreen, namely violence.

I couldn't put it any better than George Carlin did more than thirty years ago. "I'd rather have my kids watch a film of two people making love than of two people trying to kill one another.

Anyway, just my two cents.

Friday, September 01, 2006

Last month's column from ERWA

ERWA is, of course, the kickass website for erotica on the web.

And, in case you're interested, here's the September column from yours truly.

This is from last month.

ALL WORKED UP ABOUT SLUTS
By J.T. Benjamin
Copr. 2006

True story.

A few years ago, my Lovely Wife and I decided to punch up our sex life by trying something…different. I’ll probably get into trouble for mentioning this, so I won’t say exactly what we did, but I will say it was the sort of thing that gets written up in those “True Confessions” type magazines that you find in dirty bookstores.

And we had a blast. Much more fun than we’d anticipated. When we were done, we felt like Boston when the Red Sox won the World Series. My Lovely Wife asked me what I thought of the experience, and what I thought of her for enjoying it so much.

I said, with a big smile on my face, “I had no idea you were such a slut.”

My Lovely Wife stared at me like I’d slapped her. Whoever said “Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me” never saw the look on her face. I spent the next several hours groveling and apologizing for my terrible insult of her character and my use of such a disgusting, slanderous term to describe the mother of my children and the love of my life. Talk about a buzzkill.

In the years since then, however, with regard to my Lovely Wife’s and my sex life, our boundaries of acceptable behavior, language, positions, and implements has broadened. Sometimes we still make love with soft music and caresses and gentle, passionate moments. And sometimes (and I KNOW I’ll get into trouble for mentioning this) we have hot horny grunt sex. We go at it like animals; fingernails, bite marks, rope burns, variable speeds, the thump-thump-thump of body parts on the headboard and, of course, the dirty talk.

And when we’re really going at it, when we’re scaring the cat and the neighbors are dialing 9-1-1 and we’re both on the verge of something significant, my Lovely Wife calls me a filthy fucking bastard…

and I call my Lovely Wife a dirty little slut.

And she likes it.

In Lewis Carroll’s “Through The Looking Glass,” Humpty Dumpty tells Alice, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

We tend to think of words as things that are standard and unchangeable. Once a word is assigned to an object or thought, they’re stuck with each other like a tattoo on skin. However, one of the primary aspects of my own fascination with words is the way that their meanings and implications can and do often change over time, sometimes over a very short time.

At some point in the past twenty years, for example, “pimp” became not just a noun, (“one who procures customers for a prostitute, usually in exchange for a percentage of her earnings”), but a verb, as in “to decorate or customize, especially in an outrageous fashion.”

When I was a kid, I was warned by my parents not to use the words “gay” or “queer” in conversation because they were considered derogatory to homosexuals. Now, those “gay” guys on “Queer Eye For The Straight Guy” embrace the terms. But I have to wonder; is giving a room the “Queer Eye” treatment the same as “pimping it?” Can I make up a new term, such as, “Queer-pimping,” to mean “doubly decorating or customizing” something?

Then there are the conscious attempts to change a word’s meaning, especially to reduce the insulting or derogatory connotation. For example, a few years ago pop musician Meredith Brooks put out a song called, “Bitch” expressly to give the term a more positive meaning, one of complexity and diversity and power and self-confidence, instead of its more common connotation, one of an ill-tempered or mean woman.

I’ve been told that people like Spike Lee and Samuel L. Jackson and rap artists are expressly using the “N-word” all over the place to rob the word of its negative power. Good luck to them on that; I can understand their motivation but you’ll notice I can’t bring myself to actually write the word down to prove a point, let alone say it. For that specific word, I think the best thing to do is just to never, ever use it, in any context whatsoever, in the hopes it completely disappears. I’ll let you know how that one works out.

Then there’s the word, “slut.” According to my New Webster’s Dictionary Of The English Language, a “slut” is “a dirty, slovenly woman; a slattern; a woman of loose character; a bold or impudent girl; a female dog.” For a more modern translation, dictionary.com defines “slut” as “a woman considered sexually promiscuous.”

These days, the word “slut” is getting a makeover. (Could we say the word is being “pimped?”) Reporter Stephanie Rosenbloom wrote a story for the New York Times in July called, “The Taming Of The Slur,” documenting how the word doesn’t just mean “sexually promiscuous,” anymore. The term can mean voraciousness of any kind, such as being a “coffee slut” or a “TV slut,” how it can refer to provocative fashions, and how among teenagers, it’s even become a term of endearment.

Ms. Rosenbloom’s colleague at the Times, columnist Maureen Dowd, went a step further last month by pointing out in a column how “slut” creates a sort of verbal quandary; the term is most often used to describe behavior in women that, when displayed by men, is considered in a positive way. “After eons of being a summary judgment that a woman is damaged goods,” Ms. Dowd writes, “the word slut has shifted into more ambiguous territory. It can still be an insult, especially since there is no pejorative equivalent to suggest that a man has sullied himself with too many partners. Men are players, women are sluts, just the way men are tough and women are bitchy.”

What makes the word even more problematic is the fact that the “good/bad” connotation of the word also depends upon whether a man or a woman hears it. Let’s be honest. When a woman is referred to as a slut, most guys’ first reaction is, “What’s her phone number?” The term may be considered derogatory, but it still conveys potentially useful information.

That little fact is what got me into the doghouse with my own Lovely Wife. When I’d called her a slut, I meant it as a compliment. Still do. She’s sexually adventurous, enthusiastic, passionate, and even promiscuous in a monogamous sort of way. Once she’d realized that I was saying I found those to be positive qualities, she forgave me.

And it’s not just my own Lovely Wife. Women who are confident about their sexuality, who enjoy sex, either with multiple partners or just one, exude an aura that’s fascinating, sexy, and irresistible.

In their book, “The Ethical Slut,” Dossie Easton and Catherine A. Liszt say as much: “(W)e are proud to reclaim the word “slut” as a term of approval, even endearment. To us, a slut is a person of any gender who has the courage to lead life according to the radical proposition that sex is nice and pleasure is good for you. A slut may choose to have sex with herself only, or with the Fifth Fleet. He may be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, a radical activist or a peaceful suburbanite.”

Still, when giving someone a label, whether it’s slut, pimp, gay, queer, or even the “N-word,” it’s probably smartest to just ask, first. Sure, it’s awkward, but it’s less awkward than saying, “Yes, I called you a kinky, sex-crazed promiscuous slut, but I meant it in a GOOD way.”