All Worked Up And Then Some

Someone I'd like to introduce...

2009-03-05T16:53:00.002-07:00

Andrew Sullivan...

He's gay. He's British. He's a Catholic. He's a conservative (nobody's perfect).

He's also a helluva writer.

To-wit:

Restoring Federalism In Marriage Law

The issue behind the new challenge to DOMA is a pretty simple one, as Kenji Yoshino explains. On what grounds does the federal government not simply recognize the marriage laws of the various states? By what reasoning does the federal government recognize all the civil marriages legal in, say, Alabama, but not all of the civil marriages legal in Massachusetts? We know the real reason: a view that homosexuals need to be discriminated against in the law in order to "protect" society from their wicked attempts to live with and care for one another. But the reason on federalist grounds is non-existent.

My own marriage license, for example, is not distinguishable from any other license issued at the same time in Massachusetts. And yet some of those other licenses allow a spouse to get social security benefits and to sponsor a non-citizen for citizenship. I'm legally married in Massachusetts and yet have no right to citizenship on those grounds. Someone who showed up on the Ptown ferry a month ago, and fell in love with an opposite-sex spouse would be eligible to become a citizen relatively soon. I've been here for 25 years and still have no right to stay here indefinitely. The clear meaning of DOMA, of course, is that a gay relationship, however long-lasting or real, is always inferior to even the most temporary straight hook-up. Or to put it another way: the reason we grant citizenship to good faith non-American spouses is because we recognize the human cruelty of forcing a human being to pick between their country and the person they love. But gays, according to DOMA, deserve the cruelty - and many are indeed forced to live abroad or leave their relationships behind.

But leave the inhumanity aside for a moment. On what conservative, federalist grounds do the feds refuse to acknowledge state autonomy in the area of family law? And why should the federal government not do what it always did in these matters: just accept the differing judgments of the states? As long as a civil marriage is valid in a state, it should be recognized by the feds. Why would a real conservative object to that?

To answer that last question, I hate to break it to Mr. Sullivan, but he's the last "real" conservative left.

Scratch that. Mr. Sullivan doesn't realize it, but he's a closet liberal at heart.

And In Case You Forgot About The Mormons....

2009-03-05T16:12:00.002-07:00

Think things were getting too quiet in LDS land when it comes to their homophobic agenda? Think again, cupcake.

Mormon Machine Cranking Up Against Illinois Civil Unions Bill
Jim Burroway
March 3rd, 2009
Note: When this was first published yesterday, the post title indicated that this was a BTB “exclusive.” This morning (March 4), I’m now seeing other versions of the email on the web with the sender’s name and email included. Since I had originally redacted that name and email, it’s clear that others have independently received copies of the same email. I am therefore restoring the email to its original form with the info included.

***

The Illinois House will begin considering another Civil Unions bill this week. Introduced by Rep. Greg Harris on February 20, HB 2234 has been assigned to the Youth and Family Committee, which will hold a hearing on Thursday. We’ve received word that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has engaged its private communications network to bombard state legislators with phone calls in opposition to the bill.

In a private email sent out to LDS members of at least one ward in Illinois, church members are being encouraged to call their representative to voice their opposition to the bill, which would provide same-sex couples with recognition and limited protections under Illinois law. But the official LDS-sanctioned email to members is loaded with much of the same misinformation that was present in the campaign against California’s Proposition 8.

***
From: Kristy Combs
Date: March 3, 2009 12:27:59 PM CST
Subject: Civil Union bill scheduled for a hearing Thursday - calls needed

This message has been authorized for sending by Bishop Church.
The Civil Union Bill (HB 2234) has been scheduled for a hearing in the Youth and Family Committee this week on Thursday, March 5, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in Springfield. If the bill is voted out of committee, it becomes eligible for a vote before the full Illinois House of Representatives. This bill will legalize civil unions in the state of Illinois, and will treat such civil unions with the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits as are afforded within marriage. In other words, civil unions will be different in name only from marriage. As has already been seen in Massachusetts, this will empower the public schools to begin teaching this lifestyle to our young children regardless of parental requests otherwise. It will also create grounds for rewriting all social mores; the current push in Massachusetts is to recognize and legalize all transgender rights (An individual in Massachusetts can now change their drivers license to the gender they believe themselves to be, regardless of actual gender, which means that confused men and women are now legally entering one another’s bathrooms and locker rooms. What kind of a safety issue is this for our children?). Furthermore, while the bill legalizes civil unions, it will be used in the courts to show discrimination and will ultimately lead to court mandated same-sex marriages.

It's a badly kept secret that in my own home state (Colorado) there's a rather large LDS community, and I have to confess that I know quite a few members of the LDS church, some of whom I can honestly say I know like they're family.

Having made that confession, I'd like to say that the Mormons I know reject this mindless, homophobic bigotry, that they're embarrassed by the machinations of the LDS church to persecute homosexuals and interfere with marriage equality and the sex lives of consenting adults whom they don't even know, and that they're by and large a tolerant, respectful, non-dogmatic, non-judgmental, nice group of people who give the term "Christian" a good name.

I'd LIKE to say that, anyway...

Prop 8...LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLLLLE!!!!!

2009-03-05T15:57:00.002-07:00

Something tells me this is going to start evolving into a "Sex And Law" blog...not that I mind, it just sounds kinda geeky in a sex-fiend kinda way...

Anyhoo...

First, the NY Times piece on the big Prop 8 showdown in the California Supreme Court...

California Court to Weigh Gay Marriage Ban
By JESSE McKINLEY and JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: March 4, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO — Under intense pressure from both sides in the debate over same-sex marriage, the California Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday on the ballot initiative passed by voters last November that outlawed such unions.

***
And for all the passion surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage, the question before the court is one that may seem technical, even dry: Does the initiative approved by Californians merely amend the State Constitution or, as gay rights groups hope the court will rule, revise it?

Under California law, an amendment is a matter that the state’s longstanding initiative process deals with routinely. A revision, however, entails a fundamental change to the Constitution, and requires approval of either two-thirds of each house in the Legislature or a constitutional convention. That could be much harder to achieve than passage in a referendum.

What elevates the ban on same-sex marriage to the level of a fundamental rewriting of the Constitution, opponents of Proposition 8 argue, is that it denies a right — the ability to marry — that the California Supreme Court earlier last year called inalienable. To take away that right now, they argue, would violate federal and state constitutional guarantees of equal treatment.

Secondly, I found a good piece in Salon interviewing Dennis Herrera, one of the anti-Prop 8 lawyers who brought the suit.

What are the key arguments that will be made in the legal challenge to Proposition 8?

Well, for us, it's really quite simple. We're saying that the process for putting Prop. 8 on the ballot was fundamentally flawed; the proper procedure was not a constitutional "amendment" but a constitutional "revision." For the electorate to change the nature of the equal protections clause of the California Constitution, it would require a constitutional revision. That means that you need a two-thirds vote of the Legislature before you can even put it on the ballot -- that's not what happened in November. Prop. 8 was instead treated as a constitutional amendment and brought directly to the voters.

Prop. 8 also drastically altered the structure of state government; it stopped the courts from applying the equal protection clause of the California Constitution to a protected class of citizens, those being gay folks.

The whole article is really worth reading.

The upshot is that for the forseeable future, marriage equality will not be won at the ballot box. It's got to be mandated by the court system through the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and of the various state constitutions. It's not simply a matter of "choice" as the Holy Terrors like to argue, that people opt to be gay and that therefore, it's okay to discriminate against them.

(As a side note, what if people's choices with regard to ...say...religious faith were subject to the same analysis? Oh, that's right. There's a Constitutional amendment protecting THAT sort of choice. But I digress).

The upshot is that even if it were a matter of choice (which it isn't, nor should it be), certain choices must nevertheless be made free from the threat of discrimination by the majority. It was the same when it came to the equal rights of women, of the civil rights of non-white citizens.

I hate to sound like I'm promising boredom for non-law geeks out there, but this is something else to which close attention must be made.

Something for the Law Geeks...

2009-03-03T13:50:00.002-07:00

THIS is ultimately what's going to kill the homophobic anti-marriage equality movement.

GLAD challenges federal DOMA
by Ethan Jacobs
associate editor
Tuesday Mar 3, 2009
***
GLAD plans to file suit March 3 in the Federal District Court of Massachusetts, challenging provisions in section three of DOMA that bar the federal government from granting certain protections to legally married same-sex couples.

***
"Our legal argument is that [the portions of section three targeted in the lawsuit are] a violation of our federal government’s guarantee to treat citizens equally by refusing to recognize the marriages only of same-sex couples, and that principle of equality should apply in other contexts if we’re successful," said Wu.

