To make up for the lack of posts lately...

A Semi-serious analysis of porn...sort of

Does it help or hurt?

Having a few troubles keeping the link up...just so you know.

Porn: When It Helps & When It Hurts
Some couples use it to sex up a relationship. For others, it spells the end.
by Anne Marie O'Connor

Nowhere do you find stranger bedfellows than in porn—and I’m not even talking about the performers. Seldom do feminists, fundamentalists and the federal government find themselves on common ground, but all three are currently united in an anti-porn ménage a trois. On the other side of the issue are free-speech advocates, porn stars and the 40 million Americans who, according to Internet Filter Review, regularly visit X-rated websites.

The only thing everyone agrees on? There’s more porn now than ever, thanks to the wonders of technology.

Like most things, porn was a lot harder in the old days. Back then, getting your hands on anything steamier than Playboy required donning a pervy-looking raincoat, driving to the seamy side of town, skulking into a shop with blinking “XXX” neon lights, browsing the wares in the company of some scary characters before getting up the courage to bring your purchases to the cashier. And then you still had to sneak the plain brown bag into the house.

Now, porn is delivered instantly at the click of a button, steaming hot, right into your living room.

The thrust of Ms. O'Connor's article is an analysis (from a woman's perspective, of course,) of the pros and cons of open discussion and sharing of porn in relationships. Good sides and bad sides, fairly even-handed but falling back on a few old cliches here and there.

From my own (admittedly male) perspective, I'm pro-porn, and that includes within my own relationship. When my Lovely Wife first discovered my stash, she hit the roof, not because I was a porn afficionado, but because I was HIDING the stuff from another aficionado. Turns out my Lovely Wife likes porn as much as I do.

Well, maybe not as much as I do. 'Cuz I really, really like porn.

But the point is that it was the hiding that was so bad. Now that we share our mutual enjoyment of pornography, it makes it easier for us to share other things, as well.

Just my pair of copper engravings of the Great Emancipator.

John McCain..Adulterer? Hypocrite?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Sex Toys Legal in the Lone Star State!!!

Earthshattering news, IMHO

Texas scraps ban on sex toys

By STAFF REPORTER

Published: 14 Feb 2008

A US appeals court has overturned a ban on the sale of sex toys in Texas.

The state was one of the last in the US South to keep the ban - punishable by as many as two years in jail.

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Texas law making it illegal to sell or promote obscene devices violated the right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Companies which sell the toys sued in 2004 over the constitutionality of the law.

They appealed after a federal judge dismissed the suit and said the Constitution did not protect their right to publicly promote such devices.

“The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex.

"It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the state is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct.

"This is an insufficient justification after Lawrence,” the appeals judges wrote, referring to a past case.

The Texas attorney general’s office, which represented the Travis County district attorney in the case, has not decided whether to appeal, said agency spokesman Tom Kelley.

Phil Harvey, president of Adam & Eve Inc., said the 5th Circuit Court’s decision was a big step forward.

He said: “I think it’s wonderful, but it does seem to me that since Texas was one of three states in the country - along with Mississippi and Alabama - that continued to outlaw the sale of sex toys and vibrators, that it was probably past time.”

I just can't get over the fact that this happened in TEXAS.

What'll they think of next?

In the spirit of the last post...

See? That's not so bad, is it?

The Porn Hypocrisy

Just thought I'd post something I found interesting.

The hypocrisy of porn
Matthew Melnyk
Issue date: 1/29/08 Section: Opinion

In public we cringe at the thought of pornography. We turn our noses up to this supposed perverse form of entertainment and present ourselves as being somehow above the low lifes and creeps who view that stuff.

Unfortunately for our mythologized public image, it is more likely than not that we have at some time viewed pornography.

Perhaps more interestingly, it is likely that the person beside you, the professor at the front of the class, your parents or maybe even your girlfriend or boyfriend are avid consumers of pornography.

There are numerous disconnects between the realities of the market for adult entertainment and how people discuss it. It would be hard to find someone who would publicly admit to viewing porn on a regular basis, yet all statistics show that it is popular beyond the scope that most of us realize.

The amount of money people pay to see others frolicking in the nude is staggering. Canadians spend about a billion dollars on pornography a year. Worldwide it is almost a $98 billion dollar industry. To put that in perspective; that is more money than the top technology based companies combined (eBay, Microsoft, Amazon, Yahoo!, Google, Apple, Netflix). For an industry that nobody seems to be consumers of, it seems to be doing well for itself.

*****
People often decry the pornography industry as exploitative, and there are often concerns raised about children and contact with this industry. What people rarely realize is that our own repressiveness is what allows for the industry to be that way it is.

We live in a society that has an identity crisis. In the public sphere people are expected to live by some abstract and impossible moral standard. This expectation comes with certain assumptions about their sexuality that are usually fairly repressive. We aren't comfortable imagining other people as sexual beings, nor are we comfortable with others thinking of us that way. Despite this tension it seems undeniable that the cliché "sex sells" is fairly accurate.

Products of all kinds are sold to us using sexual imagery. Every major form of entertainment emphasizes sexuality, regardless of its relevance to the medium. Businesses do this because it works. As the popularity of pornography shows, people are interested in sex.

Our public denial of this creates the conditions where salacious advertising is both pervasive and effective. It is also why people are driven to seek out sexual entertainment and are willing to pay billions of dollars for it.
I think that before we stand on our soapboxes and denounce the adult entertainment industry for all of its problems we need to take some responsibility.

First, we need to be honest about how we may have directly contributed to it. Secondly, as well as realize that by being sexually repressive we are creating a demand for pornography that rivals or surpasses almost every other form of entertainment.

I agree with Mr. Melnyk up to a point. It's amusing that on the surface, nobody says they consume pornography, but SOMEBODY'S gotta be doing it. As hard as I try, I can't hit all those porn websites that number hits in the millions.

The problem I have with Mr. Melnyk's analysis is that despite his acknowledgment most people are hypocrites when it comes to porn, he seems to fall back on the old stereotype that porn is automatically bad.

I don't quite agree. I've posted here on several occasions about the possible social benefits of porn, (reduced crime rates, empowerment of otherwise sexually repressed segments of society), not to mention the fact that every single consumer or producer of porn is a stand-up supporter of freedom of speech and expression. Not sure what else to say except that more people ought to talk about porn a lot more often.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

FUCK YOU, MITT ROMNEY

I told a Romney fan last year he wouldn't make it to Valentine's Day, and it's nice to be right again, but I still almost wish this fucker'd been the G.O.P. nominee so his humiliating defeat would be all that much more enjoyable. (These are excerpts. The emphases are mine)

Asshole.

Mitt Romney Suspends Campaign Published: February 7, 2008
The following is a transcript of Mitt Romney's speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., during which he announced he is suspending his presidential campaign, as provided by CQ Transcriptions via The Associated Press.

As I said to you last year, conservative principles are needed now more than ever. We face a new generation of challenges: challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future.

I'm convinced that unless America changes course, we could become the France of the 21st century.
*****

Perhaps the most fundamental of the challenges that we face is the attack on America's culture.

*****

(APPLAUSE)

The threat to our culture comes from within.

In the 1960s, there were welfare programs that created a culture of poverty in our country. Now, some people think we won that battle when we reformed welfare. But the liberals haven't given up.

*****

ROMNEY: The attack on faith and religion is no less relentless. And tolerance for pornography, even celebration of it, and sexual promiscuity, combined with the twisted incentives of government welfare, have led to today's grim realities: 68 percent of African- American kids born out of wedlock, 45 percent of Hispanic kids, 25 percent of white kids.

How much harder it is for these kids to succeed in school and in life. A nation built on the principles of the founding fathers cannot long stand when its children are raised without fathers in the home.

(APPLAUSE)

The development of a child is enhanced by having a mother and a father. Such a family is the ideal for the future of the child and for the strength of the nation.

I wonder how it is that unelected judges, like some in my state of Massachusetts, are so unaware of this reality, so oblivious to the millennia of recorded history.