In a nutshell, the plaintiffs will be challenging the Federal Defense Of Marriage Act on the grounds that while their marriages are legal in Massachusetts, the Federal law blocks their rights to government benefits because DOMA deprives them of equal protection under the laws.

At last! I've been ranting about this issue for years. No matter how badly the marriage equality movement wants majority support, it's not going to come via the ballot box.

1. It's got to be through the court system, the same way Brown v. Board of Education was necessary to free up the logjam when it came to civil rights on the basis of race.

2. It can't be done on a state-by-state level. True equality has to come through the Federal legal system.

My only concern is that by the time the case makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, will President Obama have had enough time to appoint truly progressive justices to hear the case?

Watch this one.

The Evil, The Mean, The Stupid

2009-03-03T13:12:00.003-07:00

Nice to know Colorado doesn't have a monopoly on asshole legislators...

Their rhetoric is ramping up...

Buttars broke vow of silence, senator claims
By Ben Winslow and Clayton Norlen

Deseret News

Published: Sunday, Feb. 22, 2009 1:19 a.m. MST

Controversial Sen. Chris Buttars was stripped of his Senate committee posts not because he went on an anti-gay tirade in an interview with a documentary filmmaker but because the West Jordan Republican broke a deal with Senate leaders not to talk about gay issues.

That's what a Senate colleague revealed on a conservative radio program Saturday.

"I have to tell you publicly that most of what Sen. Buttars said — I agree with," Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, said on the weekly radio program "Inside Utah Politics" on KTKK-AM

***
Buttars was stripped of his leadership posts in the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Judicial Confirmation Committee on Friday, in response to a storm of controversy surrounding the outspoken senator. In an interview with documentary filmmaker Reed Cowan about California's Proposition 8 on gay marriage, Buttars compared gay-rights activists to Muslim terrorists and called them "the greatest threat to America going down."

Terrorists, Nazis, the worst of the worst. In a way, this is good news, as it's an indication these homophobic assholes are getting desperate. They've got to demonize their opponents, but when it comes right down to it, it's going to fail. Why? Because the enormous majority of people who know gay people know they're not anything remotely resembling evil. So when these homophobic assholes keep shooting off their mouths about the evils of homosexuality, most folks are going to see them for the bigots that they are.

Hope so, anyway.

Who Watches The Most Porn?

2009-03-02T14:25:00.002-07:00

I laughed so hard at this item I damn near pissed my pants!!

Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers
16:18 27 February 2009 by Ewen Callaway

Americans may paint themselves in increasingly bright shades of red and blue, but new research finds one thing that varies little across the nation: the liking for online pornography.

A new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider finds little variation in consumption between states.

"When it comes to adult entertainment, it seems people are more the same than different," says Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School.

However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.
***
The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. "The differences here are not so stark," Edelman says.

Number 10 on the list was West Virginia at 2.94 subscriptions per 1000, while number 41, Michigan, averaged 2.32.

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama.

Old-fashioned values
Church-goers bought less online porn on Sundays – a 1% increase in a postal code's religious attendance was associated with a 0.1% drop in subscriptions that day. However, expenditures on other days of the week brought them in line with the rest of the country, Edelman finds.

Residents of 27 states that passed laws banning gay marriages boasted 11% more porn subscribers than states that don't explicitly restrict gay marriage.

To get a better handle on other associations between social attitudes and pornography consumption, Edelman melded his data with a previous study on public attitudes toward religion.

States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage," bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behaviour."

"One natural hypothesis is something like repression: if you're told you can't have this, then you want it more," Edelman says.

What really cracks me up is the fact that these conservative states, (ignorant about most things, especially about things related to sex), are just as ignorant about online porn! With sites like RedTube, PornHub and Youporn, you don't even have to pay anymore!

Visit Colorful Colorado Anyway....Most Of Us Aren't Homophobic Assholes

2009-02-27T11:06:00.003-07:00

I'm a Coloradoan born and bred. I love my home state. I've got a "Native" bumpersticker on my truck, I know all the words to "Rocky Mountain High," and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

The Centennial State actually has a lot to be proud of when it comes to sexual freedom. Ours was the first state to give the vote to women. (Actually Wyoming did it first, but Wyoming was a territory at the time). Colorado also was the first state to legalize no-fault divorces and abortions. The cities of Boulder and Denver were among the first in the country to push anti-gay discrimination legislation.

Yeah, we've also got that ugly Amendment 2 mess in our history, and we're also responsible for James Dobson, Focus on the Family, Ted Haggard, and Marilyn Musgrave. Still, all in all, Colorado's a great place to live.

Buuuuut...

this is mindblowing.

GOP gay-rights foe says homosexuality is a sin like adultery, murder

February 23, 2009 - 4:46 PM
JOHN SCHROYER
THE GAZETTE

DENVER • Debating a gay-rights bill on the floor of the state Senate on Monday, a Republican lawmaker took the rhetoric to new heights by equating homosexuality as a sin with murder.
"I'm not saying this (homosexuality) is the only sin that's out there," said Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley. "We have murder. We have all sorts of sin. We have adultery. And we don't make laws making those legal, and we would never think to make murder legal."
Other Republicans said the bill, which would allow partners of gay state employees to be covered by health care benefits, is an attempt by Democrats to chip away at a constitutional amendment voters passed in 2006 defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

***

Renfroe called homosexuality an "abomination" and an "offense to God" and argued that God created men and women so they would procreate.

He compared the nuclear family structure to the Holy Trinity and, quoting the book of Genesis, said women had been created to be "helpers" for men.

Senate Democrats defended the bill as a matter of equal rights. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, is openly gay.

"You say, up here at this microphone, that God created us in a certain structure," Veiga said.

"I will stand here today and tell you that God also created me. And the last time I checked, I am who I am, people."

And then there's this...

Schultheis: HIV testing for pregnant moms rewards ‘sexual promiscuity’
By Ernest Luning 2/25/09 1:05 PM

Democrats were outraged Wednesday morning when Republican state Sen. Dave Schultheis said he planned to vote against a bill to require HIV tests for pregnant women because the disease “stems from sexual promiscuity” and he didn’t think the Legislature should “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.” The Colorado Springs lawmaker then proceeded to cast the lone vote against SB 179, which passed 32-1 and moves on to the House.

***

Not content to be a world-class asshole, Sen. Schultheis decided to go for galaxy-sized status later in the day.

UPDATED: State senator: HIV babies are punishment for promiscuous moms

By Wendy Norris 2/25/09 4:25 PM

State Sen. Dave Schultheis restated his opposition to a bill requiring HIV tests for pregnant women by claiming that infected babies would cause families to “see the negative consequences of that promiscuity.”

The Colorado Springs Republican with a penchant for foot-in-mouth moments tells The Rocky Mountain News in a follow-up story to Wednesday’s Senate floor controversy:

“What I’m hoping is that, yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that,” he said. “The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior.”
Yes, Schultheis really said he is “hoping” people “have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby …”

So let me say on behalf of the enormous majority of Coloradoans who AREN'T fucking idiots, please don't hold the supreme, cruel stupidity of two shit-for-brains knuckle-dragging buttheads against the rest of us.

We're really a very nice place to live.

Yes, now time for the gratuitous nudity...

2009-02-25T16:28:00.002-07:00

Almost a month away. Sorry about that. Here's my penance this time.

You'd think this was all part of my fiendish plan to find reasons to post nudie pics.

"Ignorance Only" Idiocy From Texas...where else?

2009-02-25T16:01:00.002-07:00

OMFG!!!

Why am I not surprised that this is coming from the state that gave us our former President?

From the website of the Texas Freedom Network

Texas has long been held up as the poster child for abstinence-only sexuality education. In fact, Texas consistently leads the nation by a wide margin in federal abstinence education dollars more than $18 million in 2007 alone. What has not been known until this study, however, is what public schools are actually teaching students about sexuality education in their classrooms. And the news is not good.

Just Say Don’t Know: Sexuality Education in Texas Public Schools conclusively demonstrates that Texas is failing families and students when it comes to sexuality education. Classrooms are perpetuating a “conspiracy of silence” that robs young people of the reliable information they need to make responsible life decisions. Even worse, the information students do receive about sexuality and health is often grossly distorted or simply wrong.

From the report's executive summary.

Finding 1:
Most Texas students receive no instruction about human
sexuality apart from the promotion of sexual abstinence.
Materials returned for this study demonstrate that
abstinence-only programs have a stranglehold over
sexuality education in Texas. More than 96 percent of
school districts – with more than 3.7 million students
– fail to teach any medically accurate information on
responsible pregnancy and disease prevention.