It's time for the people of America to fortify marriage through a constitutional amendment, so that liberal judges cannot continue to attack it.(APPLAUSE)

Europe -- Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That's the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life, and eroded morality.

And finally, let's consider the greatest challenge facing America, and for that matter facing the entire civilized world: the threat of radical, violent jihad.

(APPLAUSE)

As you know, in one wing of the world of Islam there's a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate. These jihadists will battle any form of democracy because to them democracy is blasphemous, because it says that citizens, not God, shape the law.

Today we are a nation at war. And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror: They would retreat, declare defeat.

And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that would make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child's play. About this, I have no doubt.

Now, I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know.

But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, and finding and executing Osama bin Laden.

(APPLAUSE)

And I agree with him on eliminating Al Qaida and terror worldwide.

Now, if I fight on, in my campaign, all the way to the convention...

ROMNEY: ... I want you to know, I've given this a lot of thought -- I'd forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I'd make it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win.

Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.(APPLAUSE)

Thank you so very much. I love you. Thank you.

Fuck you, Mitt Romney.

Where shall I begin?

The France of the 21st Century? Let's see, France has a higher standard of living, lower costs in virtually every aspect of life, higher life expectancies, lower infant mortalities, lower crime rates, and national health care.

The only thing France has going against it is they were too smart to get involved in our grand adventure in Iraq.

Most people are up in arms about Romney's crack that voting for Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama is surrendering in the war on terrorism.

I'm just as pissed off as anyone about that, but there's more. The stuff about embracing pornography is a cheap shot, but that's no biggie. As usual, Mitt isn't letting facts interfere with a good soundbite. Nor does it bother me that he's digging the whole "marriage is for making babies so gay marriage is bad" schtick. Same shit, different day.

What gets me is the rant on which he went about religion. America's turning away from religion, and that's bad. We're becoming just like Europe, and that's bad. (What's going on in France, for example. All that healthy living and cowardly common sense). (And what the hell's a "demographic nightmare?" Sounds like something Ralph Reed would rant about. "Not enough white people out there! That's bad! Bad!")

And yet, a few paragraphs later, he's ranting about how evil the jihadists are because they hate democracy. What was it he said?

These jihadists will battle any form of democracy because to them democracy is blasphemous, because it says that citizens, not God, shape the law.

What was that, Mitt? Less religion is bad, but jihadists are bad because they want more of God in government?

Make up your fucking mind!

But you can't, Mitt! You're the main entree at the Waffle House! You were pro gay rights before you were against them, you were pro choice before you were anti-choice, and you were a middling-average governor before you decided to whore yourself out to Dobson and his ilk and turn yourself into a hypocrite. Or, I should say, a bigger hypocrite.

You're one of the reasons the Dems are going to win this year, Mitt. You're an example of how the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has become a cabal of neo-pseudo-fascists who want to turn back the clock to when religious zealots ruled Europe (remember them, Mitt? The Dark Ages? The Inquisition? Feudalism? The Black Plague? The Hundred Years War? The Divine Right of Kings? The Crusades?)

The people didn't want to believe anyone could be so stupidly anti-American, but now that they've seen you and your ilk for what you are, that'll be the end of it.

Like I said before, I almost wish you'd been the nominee so you could suffer even more humiliating pain this November.

As it is, good riddance to bad rubbish.

Fuck you, Mitt Romney.

High Heels Are Good For Sex??

Sweet! My lovely wife hates wearing them, but hey! Science!

High heels 'may improve sex life'

An Italian urologist and self-professed lover of the sexy shoe set out to prove that high heels were not as bad for women's health as some suggest.

The shoe has been linked to a range of problems - from corns to schizophrenia.

But in a letter to European Urology, Dr Maria Cerruto said her research showed it was time to stand up for the heel.

She said her study of 66 women under 50 found that those who held their foot at a 15 degree angle to the ground - the equivalent of a two inch heel - had as good posture as those who wore flat shoes, and crucially showed less electrical activity in their pelvic muscles.

This suggested the muscles were at an optimum position, which could well improve their strength and ability to contract.

The pelvic floor muscles are an essential component of the female body. As well as assisting sexual performance and satisfaction, they provide vital support to the pelvic organs, which include the bladder, bowels and uterus.

But they often weaken after pregnancy and childbirth, and as the woman gets older. There are exercises to strengthen them, but Dr Cerruto hopes her findings may eliminate the need for these.

"Women often have difficulty in carrying out the right exercises for the pelvic zone and wearing heels could be the solution," she said.

"Like many women, I like high-heeled shoes," she added. "It's good to know they have potential health benefits."

Gill Brook, a women's health physiotherapist in Bradford, stressed the findings did not suggest that stilettos were a good thing for those keen on improving their pelvic floor function.

"But for women who like a slightly higher heel, these are reassuring findings - although we haven't yet done away with the need for regular exercises to maintain what is such an important part of the female body."

Not that I need a pretext to show images of women in high heels...
















but it's nice to have one anyway.

Conventions Are Good For The Local Service Economy

I don't have much to add to this. Speaking as a resident of the Mile High City, I'm looking forward to this summer.

DNC boost for sex biz
Denver can expect prostitution spike during convention
By Daniel J. Chacon

Originally published 12:30 a.m., February 4, 2008
Updated 03:33 p.m., February 4, 2008

Political tricks may not be the only ones turned during the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August.

The sex and adult entertainment industries are expecting a boom in business when an estimated 35,000 visitors descend on the Mile High City for the presidential nominating bash.

At the Pepsi Center, the focus will be on a single nominee.

But outside the event, the choices available to the delegates, journalists and others are unlimited, giving new meaning to the term "conventional sex."

More than six months before the convention comes to Denver, the offerings already online range from Claudia the "she- male porn star" to Erin the "adorable college cutie," whose $300- an-hour services are guaranteed to "leave you breathless."

Surprised?

Don't be.

Denver is, after all, home to Mike Jones, the beefy male prostitute who claimed to have bedded the Rev. Ted Haggard in his Capitol Hill apartment.

Jay Watson, who promises an unforgettable milk bath and lotion massage for $125 an hour, said he's expecting to be busy during the DNC Aug. 25-28.

Why?

"Because look at me," said Watson, a 25-year-old Aurora man with a Mohawk. "I'm cute. I'm sexy and I deliver it all."

'More business' from GOP

Too bad for Watson and others like him that Denver didn't land the GOP convention instead, said Carol Leigh, a San Francisco prostitute "over 50" who has traveled to previous Democratic conventions in Los Angeles and Atlanta.

"It would be a lot better for the sex workers if it was the Republican convention," she said.

"We get a lot more business. I don't know if they're just frustrated because of the family values agenda," she said.

When the Republican convention was held in New York in 2004, some sex workers offered limited-time discounts, according to New York Magazine, which ran a feature story titled "The Girls in Their Summer Hot Pants."

Officer Ana Aguirre, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles police, which hosted the DNC in 2000, said there's "definitely a spike" in prostitution during large events like political conventions.

In Denver, said police spokesman Sonny Jackson, "We're preparing to handle a variety of issues that may come up."

Even though they attract a lot of people, political conventions aren't the most profitable for the men and women in the world's oldest profession, Leigh said.

"Computer conventions can be lucrative," she said. "There's a lot of nerds that don't get out much."

But money is money, and the Democrats are expected to inject millions of dollars into the metro area when they flock into town.

"We're preparing to be busy for that convention," said Tracy, a manager for Bare Assets, a Denver-based adult entertainment agency that does everything "from singing telegrams to novelty acts to topless to nude."

Tracy declined to give her last name or say whether the agency had any DNC-related bookings.

"Whether it be because of the convention or because it's somebody's bachelor party, it's just private (information)," she said.

Jumps in advertising

Beverly Chastain, a door girl at the Diamond Cabaret & Steakhouse, a gentleman's club downtown, said reservations should start picking up this month.

"When it comes to conventions and stuff, we do free entry for it and then we just plan on advertising our lunch buffet and stuff more," she said.

Taylor Wheeler, classified sales manager for Westword, a weekly that includes an escort and body rub section, said his staff is expecting an increase in personals as the DNC approaches.

"I can't say it didn't cross our mind with all the delegates in town that they might be kind of on their own," he said.

Advertising for escorts and other personals jumped when the NBA All-Star game was in town, he said.

Oregon Joins The Cause

What a difference four years makes. Last Presidential election cycle, states were running away from the idea of giving gay couples their rights. Now they're running in the other direction.

Domestic Partnerships Allowed in Oregon
By JULIA SILVERMAN – 2 days ago

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A state law allowing gay couples to register as domestic partners belatedly took effect Friday after a federal judge ruled the state's process of disqualifying petition signatures was consistent enough to be valid.

The state quickly announced that the domestic partnership applications were available online, and jubilant gay-rights activists predicted hundreds of couples would line up on Monday morning at county offices to register.

"We're a family. We've been waiting for this for a long time," said a beaming Cathy Kravitz of Portland. She said she and her partner of 21 years will be among those registering on Monday.

The law passed by the 2007 Legislature was to take effect when the new year started, but U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman suspended it to hear testimony about a petition drive that sought to put the law before voters.

*****

Oregon becomes the ninth state to approve spousal rights in some form for gay couples, joining Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maine, California, Washington and Hawaii. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay couples to marry.

One thing to keep in mind is that all this good news won't go very far until states start honoring reciprocity agreements with each other on this issue.

For example, Colorado recognizes common law marriage. New Mexico doesn't. However, if a common-law married Colorado couple goes into New Mexico, New Mexico will consider the Colorad marraige valid through the states' reciprocity agreement.

In other words, for now a Massachusetts gay marriage is valid only in Massachusetts. Once other states start recognizing valid gay marriages from other states, then we've got progress.

Dial-A-Porn

Yet one more way porn is good for society...it's on the cutting edge of technology.

Pornographers thinking small
By Sinead Carew, Reuters
January 31, 2008

NEW YORK -- Size matters in pornography, except when it comes to tiny mobile phone screens, the next frontier for erotica.

If the adult entertainment industry has its way, Americans will soon get a choice of free porn on cellphones, or at least some photographs of good-looking girls in bikinis.

Unlike in Europe, mobile porn has yet to take off in North America as carriers have been afraid of offending political and religious groups and parents concerned about children being exposed to adult content.

That might change this year as phone companies plan to relax control on their networks to allow a wider variety of gadgets and services, while introducing tools to shield minors. More advanced phones with better Web browsers like Apple Inc's iPhone also offer higher quality pictures and video.

"It will be impossible to stop the adult business exploitation of mobile entertainment," said Gregory Piccionelli, a lawyer specializing in adult entertainment at legal firm Piccionelli & Sarno.

He predicted that U.S. consumers might soon be offered free porn on mobile phones alongside paid services like live video or "adult dates," a term for prearranged sex with strangers.
*****
surfeit of free online porn sites has cut into profits that have come mainly from DVDs, videotapes and pay-per-view or subscription-based websites.

To survive, adult entertainers need to be on top of phone trends, said Jay Grdina, president of adult entertainment provider ClubJenna Inc., which he co-founded with his then-wife, world-famous porn star Jenna Jameson.

"If you don't evolve you're going to die. . . . We need to make sure we're ready," Grdina said in an interview before his keynote speech at this week's conference, where adult entertainment and technology companies are brainstorming over how to make mobile porn a viable business.
*****
Pornography has made inroads on cellphones in Europe, where it was a $775-million industry in 2007 that is projected to grow to $1.5 billion by 2012, with the global market reaching $3.5 billion in 2010, according to Britain-based Juniper Research.

By comparison, North America generated just $26 million last year as carriers shied away from porn sales. Canada's second-largest phone company Telus Corp., for example, withdrew a mobile porn service last year after complaints from hundreds of customers and criticism from the Catholic Church.

Analyst Michael King of technology research firm Gartner said he expected mobile porn to be more prevalent around 2009, when there will be more phones that can display high-quality graphics.

Porn is "one of the bigger pieces of Web revenue. You would assume the natural extension would be on mobile," King said.

One of the little-known truths about technology is the fact that sex is usually on the cutting edge of advancement. Digital film, videotape, the internet, VHS over Beta, DVDs, film itself, (one of the first-ever motion pictures was in fact pornographic), all the way back to when the first men started painting on cave walls. If there's a technological advancement, porn is there to (pardon the term) exploit it.

The whole thing gives "phone sex" a new meaning, doesn't it?

Wanna See a 1.4 million dollar ass shot?

FCC fines ABC over 'NYPD Blue'; network to appeal
LOS ANGELES, Jan 25 (Reuters) - The Federal Communications Commission on Friday said it plans to fine the Walt Disney Co's ABC network $1.4 million for airing an episode of "NYPD Blue" in 2003 that showed a woman's nude buttocks.

The company said it opposes the fine and plans to appeal.

In a notice filed on Friday, the agency said 52 television ABC stations in the Central and Mountain time zones had aired the scene at 9 p.m. in violation of federal restrictions against broadcasting "obscene material" between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

The whole story is here.

Obscene? Hardly. I think Charlotte Ross has a damn fine ass, IMHO. Once again, the Powers That Be apparently have nothing better to do than to hound the mass media for displaying the human body in its purest form. Violence? No problem. War images? No problem. (Okay, maybe the coffins of U.S. soldiers are a problem) The rantings of various sociopathic politicians and talking heads? No problem. A lovely set of buttocks? Problem! Does it even matter this show's been off the air for years?

Why do I bring this up now?

Well, the Super Bowl is this weekend...

BOOK REVIEW--"Cream, The Best Of The Erotica Readers and Writers Association"

What can I say about this book?

Not nearly enough! In 1996, visionary Adrienne Benedicks hooked up and plugged into the internet and discovered that while there was loads of porn on the World Wide Web, there wasn't much GOOD porn.

Okay, she decided. If I can't find any, I'll put some up myself.

Thus was the Erotica Readers And Writers Assocation born, the most high-class, most sophisticated, most intelligent, most raunchy, most smutty, most dirty, most bear-down-fuck-your-brains-out kickass website for quality porn (excuse me...erotica) on the internet.

After ten years of asking for and delivering the most high-quality literary and non-literary smut on the internet, Adrienne decided it was time to expose the print world to what the rest of us have discovered. The ERWA is home to some damn good writers, and it's time to put some of their work onto the printed page.

Thus was CREAM, The Best Of The Erotica Readers And Writers Association born. With the indispensible help of Lisabet Sarai, literary smut writer and editor extraordinaire, (may her red-ink pen never run dry), Adrienne sifted through the ERWA vaults for some, (not all....there are only so many trees to devote to the cause) of the website's best works, and CREAM is the result.

One of the most entertaining elements of this book is the diversity of the writing, and of the smut contained within its pages. The exotic elegance of Lisabet Sarai's "Mad Dogs," the culturally uplifting kink of Cervo's "An Evening at Katzenspieler's," the darkly noirish "What Was Lost" by Robert Buckley, the just plain hot "Challenger Deep" by Kathleen Bradean...I could go on and on.

Suffice it to say, part of the problem with erotica is the stereotype that erotic writing has to be crap. CREAM is proof positive that it's not. If you haven't done so yet, check out the Erotica Readers And Writers Association here. If you haven't yet picked up CREAM, it's still on sale at Borders and other fine bookstores, or you can go to Amazon here.

Well worth your time.

This Is What Adult Freedom Is All About...

Observe this picture...


A little freaky? A little disturbing? Sure. Imagine this sight walking down a London street.

However, THIS is what's truly disturbing.

"Pet" girl kicked off bus for wearing leash Wed Jan 23, 1:24 PM ET


LONDON (Reuters) - A British bus company has apologized to a girl who is led around on a leash by her boyfriend and describes herself as a human pet after one of its drivers threw her off a bus.

Tasha Maltby, 19, told British newspapers she was the "pet" of her 25-year-old fiance Dani Graves.