Finding 3:
Sexuality education materials used in Texas schools
regularly contain factual errors and perpetuate lies and
distortions about condoms and STDs.
Regardless of one’s personal opinions about sexuality
education, we should all be able to agree on this point:
students should not be taught incorrect information
in school. Unfortunately, the numerous examples of
blatantly incorrect and misleading information in
classroom materials make clear that many Texas public
schools fail this most basic test.
Sexuality Education IN Texas Public Schools

TYPE OF FACTUAL ERROR % of Texas School Districts
Errors of any type: 41.0%
Errors related to…Condoms 40.1%
All STDs (including HIV and HPV) 38.9%
HIV (exclusively) 23.6%
HPV (exclusively) 20.9%

Condoms
Inaccurate information about condoms is the most
common type of factual error in sexuality education
materials used in Texas, occurring in 40.1 percent of
school districts. Most examples share a common purpose
and likely effect – discouraging young people from using
condoms. While many districts utilize materials that
exaggerate condom failure rates, some districts provide
more extreme examples of condom-bashing. This
student exercise used in one Central Texas school district
provides an example:

Giving a condom to a teen is just like saying, “Well
if you insist on killing yourself by jumping off the
bridge, at least wear these elbow pads – they may
protect you some.” (page 21 of report)
STDs
An astounding 38.9 percent of districts utilize
curriculum materials or presentations that contain
inaccurate information about sexually transmitted
diseases. Instruction about HIV and human
papillomavirus (HPV) is especially prone to error or
misrepresentation in Texas classrooms, though no STD
is exempt from distortion.

A number of abstinence-only curricula repeat the
decades-old and widely discredited canard “HIV is
so small it passes through a condom.” The FACTS
curriculum (used in 20 districts) provides one common
version of this argument:

Any imperfections in the contraceptive not visible
to the eye could allow sperm, STD or HIV to pass
through the latex…If a sperm cell can get through,
how much more can the HIV virus only 1/450th the
size of a sperm! (page 20 of report)

Numerous materials falsely teach students that condoms
do not provide any protection from HPV. For instance,
the WAIT Training program (used in 53 districts)
dictates that students “be told that condoms do not
appear to provide any protection from HPV, (which
causes 99% of all cervical cancer).” (page 22 of report)

Other Errors
Some of the “facts” in Texas sexuality education
materials simply defy description or categorization. One
example is this strange statement from the Wonderful
Days abstinence-only program (used in three districts):
“If a woman is dry, the sperm will die. If a woman is
wet, a baby she may get!” (page 24 of report)

The full report is here.Is it too late to ask Mexico if they still want Texas?

The LDS Church and Prop 8....shhhhhhh!!!

2009-02-02T13:54:00.004-07:00

One of the biggest non-secrets of the recent election campaign is the fact that the Latter Day Saints sank big bucks into defeating Proposition 8 in California.

We're just now starting to get an idea of how many bucks.

Mormons admit larger role in California's Prop. 8 campaign

By Shane Goldmacher | Sacramento Bee
The Mormon church has revealed in a campaign filing that the church spent nearly $190,000 to help pass Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that banned gay marriage in California.

The disclosure comes amid an investigation by the state's campaign watchdog agency into whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints violated state laws by not fully disclosing its involvement during the campaign.

While many church members had donated directly to the Yes on 8 campaign – some estimates of Mormon giving range as high as $20 million – the church itself had previously reported little direct campaign activity.

But in the filing made Friday, the Mormon church reported thousands in travel expenses, such as airline tickets, hotel rooms and car rentals for the campaign. The church also reported $96,849.31 worth of "compensated staff time" – hours that church employees spent working to pass the same-sex marriage ban.

"As I read this report, it seems to raise more questions than it answers," said Fred Karger, who filed the initial complaint against the church with the Fair Political Practices Commission in November.

Karger, the founder of Californians Against Hate, a group that opposed the measure, said he believes the church was involved financially long before the first expenditure it listed in September.

"I think there is still a lot of missing parts of the report because we know they've been active since June," Karger said.

Mormon church officials could not be reached Saturday for comment.

Roman Porter, executive director of the FPPC, confirmed that the agency was investigating the complaint against the church but declined comment on specifics.

Not sure what good all this will do. It's about as difficult to ding a church for violating campaign laws as it might be to part the Red Sea. This is just an interesting illustration of the lengths to which the Holy Terrors are willing to go to shove their noses into other peoples' businesses. It's also a demonstration that as the power of the Dobsons and Robertsons (hopefully) fades, the LDS church seems willing to step in and fill the vaccuum. Don't be surprised to see Mitt Romney announce he'll be taking on President Obama by the end of 2010.

Bring it on, bitch.

Another new missive from the Sheriff...

2009-01-23T11:40:00.002-07:00

More news...

Officials: Obama to reverse abortion policy

By LIZ SIDOTI and MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writers Liz Sidoti And Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON – In a long-expected move, President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order ending the ban on federal funds for international groups that perform abortions or provide information on the option, officials told The Associated Press on Friday.

Liberal groups welcomed the decision while abortion rights foes criticized the president. Known as the "Mexico City policy," the ban has been reinstated and then reversed by Republican and Democratic presidents since GOP President Ronald Reagan established it in 1984. President Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but President George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.

The policy bans U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of U.S. Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion. It is also known as the "global gag rule," because it prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that lobby to legalize abortion or promote it as a family planning method.

It mentions later in the article that both President Obama (damn, it feels good to write that) and Secretary of State Clinton promised to rescind the policy during the election campaign.

Mind-blowing shit, here...a politician promises to carry out a responsible policy with regard to sexual freedom, and then he follows through.

Wow.

Just to be absolutely clear...

2009-01-22T12:37:00.002-07:00

It's official policy now...

Reproductive Choice
Supports a Woman's Right to Choose: President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.

Preventing Unintended Pregnancy: President Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

There IS a new sheriff in town.

As A Public Service...

2009-01-20T12:40:00.006-07:00

I feel compelled to dispel an ugly (okay, not ugly at all, very lovely, in fact) rumor...

This is a photo circulating the net which is allegedly of the latest pop icon, Katy Perry, buck nekkid...

And this is unmistakeably the singer of the mega-hit "I Kissed A Girl"

After careful examination, I have concluded that the former picture is in fact not of Ms. Perry, not unless she recently had both a nose job and a boob job. My sources inform me that Ms. Perry has a size 32 D bust, and in my expert opinion, (okay, so I'm not really an expert on women's breasts, but I'm definitely an enthusiastic amateur), the aforementioned former beauty is at least a 34.

Now, if the divine Ms. Perry wishes to forward her own nude photos for comparison of said breasts, I'll be more than happy to conduct a rigorous analysis.

Just doing my duty as a citizen...

One more thing and then I'll call it a day...

2009-01-14T16:37:00.003-07:00

Voting for marriage equality doesn't hurt...

From Freedomtomarry.org

January 12, 2009

PRESS CONTACT:
Evan Wolfson, Executive Director
212-851-8418
Mobile: 646-263-5552
evan@freedomtomarry.org

New York, January 12, 2009 — Contrary to some political expectations, voting to support the freedom to marry and opposing anti-marriage measures helps rather than hurts politicians, a new study unequivocally shows.

For many years legislators across the country have voted on laws aimed at ending the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. Others have been asked to vote on state constitutional amendments aimed at discriminating against same-sex couples and their children by denying them the freedom to marry and other legal protections.

A review of all of these votes from 2005 to the present shows that legislators who vote to end marriage discrimination for same-sex couples are consistently re-elected. The success of more than 1,100 state legislators who voted to support the freedom to marry stands in bold contrast to the commonly held belief that supporting marriage equality ends political campaigns and careers. In fact, these legislators are re-elected no matter what party they represent or if they changed their vote from opposing to supporting marriage equality. Even better, legislators who run for higher office win after voting in favor of marriage for same-sex couples.

Just something I found interesting. Okay, enough about marriage equality for a while. Time to get back to some good old fashioned porn!

From the Rockbound Shores Of Maine...

2009-01-14T15:37:00.002-07:00

I don't like just blogging about gay marriage. There are lots of other sexual-freedom-oriented issues out there to discuss, but I admit gay marriage is the one getting most of the press lately. It's the hot issue, so to speak.

Anyway, on to the good news.

For Immediate Release: 01/13/2009
Contact: Betsy Smith, Executive Director, (207) 939-7779

EqualityMaine Announces Bill for Civil Marriage Equality
At a State House press conference today, EqualityMaine and several coalition partners unveiled a bill that would extend civil marriage rights to same-sex couples in Maine.

The bill, titled "An Act to Prevent Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom," is sponsored by Sen. Dennis Damon (D-Hancock).