Pictures showed her dressed in black Gothic-style clothing with silver buckles on a silver chain -- which the driver of a bus from the firm Arriva took exception to.

She told the Daily Mail newspaper Wednesday she was thrown off and told: "We don't let freaks and dogs like you on."
Arriva would not comment on specifics but said it apologized if the couple felt they had been discriminated against. It added, however, that the driver was worried about safety and the company told Maltby to take the leash off in the future.

"We have spoken to the driver who has talked about health and safety," a spokesman said. "Should she be attached to a chain and something happens on the bus, that could be dangerous. All we are saying is that she is very welcome to use the buses but not when she is on her lead."

Maltby -- who lives on state benefits and got engaged in November -- said her choice of lifestyle might seem unusual but was harmless.

"I am a pet," she told the Daily Mail. "I generally act animal-like and I lead a really easy life. I don't cook or clean and I don't go anywhere without Dani. It might seem strange but it makes us both happy. It's my culture and my choice. It isn't hurting anyone."

The emphasis is mine.

First of all, I don't buy that bullshit about "safety" issues. Calling the two of them freaks and dogs isn't addressing a safety issue. It's being mean for its own sake.

Secondly, and this is important, Ms. Maltby got to the core of what Adult Freedom is all about. "It makes us both happy. It's my culture and my choice. It isn't hurting anyone."

In other words, if you don't like watching a man lead a woman on a leash, but she doesn't appear to be suffering any harm...

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!

This is all I'm saying.

At least the bus company apologized. If this had happened in the U.S., the bus driver would've been booked on "The 700 Club" and hailed as a hero for doing his part to eradicate the heathens from our midst.

Republican Presidential Candidates: Anti-Choice, right? Yeah, kinda

I found this interesting.

Lip Service to Life
Posted at: 2008-01-23 09:47:00.0
Author: Michael Sean Winters

The annual March for Life has come and gone. One of its more bizarre qualities is the way GOP presidents participate: by recorded message or telephone hook-up, but never in person. This began during Ronald Reagan's presidency when some advisors did not want a photo beamed around the world of Reagan addressing the crowd, but those same advisors knew they had to at least acknowledge the role that pro-life forces played in Reagan's 1980 victory. Reagan could look out the window of the Oval Office and see that marchers, as could every president since, but the phone connection has remained the means of participation. Even George W. Bush, who will never face another election and seems plenty unconcerned about the political fallout of other decisions, could not manage to emerge from his office to address the crowd in person.

Yesterday's march in Washington was no different. Presidential aspirant John McCain sent a letter to the marchers that was read by fellow Sen. Sam Brownback. Mitt Romney, whose previous flip-flop on abortion has earned him a great deal of suspicion from conservative voters, issued a press release that is buried on his campaign's Web site. Mike Huckabee participated in a March for Life in Atlanta. Ron Paul had the most significant abortion-related news of the day, announcing the endorsement of his candidacy by Norma McCorvey, who was "Jane Roe" in the Roe v. Wade court case that landed before the Supreme Court in 1973.
***
This bizarre "telephone hook-up" is, in both the literal and figurative senses of the phrase, lip service to the cause.

The most interesting thing I find about this is the fact that it's coming from an anti-choice website. I remember back in '92, then-Vice President Dan Quayle caught some shit because after a lot of hemming and hawing, he admitted that if one of his daughters had been caught in an unwanted pregnancy, he'd respect her decision to possibly get an abortion.

The Holy Terrors must be having shitfits. All this time, their designated whores have been sucking their dicks and insisting that they're as anti-choice as are their pimps, but when it comes right down to it, the spineless bastards just don't have the balls to let the Holy Terrors cum in their mouths and gulp it down.

Not even Mike Huckabee, which surprises me. He's the closest thing I know of to one of the True Believers, but even he weaseled out of a true commitment.

One More Thing...

This website's kinda cool.




























It's a little weird thinking that these lovely ladies are probably going by "Grandma" now, plus I don't understand a word of French, but still...

Gay Couples Just as Stable/Unstable as Straight Couples

This is from Forbes, so you know it's serious.

Same-Sex Couples Just as Committed as Heterosexual Counterparts
01.22.08, 12:00 AM ET

TUESDAY, Jan. 22 (HealthDay News) -- Same-sex couples are as committed and happy in their romantic relationships as heterosexual couples, find two studies in the January issue of the journal Developmental Psychology.

The authors of the studies say their findings challenge the stereotype that same-sex relationships aren't as healthy or secure as heterosexual pairings.

*****
The researchers found that all the couples had positive views of their relationships, but the more committed couples (gay or straight) resolved conflict better than the heterosexual dating couples.

The belief that committed same-sex relationships are "atypical, psychologically immature, or malevolent contexts of development was not supported by our findings," noted lead author Glenn I. Roisman. "Compared with married individuals, committed gay males and lesbians were not less satisfied with their relationships."

*****
The three-year study found that same-sex couples were similar to heterosexual couples in most relationship areas and that legal status didn't seem to be the overriding factor affecting same-sex relationships.

Regardless of civil union status, same-sex couples were more satisfied with their relationships, reported more positive feelings toward their partners, and reported less conflict than married heterosexual couples.

The researchers did find that same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to end their relationships than same-sex couples in civil unions or married heterosexual couples. This suggests that protections offered by a legalized relationship may have an impact on same-sex couples, said the researchers, who plan to examine that question in future research.

One more homophobic stereotype shot all to hell.

Al Gore On Gay Rights

Posted on his Current network yesterday. I tried to get a direct link to his website, but this'll have to do.

Here's the transcript.

I think it’s wrong for the government to discriminate against people because of that person’s sexual orientation.

I think that gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women, to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage, and I don’t understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage to allow it by gays and lesbians.

Shouldn’t we be promoting that kind of faithfulness and loyalty to one’s partner regardless of sexual orientation? Because if you don’t do that then to that extent you are promoting promiscuity and you are promoting all the problems that can result from promiscuity.

And the loyalty and love that two people feel for one another when they fall in love ought to be celebrated and encouraged, and shouldn’t be prevented by any form of discrimination in the law.

That's what it's all about. There's no good reason to deprive every consenting adult of the rights which heterosexual people enjoy.

Dammit, what might have been? Bush v. Gore and the 2000 election in general are going to go down in history as some of the darkest moments in this nation's history. We could'a had Al Gore. We should'a had Al Gore. We got this.
Damn, now I'm depressed.

The Economics of Prostitution

From The Economist, naturally enough.

Steven Leavett's most famous for his book, "Freakonomics," which I thought was an interesting read, to say the least.

Anyway, back to the economics of the World's Oldest Profession:

Economics focus

Selling sex
Jan 17th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Economists let some light in on the shady market for paid sex

*****

The star attraction there (the annual meeting of the American Economic Association, held in New Orleans) was Steven Levitt, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and co-author of “Freakonomics”, a best-selling book. Mr Levitt presented preliminary findings* from a study conducted with Sudhir Venkatesh, a sociologist at Columbia University.

The results are fascinating. Almost half of the city's arrests for prostitution take place in just 0.3% of its street corners. The industry is concentrated in so few locations because prostitutes and their clients need to be able to find each other. Earnings are high compared with other jobs. Sex workers receive $25-30 per hour, roughly four times what they could expect outside prostitution. Yet this wage premium seems paltry considering the stigma and inherent risks. Sex without a condom is the norm, so the possibility of contracting a sexually transmitted infection (STI) is high. Mr Levitt reckons that sex workers can expect to be violently assaulted once a month. The risk of legal action is low. Prostitutes are more likely to have sex with a police officer than to be arrested by one.

Pricing strategies are much like any other business. Fees vary with the service provided and prostitutes maximise returns by segmenting the market. Clients are charged according to their perceived ability to pay, with white customers paying more than black ones. When negotiating prices, prostitutes will usually make an offer to black clients, but will solicit a bid from a white client. There are some anomalies. Although prices increase with the riskiness of an act, the premium charged for forgoing a condom is much smaller than found in other studies. And attractive prostitutes were unable to command higher fees.