Even though the bill hasn't even been submitted to the Maine legislature yet, what makes this good news is the language that EqualityMaine is using.

"An Act To Prevent Discrimination In Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom."

The emphasis is mine. Rather than raise the issue of gay marriage as a matter of making a new right, EqualityMaine is raising it as an issue of correcting an old wrong. It's what linguists like George Lakoff call "framing the debate."

Simply put, (and Dr. Lakoff is much better at explaining all this than I would be, you really ought to read his books) half the battle in politics is the words and phrases that are used to describe the issues being discussed. For example, people who are in favor of Roe v. Wade don't call themselves "pro-abortion", they call themselves "pro-choice." Those who oppose Roe v. Wade aren't "anti-abortion" or even "anti-choice," they're "pro-life." Each side is attempting to make the debate not about abortion itself, but about choice versus life, and each side is likewise emphasizing the "pro" angle of their argument, conversely trying to "frame" the other side as being "anti" or negative in their position.

But I digress. Anyway, EqualityMaine seems to have gotten the hint that the debate about gay marriage needs to be framed as a civil right of which homosexuals have been deprived. Which I've been advocating for some time.

From EqualityMaine's website:

Why do you call it "marriage equality" instead of "gay marriage"?Because we're not talking about creating a separate institution called "gay marriage." We're talking about providing equal access to the existing institution of civil marriage.

They're also taking the right tack when it comes to the issue of religious objections to marriage equality.

How would marriage equality affect my church?
That’s entirely up to your church. Remember, the issue is civil marriage, not religious marriage ceremonies. Religious institutions are not required to perform civil marriages, and may set their own boundaries for marriage. Some faith leaders will not perform marriages for people who have been divorced, for example, or for people of different religions.

Marriage equality does not challenge the autonomy of religious institutions in any way. Advocates of marriage equality focus strictly on civil marriage, and leave decisions about religious marriage ceremonies to faith leaders.

One of the great sleight-of-hand tricks the Holy Terrors are using on the subject of gay marriage (excuse me, Marriage Equality) is they're perpetuating the myth that in the U.S., the concept of marriage is inexorably tied to religious authority and what churches and scriptures and preachers believe is right and wrong.

Simply put, that's bullshit. Marriage is a civil institution. Marriages may be performed by members of the clergy, but it's not a requirement. For example, a justice of the peace may perform a marriage. Common law marriages exist in 11 U.S. states, which means that no ceremony is required at all, religious or otherwise. Certain religious groups may oppose elements of marriage and divorce, but they wouldn't necessarily hold sway when it came right down to the legal implications.

If two faithful married Catholics opted to get divorced, the Catholic Church might not be too happy about it, but the state wouldn't be obligated to abide by the Church's wishes and refuse to grant the divorce. By the same token, if a Catholic and a Jew opted to get married by a Justice of the Peace over the objections of both churches, those two crazy kids would be considered married by the state in which they lived.

I'll be closely following this one. I have high hopes.

Book Review--XXX 30 Porn Star Portraits by Timothy Greenfield-Sanders

2009-01-13T12:43:00.003-07:00

XXX: 30 Porn-star Portraits by Timothy Greenfield-Sanders
published by Bulfinch Press

This isn't the sort of coffeetable book you actually put on a coffeetable. At least, not the sort of coffeetables where anyone under the age of eighteen might happen by.

Mr. Greenfield-Sanders is famous for his celebrity portraits, usually taken with an enormous antique box-camera. This book features, as the title suggests, portraits of porn-stars of various vintages, in a unique format. Inspired by Goya's paintings, "Maja, Clothed and Nude," Mr. Greenfield-Sanders features two photos of each pornstar, one fully clothed, and the second of the pornstar in the same pose, only in the nude.

The effect is striking. I can't speak for the exact point at which Mr. Greenfield-Sanders was driving, but what moves me is the fact that the person or persons in the left-page photo (clothed) might be someone you see on the street or in the convenience store, and then the photo on the right page (nude) is clearly someone who has no reservations about being nude in front of other people. In fact, in some of the photos, (e.g. Brianna Banks, Belladonna, Sean Michaels) appear more comfortable in front of the camera with their clothes off than on.

That, I think is what makes this book interesting. It's not that these people are comfortable being viewed in the nude, it's that they're confortable being viewed DOING things in the nude, things most of us couldn't do with the lights off in the bedroom with the family dog present.

One of the side-effects of the porn pundit game is that in a way, the topic is wide-open; it's difficult to start a discussion group about the elements of porn punditry, erotica, and/or the politics of sex because it's just not discussed in "polite society." You don't get much opportunity to have critical discussions. Was "Asian Sluts And Black Cocks IV" a good example of gonzo-form cinematography or not?

Mr. Greenfield-Sanders' book is a good way to start a dialogue. The photos themselves are very well-done, even artistic in every sense of the word. The subjects are interesting, not just for the photos, but for the ease with which they're showing it all off.

And then there are the essays. Mr. Greenfield-Sanders has invited essays on the subject of porn from commenters as varied as Gore Vidal, Witley Striber, Salman Rushdie, and John Waters. We finally get the chance to have a sample of the sort of intellectual, artistic discussion of porn that some of us dream of, if not for the fact that most people still avert their eyes and turn three shades of red when someone even mentions the name "Jenna Jameson."

Great book, great photos, great essays, I highly recommend this one.

Just don't actually put it on your coffeetable.

Addressing The "Why?" Part II

2009-01-12T10:27:00.002-07:00

Fear is a key element in the collective mindset of the Holy Terrors. It's true of virtually everything they believe and advocate, but I want to focus on fear as it relates to sex.

There's a general belief that the Holy Terrors are adamantly afraid of sex in general, but that's not really true. When you look at the specific range of sexual practices that meet with fierce opposition, one such practice remains untouched.

The Holy Terrors target elements of the sex lives of Americans in three general categories:

1. Sexual practices which prevent or discourage procreation (abortion, birth control, substantive sex education) or in which the chances of procreation are nil (sodomy [oral or anal sex], homosexuality),

2. Sexual practices which enhance the enjoyment of sex or otherwise make it appear more interesting or appealing (pornography/erotica, sex toys, "deviant" sexual practices such as BDSM or "swinging"),

3. Outside-the-bonds-of-matrimony sexual practices (pre-marital or non-marital sex, homosexuality again, swinging again, general promiscuity).

So what's left? What's an appropriate summary of the Holy Terrors' belief system?

Simply put:

Sex is a chore, a necessary burden, the only acceptable practice of which is to procreate, and only within the bounds of holy matrimony.

Furthermore, marriage is the only acceptable forum in which people may engage in sex, AND ITS PRIME FUNCTION IS FOR PROCREATION.

All that guff about love and companionship is a bunch of hooey. It's all about making babies, baby.

Think I'm exaggerating? Let's step back into the Wayback Machine to take a closer look at some of the anti-gay marriage rulings of state courts in New York and Washington.

Without getting into too much legalese, the New York and Washington high courts have gone on record as stating that marriage is an institution necessary to preserving and maintaining the "one-mother one-father" family unit for the raising of children. Love and affection? Meh.

And let's not forget my own post from earlier this month about New Hampshire.

Rep. David Hess in the last paragraph of the article. That speaks volumes.

(Hess said) "I think there is a significant difference between civil unions and marriage, which is a concept of tradition recognized all over the world. I think same-sex marriage goes beyond and is not needed.

"Civil unions are not marriage, but a legal concept generated in several states. Same-sex marriage is contrary to Christian traditions and every religious concept of marriage between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, because one of the primary functions of marriage is procreating."

Nice of them to state their agenda so bluntly, isn't it?

So, to recap: In the eyes of the Holy Terrors and their whores in the Republican Party, sex is a terrible burden upon mankind and it must be treated as such, because we can't have people going around having sex for fun now, can we? After all, sex's sole purpose is the making of babies and its sole acceptable forum is marriage. If we've got unmarried people making whoopie, or just as bad, married people treating sex not as a burden, but as a fun way to spend an evening (or morning, or lunch break or whatever...) then...what?

What's the big deal if people just want to have sex for fun? Married or otherwise?

I'm glad you asked.

More later.

And another thing...

2009-01-09T14:00:00.001-07:00

Not that I'm apologizing for anything right now, I just had the urge to demonstrate one of those positive benefits...

Porn Industry In Crisis???

2009-01-09T13:38:00.002-07:00

This is from the "Oh, Come ON!!!" section of the Post-Chronicle.