*****

Although all speakers at the session were careful not to draw very strong conclusions from preliminary findings, a few broad themes nevertheless emerged. In many respects, the paid-sex industry is much like any other business. Pricing strategies are familiar from other settings. Despite evidence of a myopic attitude towards risk, there have been plenty of recent examples of that in the finance industry too. Illegality and lack of regulation are likely to heighten public-health risks. The Ecuador study concluded that rigorous policing of street prostitution might limit the spread of STIs by directing sex workers into the safer environs of licensed brothels.

The business of prostitution is just like any other business. What a shock.

The reason I'm bringing this up now is to answer the question, "How much freedom is involved in the Adult Freedom platform? Where, for example, would an Adult Freedom advocate stand on the subject of prostitution?"

Answer: Big thumbs up, dude!

A key concept of the Adult Freedom platform is the position that whatever consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors is their own damn business and nobody else's. If someone wants to indulge in a little free enterprise, hey! Capitalism is a great economic system.

Of course, there are limits. The exploitation of children is always bad, and there are loads of horror stories about how prostitutes are abused and manipulated into grisly and nightmarish existences.

On the other hand, it's not always a nightmare. The working girls I've met all live lives that are a far cry from the miserable "wandering-the-streets, offering twenty-bucks-a-blowjob" existence that seems to be perpetuated in the mass media. I'm not saying the life of a prostitute is all beer and Skittles, mind you. I'm just saying that it's also more than the bleak "Hookers On The Point" scenario, as well.

Ultimately, if a woman (or a man) freely opts to let the meter run while indulging in a little carnal knowledge, I'm all for it, and a truly sincere believer in Adult Freedom ought to feel the same way.

And hey, if prostitution is legalized, (and this is the liberal in me), let's tax the shit out of it! That ought to pay for a few social programs!

Something from Barack Obama

Can't help getting excited over this one.

From his speech at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s church in Atlanta, Georgia.

We are told that those who differ from us on a few things are different from us on all things; that our problems are the fault of those who don't think like us or look like us or come from where we do. The welfare queen is taking our tax money. The immigrant is taking our jobs. The believer condemns the non-believer as immoral, and the non-believer chides the believer as intolerant.

For most of this country's history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man's inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays - on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.

And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community.

We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.

Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media. And last week, it even crept into the campaign for President, with charges and counter-charges that served to obscure the issues instead of illuminating the critical choices we face as a nation.

So let us say that on this day of all days, each of us carries with us the task of changing our hearts and minds. The division, the stereotypes, the scape-goating, the ease with which we blame our plight on others - all of this distracts us from the common challenges we face - war and poverty; injustice and inequality. We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate. It is the poison that we must purge from our politics; the wall that we must tear down before the hour grows too late.

Because if Dr. King could love his jailor; if he could call on the faithful who once sat where you do to forgive those who set dogs and fire hoses upon them, then surely we can look past what divides us in our time, and bind up our wounds, and erase the empathy deficit that exists in our hearts.

The emphasis is mine.

First, I haven't been riding the Obama bandwagon yet. He talks a good game, but you gotta be willing to walk the walk, too. I've been a little skeptical, so far.

And yet, now I've got a little enthusiasm for the guy. Dr. King himself didn't speak much about the rights of homosexuals, but Coretta Scott King did, so it was nice that the Senator brought it up in the Good Doctor's church.

Secondly, and this is important, the Holy Terrors have been very good at keeping African-American churches from being too enthusiastic about supporting Democratic candidates by encouraging homophobia. "Yeah, we're racist bigots, but that's better than being faggot lovers!" If Senator Obama can bridge that divide, more power to him.

Wow. First Senator Clinton, now Senator Obama are expressing support for gay rights. What's next?

I know, I know...

another scheme change. Can't make up my friggin' mind. Like my Lovely Wife when she's re-arranging the family room.
























In the meantime, something to apologize for the inconvenience.

Oh, and one more thing....

In the wake of all the excitement over Hillary's revelation, I almost forgot...






















'cuz you just can't have too many photos of naked women, IMHO

Great News From Hillary Clinton

I was all set to go off on Mike Huckabee today, but that can wait.

This is what it's all about.

What would we do without Americablog? And Tyra Banks?

BANKS: (Reading a question ) "I am a lesbian and my partner of 20 years is sick. She can't afford her medical expenses and because we are not legally married, my policy won't cover her. How can you help us?"

HRC: I believe that if you are in a committed relationship, you ought to be able to have your benefits go to that person, or to anyone else. Suppose you are living with your brother and you want him to have your benefits. He wants you to have your benefits. Suppose you are taking care of and living with your mother. If you are in a committed relationship, no matter what that relationship is.

BANKS: Woman, woman, man, man, it doesn't matter.

HRC: That's right. I believe the benefits are yours and you ought to be able to give them and pass them on to whomever you choose. Also, as we begin to see different states making these decisions, civil unions, domestic partners and, marriage, the federal government ought to make all of the benefits through Social Security and other programs available to any legally recognized relationship and I intend to do that.

I've always been a Bill Clinton fan, which made me a Hillary Clinton fan, too. I remember meeting her in '92 and thinking, "Damn! If Bill Clinton's got her in his corner, he might be pretty good! Can I vote for her?"

And yet, in recent years, while I've been a Hillary fan, I haven't been a BIG Hillary fan. She hasn't been my first choice. I've been hoping for more leadership from her in the Senate, and I've been disappointed. Still, this is making me re-think my lack of enthusiasm.

To repeat myself, this is what it's all about. Marriage isn't just about love and companionship and all that guff. It's about property rights, it's about legal rights, it's about rights to benefits. There's no good reason to deprive Steve and Phil of the same rights my Lovely Wife and I share, other than to just be cruel.

This is big.

Girl On Girl Action...why?

A very good question for the professor...



Here's what Ladythrills has to say on the subject...

Why women fantasize about women

There are myriad reasons why women fantasize about women, but the most common of which can be found below.

Why women fantasize about women #1
It’s acceptable
In today’s society, where we’re consistently saturated with images of sexy and sexual women, it’s common for all of us to look at each other in this sexual way and feel an attraction to one another.

Acting on those feelings is up to each individual woman alone, but the fact of the matter remains that if you tell a man you think another woman is hot, he’ll get excited, not offended. But if he did the same, most women would get turned off.

Why women fantasize about women #2
Stuck in sex rut
Sometimes, a long-term relationship can result in boring sex and this can easily lead a woman to have a wandering eye. And sometimes that eye hones in on women and not men.

More often than not, we don’t imagine that having sexual thoughts about other women is considered cheating or even wrong. Add to that the fact that most women check out other women and not men, and you have yourself a whole lot of women who are eyeing each other.

Why women fantasize about women #3
Women are attractive
Many women care about being stylish and taking care of themselves, so it’s easy to understand why other women fantasize about women. It’s intriguing to watch a woman put on her lipstick in a café or flip her hair to the side.

Women have many more attributes to admire than men do - soft skin, makeup, hairstyles, clothes, shoes, shape - so it’s no wonder that we stare and study each other; sometimes with a desiring eye.

Why women fantasize about women #4
Media encourages it
While lesbianism used to be relegated to pornographic movies, nowadays, it seems that women are making out with each other on reality TV, on TV shows, and in mainstream film.

This is where women fantasize about other women. It’s easy to wonder what your attractive girlfriend would taste like, or how a certain female celebrity kisses.

Why women fantasize about women #5
They’re fantasies
For most women, imagining themselves with another woman will remain a fantasy and will never be realized, so it gives us a sense of safety knowing that our private sex sessions with Angelina Jolie will remain in our psyche.

As well, when women fantasize about women, more often than not, they don’t fear that these fantasies will consume them. Most women who secretly desire other women are actually content with their heterosexual relationships, so there’s no apprehension about thinking about kissing other women.

Women fantasize about women

There’s nothing new about women wanting to be with women; it has gone on for centuries. But thanks to mass media and an abundance of sexually charged ads and programming, our brains can easily imagine the touch and taste of another woman.

Living out your fantasies is in your hands; you have the option to go for it, or to sit back and engage in the thoughts alone, but whatever your decision, there’s no doubt that women fantasize about women, and there’s a good chance that one has fantasized about you.

Lots of wisdom in that blog, but that leads to the next question....what's in it for us guys?

Speaking only for myself, (and I've researched this subject VERY thorougly), I can only say that I find any woman in a state of arousal to be very erotic, and it inspires my own state of arousal.

So, if a woman is in a state of arousal for another woman? Or even more than one?


Hey! Do the math!

Women's Bisexuality Is Not A Phase

Just something I found in the USA Today.

By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY

Bisexuality among women isn't just a phase, according to new research that followed 79 non-heterosexual women for a decade and found that bisexual women continue to be attracted to both sexes over time.

Being bisexual is a distinct orientation, not a temporary stage, says the study by Lisa Diamond, an associate professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah.

She found that bisexual women were more likely than lesbians to switch between describing themselves as bisexual and unlabeled, rather than to identify as lesbian or heterosexual.
*****
"If it was a phase, it should have burnt out," Diamond says. "They might have a change in identity and relationships, but that pattern of non-exclusive desire is still there, even among those who have married. It debunks the notion of it being a phase."
*****
Diamond says heterosexual women may "experiment with same-sex desires and behaviors, but if they really are predominantly heterosexual, they may enjoy experimentation but may not change their sexuality."

The study also debunks the stereotype that bisexual women aren't able to commit to monogamous relationships because they're always thinking about desire for the other gender.

I just find it interesting because the Holy Terrors love to rant and rave that since they believe homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" and not a real orientation, it's okay to discriminate against homosexuals. By this evidence that people really don't choose who they're attracted to, it's one more blow to their so-called "logic."

Not that it really matters. The Holy Terrors don't believe in science, logic or common sense.

And even if it is just a "choice" to be attracted to the same sex, so what?

More on that later.

10 Good Reasons To Have Sex

As if we needed more...
consider this a public service.

10 reasons why we should have sex
by Jelly
January 8th, 2008 @ 05:45 AM

1. Scientific tests find that when women make love, they produce double amounts of the hormone estrogen, which make hair shiny and skin smooth.

2. Gentle, relaxed lovemaking reduces your chances of suffering dermatitis, skin rashes and blemishes. The sweat produced cleanses the pores and makes your skin glow.

3. Lovemaking can burn up those calories you piled on during that romantic dinner.

4. Sex is one of the safest sports you can take up. It stretches and tones up just about every muscles in the body. It’s more enjoyable than swimming 20 laps and you don’t need special
sneakers!

5. Sex is an instant cure for mild depression. It releases the body endorphin into the bloodstream, producing a sense of euphoria and leaving you with a feeling of well-being.

6. The more sex you have, the more you will be offered. The sexually active body gives off greater quantities of chemicals called pheromones. These subtle sex perfumes drive the
opposite sex crazy!

7. Sex is the safest tranquillizer in the world. It is 10 times more effective than Valium.

8. Kissing each day will keep the dentist away. Kissing encourages saliva to wash food from the teeth and lowers the level of the acid that causes decay, preventing plaque
build-up.

9. Sex actually relieves headaches. A lovemaking session can release the tension that restrict blood vessels in the brain.

10. A lot of lovemaking can unblock a stuffy nose. Sex is a natural antihistamine. It can help combat asthma and hay fever.

Another vicory in the War On Whoopie!!!

This is out of Pennsylvania.

A royal reception for 'King & King'?A local couple's attempt to have a gay-themed book banned spurred others to make it far more available.
By Kevin Amerman | Of The Morning Call
January 6, 2008

A controversial gay-themed children's book which just weeks ago was unavailable at most local public libraries is now more widely accessible after a couple's attempt to have the book removed from the Lower Macungie Library backfired.
Following news coverage of the library's denial of the request, a local gay activist group sent it a $50 donation and purchased the controversial book ''King & King'' for four area public libraries that didn't carry it. At least three of the libraries in Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton have accepted the book into their circulations following reviews.

''We're a district library, so we try to have a wide selection of books,'' said Melanie Fisk, youth services coordinator at the Bethlehem Area Public Library.

Fisk said the library also received another copy of ''King & King'' and its sequel through anonymous donations, and they too have been accepted into circulation.

''King & King,'' a tale about a prince who is urged by his aging mother to marry a princess but instead falls in love with and marries a princess's brother, has caused controversy nationwide.

In September, Jeff and Eileen Issa began urging the Lower Macungie Library to take the book out of the children's section of the library, saying the topic of homosexuality is too heavy for small children. Appalled by images of two princes standing together at an altar and later kissing, the couple encouraged about 40 other residents to sign a petition to yank it from the library. The couple eventually petitioned the township supervisors, who voted 2-1 in November not to overrule the library.

The library said it strives to provide books with varying themes and said parents should be the ones to screen books if they chose to. The Pennsylvania Diversity Network, headquartered in Allentown, applauded the stance with its donation and purchased four copies of ''King & King'' for the other libraries.

Emphasis added.

Several points to make about this issue.

1. The Holy Terrors have once again demonstrated that they hold the rest of us in contempt. Rather than trust us to judge for ourselves what we might want our children to be exposed to, they insist on removing from us our right to exercise that judgment. Maybe I want my children to be exposed to the concept of homosexuality at an early age, especially when the subject relates carefully to tolerance and acceptance of "deviant" lifestyles, and of the choices other people make when it comes to their sex lives. Then again, maybe I DON'T want my kids exposed to that stuff. But the point is, they're MY kids, and the decision should be left up to me, instead of Jeff and Eileen Issa.

2. This is why, ultimately, the Holy Terrors will lose this War On Whoopie, for the same reasons attempts to censor and stifle free expression always fail. Telling someone they can't do something is the perfect way to guarantee they'll take a stab at it. Any parent knows that.

More later. Maybe. I've just taken a heavy duty painkiller and washed it down with a couple of beers. I can feel the fur growing on my brain.

Yet another recent column

ALL WORKED UP ABOUT KIDS AND SEX
By J.T. Benjamin
Copr. 2007

I’ve got a brother-in-law, Charlie, with whom I don’t get along very well. It’s not just because I’m doing The Nasty with his baby sister, either. See, Charlie’s what I call a “Holy Terror,” one of those ultra-right-wing Fundamentalist Christians who think this country’s a whole lot better off now that God’s Chosen One, George W. Bush, is President, and that we all need to toe the rigid, anal-retentive holier-than-thou line of Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, et. al. if we want to get this country back on track.

Normally, I get along just fine with Holy-Terror types as people. Really, I do. After all, they can’t help being wrong about everything, and I understand that. However, Charlie’s a different matter.

See, Charlie feels that by virtue of his status not only as my Lovely Wife’s brother but also as one of the ones who know The Truth about the way the world operates, he’s entitled to sit in judgment of me and the way I raise my kids. It’s not enough that since she met me, my Lovely Wife has enjoyed the occasional glass of wine or coffee, read scandalous novels, associated with known homosexuals, or even that she’s even (shudder) voted for Democrats on several occasions.

Oh, no. It’s not enough, indeed.

What makes it worse is my pernicious influence has trickled down to my own children, his nieces and nephew as well. The horror. Charlie finds it intolerable that my kids listen to music of which he doesn’t approve, watch movies and TV of which he doesn’t approve, talk about things of which he doesn’t approve, and otherwise act nothing like the way he thinks kids should act.

Under most circumstances, when I encounter someone with that sort of attitude towards MY kids, I adopt my usual “Mind Your Own Business” mantra and say, “Go fuck yourself.” However, in the interest of family harmony, when Charlie shoots off his mouth about my parenting skills, I just nod my head, ask someone to pass the sweet potatoes, and I then deftly change the subject.