Published: Jan 9, 2009

Hustler's Larry Flynt and Girls Gone Wild CEO Joe Francis Request Government Bailout of Adult (Porn) Entertainment Industry
by Press Release

As the 2009 AVN Adult Expo opens in Las Vegas this week, Girls Gone Wild CEO Joe Francis and HUSTLER magazine publisher Larry Flynt are petitioning the newly convened 111th Congress to provide a financial bailout for the adult entertainment industry along the lines of what is being sought by the Big Three automakers, a spokesperson for Francis announced today.

Adult industry leaders Flynt and Francis sent a joint request to Congress asking for $5 billion in federal assistance, "Just to see us through hard times," Francis said. "Congress seems willing to help shore up our nation's most important businesses, we feel we deserve the same consideration. In difficult economic times, Americans turn to entertainment for relief. More and more, the kind of entertainment they turn to is adult entertainment."

But according to Flynt the recession has acted like a national cold shower. "People are too depressed to be sexually active," Flynt says, "This is very unhealthy as a nation. Americans can do without cars and such but they cannot do without sex."

While not to the degree felt by banks and automakers, the Adult Entertainment industry has been hit by the effects of the economic downturn. DVD sales and rentals have decreased by 22 percent in the past year as viewers turn to the internet for adult entertainment. It is estimated that roughly half of all internet users visit adult sites, with the number of unique visitors to adult websites (including GirlsGoneWild.com and Hustler.com) has grown to more than 75 million per month.

But the "saltpeter" effect remains.

"With all this economic misery and people losing all that money, sex is the farthest thing from their mind," Flynt says, "It's time for congress to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America. The only way they can do this is by supporting the adult industry and doing it quickly."

"The popularity of adult entertainment in America has grown steadily for the past half century," Francis says. "Its emergence into the mainstream of popular culture suggests that the US government should actively support the adult industry's survival and growth, just as it feels the need to support any other industry cherished by the American people."

(emphasis added).

Frankly, I just think this is a stunt. There's no way Flynt and Francis really expect Congress to give money to the porn industry. Rather, they're actually trying to deliver an actually valid point.

Since industry bailouts seem to be the fad these days, why should banks and car companies be the only ones who get special treatment? Why not injections of money to support other industries as well?

Indeed, why not?

That's not to say the porn industry isn't facing hard times, just like any other, though.

Ever heard of Youporn or Redtube or Pornhub? Think youtube with...well...porn, and you get the idea.

Well, since all this explicit content is free, it's creating problems.

Porn Woes; Amateurs Displace the Kings of Porn
December 16, 8:04 AM
by Richard Wagner, Ph.D., ACS, Seattle Sex Examiner

Only a couple of years ago, 80 percent of a porn producer’s income came from DVD sales. Today, it’s down about 30 percent. And some speculate that sales could flat line in only a couple of years.

While porn consumers are on the rise; porn profits are tanking. What gives, Dr Dick? You might be asking. Good question. Probably it’s a constellation of causes. Over the last 10 years numerous upstart production houses have cut into the porn pie leaving an ever-smaller pie to go around.

But the bigger problem is American households are using broadband connections to the Internet in ever increasing numbers. 47% at last count and that number will continue to grow exponentially. This brings the immediate gratification of porn to hungry consumers via the web. Streaming media and download to own capability have choked the life out of the DVD. I mean, who schleps down to the local adult video store to buy or rent anymore? No one I know.

And while sales of internet-based adult entertainment grew 14 percent last year, to a whooping $2.8 billion, that figure would be substantially higher if there wasn’t for all the free competition. We can thank the “Tube Sites” for that. The proliferation of free sites allow anyone and everyone to post all the user-generated content he/she wants. And let's face it, there's nothing more compelling than watching the neighbors get it on, right?

***

The “Tube Sites” — YouPorn, PornoTube, Xtube, GayForIt, etc — that deliver the content didn’t invent internet porn, but they sure did make it exponentially easier to access. Most of the posted videos are very short, but the variety of the offerings is amazing. There’s gay stuff, straight stuff, and everything in between. It’s a smut bonanza, don’ cha know!

Some of the clips are indeed amateur videos, shot and uploaded by their exhibitionist creators. But, and here is the real problem for Pornville, a lot of the uploaded clips are copyrighted material ripped off from professional pornographers. The “Tube sites” are awash with scenes from high-end features. It’s true that some clips are posted by the porn companies themselves, as trailers for the full-length versions available on their own sites, but most are uploaded by users from their own collections. And that generates zero revenue for the kings of porn, which makes them very unhappy indeed.

Why should I care? You might be asking yourself right about now. Rapacious porn producers deserve what they get, right? After all they get fat on the backs (literally and figuratively) of the adult performers; and that ain’t right. Exploitation sucks…and not in a good way.

I hear what you’re sayin' — what goes around, comes around. And I’d agree with you, except for one thing — Intellectual Property Rights!

Piracy is piracy, regardless if it’s happening off the coast of Africa or in your den. And when we play fast and loose with the property of others it makes it a whole lot more difficult to protect our own property.

Mr./Dr. Wagner has a point, the big issue is the matter of intellectual property theft, but as with his own example of what's going on in the music industry, the battle is already pretty much lost.

So what to do? I dunno. I just think it'll be interesting to watch. The porn industry has a habit of being ahead of the curve when it comes to technological advances so I'm sure that in a few years, they'll be right back on top.

And yes, while I DO think porn offers positive benefits to society, NO, I don't think my tax dollars need to rescue Flynt and Francis and their ilk. They're going to be just fine without me, IMHO.

Now, if they want to bailout the starving sex blogger industry, that's a different story.

Addressing The "Why?" Part I

2009-01-08T13:00:00.006-07:00

One of the side-effects of the recent election (and especially the Proposition 8 mess in California) is that we're getting a lot of post-mortem analysis asking "Why?" Why do the neo-cons so vehemently oppose gay marriage? For that matter, why are they so dead-set against sexual freedom in general? For example, from L'Hote:

(the essay is short and worth quoting in its entirety)

Thursday, December 11, 2008
the hot stress injection

I think the idea that social or cultural conservatives are generally people who are afraid of sex is little more than a gross caricature. As I've tried to demonstrate, I equally think a lot of self-professed "sexually liberated" people are, in fact, the ones most likely to feel actual fear for sex, because their attempts to make sex mundane are usually about removing the danger, immediacy and emotionality of sex-- that is, the things that make sex so special in the first place. When I hear someone talking about a naked party, sometimes, they may just think that's a way to have a good time, although frankly I think the average naked human, even a particularly attractive one, isn't something you'd like to look at in most social contexts. Very often, though, I think people who are interested in naked parties or the like are people who are paradoxically terrified of sex. They're attempting to de-eroticize shared nakedness. That's not liberating sex from anything, it's robbing sex of its power.

I do think, however, that conservatives allow general unease and fear about sex to carry a lot of rhetorical water for them. It seems to me that often enough, conservatives can just sort of invoke sexual ephemera and conjure emotional reactions, out of proportion with what they've actually proved logically. We're evolutionarily and culturally cued to react to invocations of sex, and I wouldn't want to change that. But I think conservatives, when agitating against this or that current sexual practice, use that general sense of heightened emotionality or stress to rhetorical advantage in a way that doesn't actually benefit the conversation.

I'm not quite accusing James Polous of doing this here. My assumption is just that James is hearkening to previous posts where he's already laid the groundwork of why bisexuality is bad. James certainly isn't one to not do the necessary intellectual homework. But I would have appreciated a link to get at his actual arguments, here. Invoking the painfully obvious does us little good. James has a pretty strong case for the origins of bisexual affect, although I can't accept it on the grounds that I don't believe in one person or another judging the internal sexual and emotional content of another. More to the point, though, that doesn't get us anywhere about why this is all to our detriment as a society.

Of note here is probably my philosophical stance that the best, most humane and liberating framework for understanding human sexuality is to think in terms of sexual behaviors and not sexual orientations.

Update: Just about everyone in comments, or near enough, is telling my I'm a moron for this post. I don't know, I think I'm on to something here. Look I'm not saying "don't go to naked parties, it's immoral." I'm saying "I won't go to a naked party, because I don't think the people involved are accomplishing what they think they're accomplishing; and anyway, I want to keep shared nudity for sex, because I value sex."

The emphases are mine. While I appreciate the effort to come up with an explanation, I have to confess the analysis is off the mark, IMHO.

In the first place, while I'm speaking only anecdotally, I've found that the people whom I've encountered that Freddie DeBoer calls "self-professed sexually liberated" are not afraid of sex at all. If they ARE afraid, they're doing a damn good job of hiding it. Rather, these people, (and again, I admit I'm speaking only anecdotally, and only from personal experience) want to get over or have gotten over their fear of sex and instead treat sex as a mundane thing precisely because that's what it is, at least in their eyes. It must be stressed that being mundane makes sex no less important or significant than would be the mundanaeity of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Rather, in my opinion these people have in fact overcome their fear of sex, and are thus empowered. Rather than having the value of sex removed, they've had the SHOCK value removed.

Consider this website, one of my favorites, by NY photographer Jordan Matter

While he does all sorts of photography, Mr. Matter's main appeal, at least to me, is of all the nude and topless women he photographs in the streets of New York City.

For example:

Aren't all these women treating nudity as something mundane? Aren't they all therefore removing its shock value?

And aren't they all sexy as hell?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think sex is powerful because it's dangerous, immediate, or emotional. It's powerful because it's SEX. It's one of the most basic, fundamental drives in nature. Its power is inherent. Sex doesn't need to be dangerous to be valuable. In fact, IMHO it's the element of danger that keeps people from enjoying its value as much as they might.

And that's what the Holy Terrors are fighting against. I do agree with Mr. DeBoer that the Holy Terrors and their whores in the government are exploiting that fear, but before we can address the "why" we should also consider the "how."

I just disagree with Mr. DeBoer's assertion that removing (or attempting to remove) the fear element leads to a bad result; that sex is "rob(bed) of its power."

On the contrary. Removing the fear element makes it more fun and alluring. In fact, Mr. DeBoer's position admits that in his eyes, the Holy Terrors have a case for treating sex as a bad thing. He admits the element of fear is great; so great in fact, that attempts to remove that element are counter-productive.

I take a different tack.

More later.

Shocking, SHOCKING News From Mississippi

2009-01-08T12:40:00.002-07:00

From Think Progress

By Ryan Powers on Jan 7th, 2009 at 8:30 pm

Mississippi, A Hotbed of Abstinence Education, Now Boasts Highest Teen Pregnancy Rate In America»

The Centers for Disease Control released a new report today that found that Mississippi “now has the nation’s highest teen pregnancy rate, displacing Texas and New Mexico for that lamentable title.” The report found that in 2006, the Mississippi teen pregnancy rate was over 60 percent higher than the national average and increased 13 percent since the year before.

While the new report does not explain why the state’s teen pregnancy rate is increasing, one reason may be the poor quality of its sex ed programs. As the Sexuality Information and Education Center explains, Mississippi focuses heavily on abstinence education and teachers are prohibited from demonstrating how to use contraceptives:

Mississippi schools are not required to teach sexuality education or sexually transmitted disease (STD)/HIV education. If schools choose to teach either or both forms of education, they must stress abstinence-until-marriage, including “the likely negative psychological and physical effects of not abstaining.” […]

If the school board authorizes the teaching of contraception, state law dictates that the failure rates and risks of each contraceptive method must be included and “in no case shall the instruction or program include any demonstration of how condoms or other contraceptives are applied.”

A reporter for ABC News’s Jackson, MS affiliate explained, “The Mississippi Department of Human Services says abstinence is the only birth control that is 100 percent effective. And that’s the only message teens need to hear.” Unfortunately, numerous studies show that abstinence-only education is not effective. As one study found:

Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.

Further, a review by the House Oversight Committee found that “80% of the abstinence-only curricula…contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.”

Pregnant teens in Mississippi face few options. Access to facilities that provide abortions in that state is extremely limited. Indeed, because of an unusually effective anti-choice campaign in the legislature, only a single abortion clinic remains open in the state.

Update: The report also found that the teen pregnancy rate is rising fastest in Alaska, where Gov. Sarah Palin (R) is a strong proponent of abstinence-only sex ed.

No surprise here. Anybody out there surprised?

DOMA Sponsor has changed his mind...

2009-01-05T23:28:00.003-07:00

On a slightly different, but similar note...

From the L.A. Times

No defending the Defense of Marriage Act
The author of the federal Defense of Marriage Act now thinks it's time for his law to get the boot -- but for political reasons, not in support of gays.

By Bob Barr
January 5, 2009

In 1996, as a freshman member of the House of Representatives, I wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, better known by its shorthand acronym, DOMA, than its legal title. The law has been a flash-point for those arguing for or against same-sex marriage ever since President Clinton signed it into law. Even President-elect Barack Obama has grappled with its language, meaning and impact.

I can sympathize with the incoming commander in chief. And, after long and careful consideration, I have come to agree with him that the law should be repealed.

The left now decries DOMA as the barrier to federal recognition and benefits for married gay couples. At the other end of the political spectrum, however, DOMA has been lambasted for subverting the political momentum for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In truth, the language of the legislation -- like that of most federal laws -- was a compromise.

DOMA was indeed designed to thwart the then-nascent move in a few state courts and legislatures to afford partial or full recognition to same-sex couples. The Hawaii court case Baehr vs. Lewin, still active while DOMA was being considered by Congress in mid-1996, provided the immediate impetus.

The Hawaii court was clearly leaning toward legalizing same-sex marriages. So the first part of DOMA was crafted to prevent the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause -- which normally would require State B to recognize any lawful marriage performed in State A -- from being used to extend one state's recognition of same-sex marriage to other states whose citizens chose not to recognize such a union.

Contrary to the wishes of a number of my Republican colleagues, I crafted the legislation so it wasn't a hammer the federal government could use to force states to recognize only unions between a man and a woman. Congress deliberately chose not to establish a single, nationwide definition of marriage.

However, we did incorporate into DOMA's second part a definition of marriage that comported with the historic -- and, at the time, widely accepted -- view of the institution as being between a man and a woman only. But this definition was to be used solely to interpret provisions of federal law related to spouses.

The first part of DOMA, then, is a partial bow to principles of federalism, protecting the power of each state to determine its definition of marriage. The second part sets a legal definition of marriage only for purposes of federal law, but not for the states. That was the theory.
I've wrestled with this issue for the last several years and come to the conclusion that DOMA is not working out as planned. In testifying before Congress against a federal marriage amendment, and more recently while making my case to skeptical Libertarians as to why I was worthy of their support as their party's presidential nominee, I have concluded that DOMA is neither meeting the principles of federalism it was supposed to, nor is its impact limited to federal law.

In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws -- including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits -- has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.
Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.

In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, "Decisions about marriage should be left to the states." He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions.
Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the Libertarian Party's 2008 nominee for president.

Not sure if I want to applaud Congressman Barr's about face or roll my eyes. Right conclusion, wrong reasoning.

Gay marriage can't and shouldn't be left up to the states to decide. It's a civil rights issue, and that means the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clauses must be applied for the right of all consenting adults to be validated. Furthermore, we can't count on fifty individual state governments to do the right thing, here. It's got to come from the highest levels, in the same way desegregation had to come from the U.S. Supreme Court and from Congress's passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Still, if DOMA were repealed it'd be a great first step in the ultimate legalization of gay marriage, and it does count that one of the far right's biggest spokesmen is reconsidering his position.

The Battle over California's Prop 8 goes on...

2009-01-05T23:07:00.003-07:00

Back to the courts...

California gay marriage battle turns to court role

By Peter Henderson Peter Henderson – Mon Jan 5, 9:46 pm ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – The legal battle over gay marriage in California turned on Monday to whether the state's top court could strike down a change in the state constitution that was approved by voters.

Gay marriage opponents said overturning a same-sex marriage ban would change the nature of California government by gutting the people's right to make law.

Giving such power to the court would create "a sweeping power vested in the least-democratic branch that overrides the precious right of the people to determine how they will be governed," they said in court papers filed on Monday.

"It is essentially changing the constitution-making function from the people to the courts," lawyer Andrew Pugno, a supporter of Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, said by telephone.

Gay marriage proponents, led by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, argue that the right to marry is part of the "inalienable right" to liberty, so the state Supreme Court must strike down even an amendment to the constitution limiting it.

Unfortunately, this is where the issue will ultimately be decided. Gay marriage is highly unlikely to be accepted through the ballot box. To my knowledge, no state that has permited gay marriage or same-sex unions has done so by a vote of the state's voting population; they've all come through the courts.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown has it pegged right, though. It's not just a personal preference or privacy issue, or even an issue of "common decency"; the debate has to be framed as one of civil rights. Simply put, it has to be argued that the states have no good reason to deprive homosexual couples of the same rights as those enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

Stay tuned.

News Out of New Hampshire

2009-01-03T11:03:00.003-07:00

From the SeaCoastOnline.com website.

Splaine pushes for gay marriage in N.H. House
By Karen Dandurant
kdandurant@seacoastonline.com
December 29, 2008 6:00 AM

PORTSMOUTH — When legislators meet in 2009, there will be several bills to consider that deal with civil unions and gay marriage.

State Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, submitted a bill asking that civil unions, which are currently recognized by the state, be changed to allow marriage. State Rep. Paul McEachern, D-Portsmouth, is co-sponsoring the bill.