Now, I’m about to disclose some confidential information. If Charlie or my in-laws ever found this out, they’d just shit bricks, so keep it under your collective hats, okay? I’m not worried about their finding out on this website, because ERWA isn’t really their cup of tea. I’m just concerned that sometime, somewhere, somebody might bump into my brother-in-law and casually say, “Hey, I read something very interesting by that ‘All Worked Up’ guy.”

Anyway, here’s the secret. My fifteen-year-old daughter has made a request of my Lovely Wife and me. She wants a vibrator.

And my Lovely Wife and I are thrilled.

Now, acceding to that request could possibly be construed as contributing to the delinquency of a minor and/or sexual exploitation of a child by certain narrow-minded anal-retentive assholes in the Federal and state governments. Naturally, my Lovely Wife and I have NO intention of breaking the law. You hear that, F.B.I., Homeland Security, and Attorney General Gonzales? We have NO intention of breaking the law.

Still, my Lovely Wife and I are tickled to death.

Why? Because our daughter, acting like any normal teenager, is curious about sex and she wants to experiment with and discover her sexual identity. However, our daughter is acting very UN-like most other normal teenagers when it comes to that experimentation.

You see, she came to us.

Her parents.

Specifically, she came to my Lovely Wife with this request. My daughter’s not comfortable bringing this sort of thing up with Dear Old Dad just yet, and I understand that. I also understand that like any other fifteen-year old, she’d die, just DIE of embarrassment if she found out not only that Daddy knows about what she wants, but also that Daddy blabbed about this on the internet, so now that I think about it, there are TWO secrets I’d like you to keep, okay?

But I digress…

In our current political climate, the Powers That Be in control of the government are of the opinion that when it comes to sex education and our children, the best course of action is an “out of sight, out of mind” approach. It’s called “Abstinence Only” sex education, or more accurately, “Ignorance Only” sex ed. The idea is that if we teach our kids about sex, they’re going to want to experiment with what they learn. If we don’t let them gain any useful information, they’ll spend their remaining childhood days in blissful ignorance. Don’t teach our kids birth control, don’t teach them about their bodies, don’t teach them about issues such as sexually transmitted diseases, avoiding pregnancy, masturbation, homosexuality, or even kinks and turn-ons, and instead teach them not to discuss or even think about sex until their wedding nights, when hopefully all the necessary information will somehow be absorbed through osmosis.

Naturally, this “ignorance only” sex ed has the same spectacular rate of success as does everything else the Bush Administration does. That is, it’s a complete failure.

A recent report by Mathematica Policy Research Inc. analyzed four abstinence only sex-ed programs and concluded that “the programs had no effect on the sexual abstinence of youth.” That’s right. Your tax dollars are hard at work having no impact at all on keeping kids from having sex or getting pregnant.

Not only that, but your tax dollars are being used to lie to kids about sex. In December of 2004, Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman of California issued a report documenting how many abstinence-only sex ed programs not only attempt to keep teens ignorant about sex, but they mislead them, as well.

The sordid details are here. http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf

To summarize:

Abstinence-only sex ed programs have “educated” teenagers that:

Condoms have little to no effect in preventing pregnancies, HIV/AIDS, or other sexually transmitted diseases. (Bullshit. When properly used, condoms have a success rate of greater than 97%).

Abortions render one woman in ten sterile and increase the risk of fetal birth defects in subsequent pregnancies. (More bullshit. The most common abortion procedures have no impact at all on subsequent pregnancies).

The HIV/AIDS virus can be spread through human sweat and tears. (Unbelievably outrageous bullshit, here. There’s never been a documented case of HIV/AIDS contracted through tears or sweat.)

One program stated that “twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create” a new individual. The correct number is twenty-THREE chromosomes, Dr. Science. Even Wikipedia got this one right. This same program also proclaimed that “boys produce both male and female sperm,” which should be news to biologists and physicians the world over.

And the abstinence-only programs aren’t just perpetuating scientific myths, either. They’re telling our teenagers that “Women gauge their happiness and judge their success through their relationships. Men’s happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments.” Women are more concerned with financial support and men are more concerned with domestic support. Women are naturally weaker, more emotional, and need more protection from the world while men are naturally more aggressive and emotionally shallow.

In other words, our kids are learning that when it comes to sex, their models ought to be Fred and Wilma Flintstone. Most importantly, our kids are learning that sex is something taboo, something that’s not discussed in polite society, or among friends, schoolmates, teachers, or anyone at all. Don’t worry about what you want or need or are curious about, just keep your legs crossed until your wedding night, and then just close your eyes and think of God and Country.

Not my daughter. No, she wants to think for herself. She wants to make her own decisions about the most intimate elements of her life. She wants to do things her way, and not just swallow the dreck the Holy Terrors and the Powers That Be are trying to force-feed her and her peers. And when she feels ready to experiment and when she has questions, she’s not relying on the media or her friends or her “ignorance-only” sex-ed teacher. She’s relying on people she trusts.

I’m so proud.

And what does all this have to do with my brother-in-law, Charlie? The guy who’s outraged that I let my kids occasionally watch Gwen Stefani videos?

Charlie has a problem. It seems his seventeen-year old son Adam got his fifteen-year old girlfriend pregnant. She was stuck in a bad situation at home and they decided the best way out of it was for her to get knocked up so they’d have to get married and she could move out of her house and into Charlie’s house. Adam wanted to talk to his dad about the whole situation before the rabbit died, but Adam and his dad have a hard time discussing S-E-X with each other.

I’m not saying that I’ll NEVER have those sorts of problems as my kids, all four of them, grow up and mature into sexual beings, but I feel better about their being able to make the right sorts of decisions about sex than Charlie’s kids have demonstrated so far.

I’m also not saying that I’m gloating over the misfortunes of my fellow human beings, especially those of family. However, if I WERE to gloat, I’d be doing the “I’m-not-going-to-be-a-grandfather-anytime-soon” dance right about now.

I’m not dancing.

Really, I’m not.

Another All Worked Up Column (Almost a year's worth to catch up on

ALL WORKED UP ABOUT THE PRICE OF BEAUTY
By J.T. Benjamin
Copr. 2007

Speaking of past columns…

A couple of years ago, I spent some time talking about my Lovely Wife’s physique. In my column entitled, “All Worked Up About BBWs,” I expounded on what sorts of terms might accurately describe my Lovely Wife’s figure: voluptuous, curvy, zaftig, Rubenesque, that sort of thing. I even invented a new term: BLQL. “Built Like Queen Latifah.” That one hasn’t caught on yet, but it’s only a matter of time.

Most of the responses I got to that column were overwhelmingly positive. Women everywhere expressed gratitude and appreciation that someone was supporting the position that you don’t have to look like a swimsuit model to be a hot ‘n sexy lust machine. Some of them even sent photos of themselves (UNSOLICITED photos, I might add) to demonstrate that they’re not afraid of showing off their voluptuous, tasty-looking bodies.

However, not all the responses I received were supportive. One email, from a woman I’ll call Laura, actually berated me about my position on my Lovely Wife’s physique. Laura went to great pains to outline the health risks that overweight women face, not the least of which are greater risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, circulatory issues, sleep apnia, and liver and other types of cancer. Laura seemed to believe that by thinking my Lovely Wife is hot just the way she is, I’m somehow enabling her to perpetuate what Laura called a “sedentary and unhealthy lifestyle.” In Laura’s opinion, both my Lovely Wife and I would be much happier, healthier, and better off if I spent less time accepting my Lovely Wife’s present physical condition and pushed her to go to Bally’s 24 Hour Fitness Center a little more often.

“You’re living in denial,” said Laura, “if you think your attitude doesn’t have consequences for the future. If you truly love your wife (and I think you do) you need to help her take the steps she needs to make sure she’s around as long as possible. You can’t appreciate her body if she’s dead.”

Now, I appreciated Laura’s willingness to write, but I honestly found her concern and her willingness to share her opinions on the health issues of a woman she’s never met, (UNSOLICITED opinions, I might add), a perfect example of how we’re all better off if we simply abide by my credo and say, “Laura, Mind Your Own Fucking Business.”