"The bill would essentially provide for full marriage equality," Splaine said. "I submitted the bill because I think it's important that we keep this dialogue going."

Splaine said the bill will be presented on Jan. 7 along with the other bills introduced for the session. He said then it will be scheduled for a public hearing or sent to a committee.

Splaine said that although civil unions are recognized in New Hampshire, gay marriage is not. He said a bill introduced by state Rep. David Hess, R-Hooksett, would prohibit New Hampshire from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states as civil unions here.

This is generally good news, IMHO, as "civil unions" have served only as a foot in the door with regard to the legalization of gay marriage. Rep. Splaine is trying to break down that barrier, and I applaud that.

What gets me is the quote from Rep. David Hess in the last paragraph of the article. That speaks volumes.

(Hess said) "I think there is a significant difference between civil unions and marriage, which is a concept of tradition recognized all over the world. I think same-sex marriage goes beyond and is not needed.

"Civil unions are not marriage, but a legal concept generated in several states. Same-sex marriage is contrary to Christian traditions and every religious concept of marriage between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, because one of the primary functions of marriage is procreating."

Emphasis is mine.

Every once in a while, the homophobes let slip a tiny little bit of truth that somehow amazingly avoids detection. Everybody get that? Marriage isn't about love or companionship, it's about procreating. Making babies. Gay people don't do that, so the concept of gay marriage is therefore abhorrent.

Of course, it's an easy step to extend that logic. If marriage is about procreating, shouldn't heterosexual couples who choose not to have children (or are somehow unable to do so) therefore be required to divorce?

Rep. Hess? Hello?

Is this thing on?

Part of my humble apology...

2009-01-01T16:53:00.004-07:00

In keeping with my practice of a little gratuitious nudity to make up for being away so long...

And actually, a few months ago I got a comment wondering why all my gratuitious nudity was so blatantly oriented toward the feminine gender, and I honestly couldn't think of an appropriate response, so...

Speaking of New Mommy Bristol Palin...

2009-01-01T16:40:00.004-07:00

This just came down the pike as I was sending the last post...

Sarah Palin's daughter warns against teenage pregnancy

In a statement issued by the family, Bristol said she "obviously discourages" teen pregnancy and understood her previous plans had now been changed forever.

"Teenagers need to prevent pregnancy to begin with – this isn't ideal," she said.
"But I'm fortunate to have a supportive family which is dealing with this together. Tripp is so perfectly precious; we love him with all our hearts. I can't imagine life without him now."

Hm. Now it occurs to those two crazy kids that maybe unprotected sex wasn't such a hot idea.

Better late than never, I suppose.

I have to preface this next statement by adding that I have in fact no idea what sort of sex ed Bristol and new daddy Levi got in their respective homes and/or their schools (or lack thereof), so I'm only speculating.

However...

In light of the fact that for most of the neo-cons and Holy Terrors out there, premarital sex is just bad, bad, bad, bad...

made even worse by the fact that preventing pregnancy as a rule is just bad, bad, bad, bad...

worse still by the notion that EDUCATING teens about AVOIDING unexpected pregnancies is just bad, bad, bad, bad...

Small wonder these two crazy kids had this happy little "accident"...

And I echo Bristol's sentiments in the above quote. She's lucky to have such a supportive family. Not all the girls in her situation are quite so lucky.

But again, better late than never when it comes to unexpected pregnancies, right?

Abstinence Pledges Don't Work---What A Shock

2009-01-01T16:12:00.002-07:00

No surprise at all. The pledges seem to work as well as does ignorance-only sex ed.

(Excerpted. The emphases are mine).

New study finds that abstinence pledging teens still have sex

December 29, 11:58 AM
by Michele Johansen & Lexie Tigre, Seattle Eastside Parenting Examiners

For several years, teens pledging abstinence until marriage have been on the rise. While this may give their parents some peace of mind, a new federal study announced today that teens who pledge abstinence are just as likely to have premarital sex than teens who do not pledge abstinence. Even more unsettling is the finding that teens planning to save themselves are less likely to use birth control when they do have sex. Well, moms and dads, you might want to put a hold on that abstinence party you were planning for your teen. Looks like that peace of mind was really just a false sense of security.

***

The federal government has spent over $100 million dollars on abstinence education and the question of whether or not they are effective is now in the spotlight. Adding to the frenzy is the discovery that students that had taken the pledge were less likely to use condoms or other forms of birth control when they did have sex. Rosenbaum says this is due to the difference of what youths learn in abstinence-focused programs. 'They tend not to give accurate information about condoms and birth control' in such programs, a statement that Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association vehemently disagrees with. "Abstinence education programs provide accurate information on the level of protection offered through the typical use of condoms and contraception," she says.

First, I'm not sure if Ms. Huber is drinkin' the Kosmic Kool Aid or if she really believes that tripe, but it's absolutely not true that abstinence only sex ed tells kids the truth about what they need to know.

A blast from the past...

To recap...(from one of my 2007 columns) documenting the findings of Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman's 2004 report

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.

But where was I? Oh, yeah.

So, abstinence pledges don't work any more effectively than does abstinence only sex ed. That is to say, not at all.

I just think it's fitting this story came down just as G.O.P. Vice-Presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska announced she'd just become a grandma at the ripe old age of forty-four. Palin's eighteen year old unmarried daughter and the girl's teenaged boyfriend Levi Johnston had a baby boy on Dec. 30th. It hasn't been talked about much, but Gov. Palin's as Holy as any Holy Terror in politics today, so while the neo-cons have been applauding Bristol's decision to keep the baby, they haven't made much of the fact that these two teenagers sure as hell didn't plan to have a baby, nor that they could have avoided this whole mess if they'd invested seven bucks in a box of condoms.

Ah, well. Youth.

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

2008-03-06T10:01:00.001-07:00

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

2008-03-06T09:46:00.002-07:00

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?

2008-02-21T09:32:00.002-07:00

Busted!

By JIM RUTENBERG, MARILYN W. THOMPSON, DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and STEPHEN LABATON

Published: February 21, 2008
WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

McCain of course denies that he ever had a romantic relationship with Ms. Iseman, and at first glance it looks like a case of MYOB, but Ms. Iseman is in fact a lobbyist. Considering the Senator's reputation as a "straight-shooting-higher-ethical-standard-let's-fix-the-way-Washington-does-business type, the fact he's so close to a lobbyist raises so many questions that his supporters would probably be grateful if it's JUST about sex.

"Blowjobs? Thank GOD!"

But I digress. I'm sure the mass media, in its frenzy to sell sex, sex, sex 24/7 will dig up the necessary dirt.

And for the record, yes, nine years ago Senator John McCain felt that President Clinton's inappropriate PRIVATE relationship with Monica Lewinsky meant the President was unfit for public office.

Sex Toys Legal in the Lone Star State!!!

2008-02-19T16:11:00.003-07:00

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...

2008-02-13T10:42:00.002-07:00

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

The Porn Hypocrisy

2008-02-13T10:34:00.002-07:00

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

2008-02-08T09:35:00.000-07:00

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??

2008-02-08T09:29:00.001-07:00

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

2008-02-05T16:29:00.000-07:00

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

2008-02-03T22:45:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-31T23:30:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-01-29T23:31:00.000-07:00

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"

2008-01-28T13:35:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-01-27T15:37:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-26T19:54:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-01-24T10:38:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-24T10:32:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-24T10:01:00.001-07:00

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

2008-01-22T17:43:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-20T19:25:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-01-20T15:01:00.000-07:00

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....

2008-01-18T22:32:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-18T22:08:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-01-17T10:05:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-16T07:01:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-13T22:46:00.000-07:00

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!!!

2008-01-12T22:14:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-12T21:55:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-10T16:45:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-09T00:07:00.000-07:00

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.

Another All Worked Up Column

2008-01-07T23:20:00.000-07:00

ALL WORKED UP ABOUT M.Y.O.B.
By J.T. Benjamin
Copr. 2007

Early last year, in this very column, I announced the adoption of a new motto, to coincide with the then-upcoming mid-term elections. My goal was to give like-minded, free-thinking, sexually liberated, intellectually sophisticated people of exceptionally good taste, (like the readers of this column), a ready-made high caliber piece of ammunition in our war of words against the forces of sexual repression. Whenever the enemy tried to shove their anti-freedom, anti-fun, anti-whoopie doctrine down our collective throats, my motto would provide an easy, clear, direct response.

And what was this ready-made credo? This soundbite? This armor-piercing shell of a catchphrase?

“Mind Your Own Business.”