While I’m sure she meant well and was earnest in her concern for my Lovely Wife, it would be no more appropriate for her to draw conclusions about my Lovely Wife’s health than it would be for me to assume that Laura is one of those obsessive-compulsive fitness junkies who spends half her day on a treadmill or exercise bike, knows her cholesterol count like other people know their ATM PIN numbers, and whose lunch consists of celery, unbuttered popcorn, mineral water, and a finger down the throat.

Yes, assumptions are dangerous and wildly inappropriate. That hasn’t stopped Laura, however. Apparently, in Laura’s eyes my Lovely Wife has nothing on her daily agenda except to lie around on the couch, eating bon-bons and pork rinds, drinking Red Bull and watching TV all day long.

So, even though it’s no one else’s business, let me clear up a few misconceptions. My Lovely Wife works a full-time job, successfully manages a house full of four children and one emotionally immature adult (yours truly), strives to maintain as healthy a diet as possible, and in fact has the blood pressure and cholesterol count that much younger, much slimmer women would kill to have. She avoids red meat, eats lots of vegetables and hasn’t been inside a McDonald’s restaurant in four years. Her sex drive has improved with age, (woo-hoo!) and her family history is long on octogenarians and short on diabetes, cancer, and heart problems. In short, my Lovely Wife’s health is just fine, thank you very much, and it should remain so for a long time. The only real health issue my Lovely Wife has is that other people seem to think that because she’s BLQL, she must have health issues.

Why am I bringing all this up now?

My Lovely Wife and I had an interesting conversation the other day. She’d been invited to a jewelry party by a mutual friend of ours, whom I’ll call Shirley. Shirley’s another lady BLQL, and she’s quite charming. In fact, I’ve always found her kinda sexy.

Anyway, when my Lovely Wife came home from the party and I asked her to fill me in on the evening, my Lovely Wife said, “It went okay, but Shirley looked different.”

“How so,” I asked.

“She went on this crash diet. Nothing but protein shakes.”

“Really. How’s it working out for her?”

“She’s lost forty pounds in four months.”

“Wow!”

“She’s lots thinner than she was, but she looks like hell.”

“Why?”

“These protein shakes her doctor put her on had no carbohydrates in them at all. No sugar, no starches, nothing but protein. And Shirley wouldn’t eat anything else. Essentially, she’s been malnourishing herself and a couple of weeks ago she got so sick she had to have surgery to remove her gallbladder. She just got out of the hospital.”

“Why’d she go on such a crazy diet?”

“Why else,” said my Lovely Wife. “She wanted to be thinner and she was willing to take desperate measures.”

That reminded me of another mutual acquaintance who’d recently tried a radical weight-reduction technique. I asked my Lovely Wife, “Didn’t your friend Janet try that stomach-stapling surgery last year?”

“Yep. It’s called a gastric bypass.”

“How’s she doing?”

“Terrible. She’s been in and out of the hospital ever since. She contracted three separate infections, has had to have two more surgeries, one to remove her gallbladder, and she’s got a gaping four-inch hole in her abdomen. She’s on painkillers and intravenous anti-biotic treatments and she wants to die. But she did lose sixty pounds.”

Now, as I said before, I’ve always found Shirley to be kinda hot, and while Janet’s not my type, I know for a fact Janet’s husband Tom finds women who are BLQL a big turn-on. (I know this because Tom once hit on my Lovely Wife. As a joke, he says, but I know the spells she can cast on men’s loins.)

So what the hell’s going on, here?

I’m not saying Shirley’s and Janet’s horror stories are the norm, but I did a little fact-checking on the internet and I learned there are a whole host of risks associated with radical weight-loss schemes. Crash/Fad diets often lead to depression, diabetes, kidney failure, liver failure, and many other ailments. A study published in 2003 of gastric bypass surgeries performed at University Hospitals of Cleveland concluded that about twenty percent—one fifth--of all gastric bypass surgeries resulted in post-surgery complications, including multiple infections, leaks and ruptures of the staples, pneumonia, and even death.

The news gets even darker. It’s not enough that indulging in the urge to improve on nature can make one slim but sick. Last month, the Annals of Plastic Surgery published a report concluding that women who have breast enhancements are three times as likely to commit suicide as are women in the general population. The study speculated that the surgery itself isn’t the greatest risk factor, but that women who have the surgery are more likely to suffer from behavioral, self-esteem or body-image disorders, disorders which aren’t cured by the “quick-fix” provided by boob jobs.

Society’s obsessive compulsion to not only be thin, but to get thin quick, is outrageously well-documented. In fact, the mania’s become a sick joke. Stand in the checkout aisle at the supermarket and you’ll see one magazine’s cover story screaming the headline that “Chubby Britney Can’t Lose That Baby Weight,” another magazine shouting, “Is Nicole Anorexic,” and a third touting the fact that “Kirstie Lost 60 Pounds, You Can Too!”

So what’s to be done? How can we save people from the grief and suffering that seems to come with trying to improve upon what nature gave us?

I keep coming back to when Janet’s husband Tom hit on my Lovely Wife and got busted for it. He begged her not to tell Janet, and my Lovely Wife agreed, but what if she hadn’t? What if Janet knew her husband lusted after voluptuous women as a matter of course? Maybe she wouldn’t have so readily gone under the knife to change. Maybe Shirley wouldn’t have tried that quack diet if she knew I found her sexy before she lost forty pounds and her gallbladder.

Maybe it’s just a matter of launching a campaign where men walk up to strange women on the street and saying, “Hi. If you’re thinking of liposuction, gastric bypass, a boob job or one of those crazy crash diets, don’t! You don’t know me, but I think you’re hot just the way you are.”

Admissions of lust from total strangers.

It’s worth a shot.

Colorado Rejects Federal "Ignorance-Only" sex ed funds

From the Rocky Mountain News:

State says 'no' to sex-ed funds

Brittany Anas, Daily Camera
Originally published 02:10 p.m., January 7, 2008
Updated 03:29 p.m., January 7, 2008

BOULDER — Colorado officials this year are rejecting nearly $500,000 from the federal government for programs that teach "abstinence-only" sex education, saying the teaching tactic is ineffective when it comes to preventing teen pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Friends First -- an organization that was started by Longmont and Denver residents nearly 15 years ago -- will be among the four groups whose budgets will be affected by state health officials' decision.

Rebecca Descalzo, marketing director for Friends First, said the group is disappointed the state has forgone the money that has helped fund programs that encourage youths to engage in "healthy behaviors" by abstaining from sex, alcohol and tobacco.

In the past, the federal government had provided up to $60,000 annually to Friends First. The group still has other funding sources, including other grants, donations, tuition paid by teenagers attending summer conferences and money earned by selling curriculum, Descalzo said.

"School districts already teach comprehensive education in the classroom," she said. "This is an after-school program that is optional. Otherwise, kids are home alone after school waiting for parents to get home. We're trying to prevent all high-risk behavior."

But state officials say abstinence-only education isn't working.

"There are clearly a group of adolescents who are sexually active," said Ned Calonge, chief medical officer for Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. "Abstinence is the best way to avoid teen pregnancy, but that isn't to say that abstinence-only education has shown to be effective."

Calonge said the state will be passing up about $488,000 from the federal government this year.

"We don't believe that we should spend federal tax dollars on something that is likely ineffective," he said.
A study ordered by Congress that was released last April showed that students who took part in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not. Also, those who attended one of the four abstinence classes that were reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes.
And they first had sex at about the same age as other students -- 14.9 years, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc.

Colorado is now among 14 states passing up money from the block grant program for abstinence-only education known as "Title V," which provides $50 million annually for such programs. Participating states then provide $3 for every $4 they get from the federal government.

(emphasis added)
Speaking as someone with kids in the Colorado school systems, I can only say, "Phew!" The movement (14 states and counting) to reject Federal money that requires ignorance only sex ed is shaping up to be the big sex issue for the 2008 campaign.