As I wrote back in January, 2006,

“It’s firm. It’s assertive. It’s simple. It’s ‘Get The Government Out Of Our Private Lives.’ It’s Freedom. It’s Liberty. It’s All-American. It’s Ann Landers saying, ‘Dear Concerned: M.Y.O.B.’ It’s Hank Williams singing, ‘Why don’t you mind your own business, so you won’t be minding mine.’ You can’t get more All-American than Ann and Hank. Of course, regarding child pornography and sexual assault, we all need to crack down, but when it comes to monitoring the sex lives of consenting adults, we have to say just four simple words.

“Mind Your Own Business.

“A guy down the street hangs a “Gay Pride” flag in his window where everybody can see it.

“Mind Your Own Business.

“The newsstand on the corner sells books and magazines with all kinds of filth and dirty pictures.

“Mind Your Own Business.

“That couple in church looks nice, but I hear they throw late-night private parties once a month, and some of the people in those parties wear lots and lots of leather.

“Mind Your Own Business.

“Mr. Edwards, the math teacher, has a roommate named Jim, and there’s only one bed in their apartment.

“Mind Your Own Business.”

I have to say that the reaction to my adoption of that credo has been overwhelmingly positive. I can’t count the number of emails, blogs, and general comments I’ve received in support, for which I’m grateful, and I’m glad to see that even certain public figures have been voicing similar sentiments.

I just didn’t expect most of them to be REPUBLICANS.

Take young Tyler Whitney, for example. He’s been working as the webmaster on Colorado Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo’s Presidential campaign. Tyler’s also gay. Mr. Whitney was recently “outed” by the Michigan gay newspaper “Between The Lines,” and his cohorts on the Tancredo campaign rushed to his defense. Bay Buchanan, one of Tancredo’s top advisors, even said, “A person’s sexual preference is a personal matter and has nothing to do with the campaign.”

Amen, Sister! That’s the MYOB philosophy at its finest. Well stated!

The only problem is, Whitney’s boss is famous for his anti-gay marriage rhetoric, and Whitney himself is a card-carrying member of the Young Americans For Freedom group at Michigan State University. YAF is listed as an anti-gay, anti-immigrant hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and nine months ago, Whitney himself was seen at a YAF-sponsored demonstration against pro-homosexual legislation, holding a sign that said, “Go back in the closet!”

So it appears that Whitney was NOT a believer in the MYOB credo right up until HIS right to privacy and HIS sexual preferences were brought to public attention. That’s okay, Tyler. Converts are welcome in our movement. As long as you’re a believer now, that’s all that’s important.

Just like Mary. She just had a baby boy with her life-partner, Heather. That’s right. Samuel has two mommies. Of course, the Holy Terrors have been up in arms about all this. Focus On The Family founder James Dobson eve chimed in, saying on the FOTF website that “The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy—any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl…The fact remains that gender matters—perhaps nowhere more than in regard to child rearing…Isn’t there something in our hearts that tells us, intuitively, that children need a mother and a father?…(R)aising children is a two-person job best accomplished by a mother and a father.” Some of Dobson’s cronies on the uber-right even called Mary and Heather, “cruel” and “selfish” for bringing a baby into the world without a father.

To her credit, Mary wouldn’t put up with that shit. She proudly proclaimed, “This is a baby. This is a blessing from God. It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate, on either side of a political issue. It is my child.”
You go, girl! Tell those fascists hiding behind the Bible to get their stinking noses out of your uterus and your bedroom! It’s tough enough raising a child in this day and age, and it’s been made all the more difficult when right-wing, homophobic assholes feel they’ve got the God-given right to interfere with your right to happiness and the joys of motherhood. Way to go, Mary Cheney!

Mary Cheney?

Yup. As in, “Lesbian daughter of Vice-President Richard ‘Prince Of Darkness/Darth Vader’ Cheney. Chief crony to George Dubya Bush and sidekick whore to the very same religious right homophobic assholes who are shrilly attempting to legislate homosexuality into fourth-class citizenship status. Mary’s been working diligently for her father’s campaigns for years and has never said one word to criticize or dilute the Bush-Cheney cabal’s message of anti-gay hatred.

So Mary and Heather are also latecomers to the MYOB party. That’s okay. You’re welcome anyway. It’s a shame your son’s been born into a world of such animosity toward his two mommies, and that his grandfather is one of the main sources of that animosity. But it’s cool. It’s also ironic.

There’s irony, and then there’s hypocrisy. When Bill Clinton was being impeached for the Monica Lewinsky affair, two of his biggest critics were House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia and then-Congressman David Vitter of Louisiana. Both Republicans screamed bloody murder that Clinton had engaged in an otherwise private indiscretion, and that his moral failings were so great that he should either resign or be removed from office.

At the time, Gingrich’s and Vitter’s wailings drowned out any responsive, “Mind your own business” argument, but rest assured. Both Gingrich and Vitter have seen the light, now.

A few months ago, on James Dobson’s (him again!) radio program, Gingrich confessed that while he was persecuting Clinton for adultery, Gingrich himself was cheating on his second wife, with the woman who would become his third wife. (For that matter, Gingrich started seeing his second wife while he was still married to his first wife. I detect a pattern, here).

Gingrich sees no hypocrisy or irony in his actions, and he’s even gone on the record as saying that private affairs (pun intended) shouldn’t be fodder for public discussion. In effect, he’s saying it’s None of Our Business. Which it isn’t. Except when he says it is. Like when it’s someone else’s business.

Finally, David Vitter’s situation is still the stuff of late-night talk show monologues. The phone numbers in the D.C. Madam’s Rolodex. The testimonials from several well-known Washington and New Orleans prostitutes. The tearful Jimmy Swaggert-style “I-have-sinned” press conference, standing next to his “supportive” wife, who looks like she’s staring down the barrel of a shotgun.

Of course, any decent observer would conclude that Vitter’s indiscretions and the attendant consequences should be solely the province of himself and his wife, and it’s none of our business what they do or how they do it, right?

And the fact that Vitter demanded Clinton resign over the Lewinski affair should bear no reflection on Vitter’s own position in the Senate, right? Live and let live, right, Senator? Mind your own business, right Senator Vitter?

Congressman Gingrich?

Ms. Cheney?

Mr. Whitney?

Looking back, I blame myself. I appreciate that conservatives are seeing the light, but it’s apparent when I came up with my MYOB credo, I didn’t go into enough detail. I went for brevity, not precision. I’d just assumed that when someone wants to be left alone, he naturally must be willing to leave others alone, as well. It appears that Gingrich, Cheney, and the rest didn’t get the subtlety of the message until it was their private lives under the microscope.

Therefore, I’m revising my credo. The new one doesn’t flow off the tongue as well as “Mind Your Own Business” does, but I don’t want any more misunderstandings.

Ahem.

“If you keep your nose out of my bedroom, I’ll keep my nose out of your bedroom, and nobody has to suffer a broken nose.”

How’s that?

WE'RE NUMBER ONE! WE'RE NUMBER ONE! DENVER IS AMERICA'S MOST LUSTFUL CITY!!!

2008-01-06T10:33:00.000-07:00

Who cares if the Broncos suck? This is big! We should call the Chamber of Commerce to exploit this!

From MSNBC via Forbes Magazine

America's most lustful cities
Denver and San Antonio top the list for most condoms sold, study says
By Rebecca Ruiz
Forbes
updated 3:56 p.m. MT, Fri., Jan. 4, 2008

Forget Paris or Rome. If you're desperately seeking sex, head to San Antonio or Cincinnati instead.

Residents of these metros enjoy vigorous sex lives — at least their condom and contraceptive purchases at grocery and drug stores indicate as much. These purchases placed them in the top 10 of a survey of America's Most Lustful Cities.

In the absence of government or academic research on the sexual practices of Americans in the country's 50 largest cities, the market proved to be the best place to provide answers. Research firm ACNielsen provided a per-capita index of over-the-counter contraceptive purchases in major U.S. markets for the past 52 weeks. The average index was 100.

Denver topped the list with an index of 289, which translates into 189 percent more contraceptives sales than normally expected for a market its size. Other cities that ranked in the top 10 were Seattle, Washington, D.C. and Salt Lake City. Metropolitan areas one might expect to see ranked, like New York, Los Angeles and Las Vegas, had average or below average indexes.

Though condom and contraceptive sales are an imperfect way of measuring sexual desire — this is especially true for monogamous couples and those in same-sex relationships — they do provide a broad picture of sexual activity in each city.

(emphasis added)

I'm so proud! And just in time for the Democratic National Convention, too!

All Worked Up from December, 2007

2008-01-05T01:12:00.001-07:00

Reposting a past column from the ERWA website.

ALL WORKED UP ABOUT REAL MEN
By J.T. Benjamin
Copr. 2007

Speaking from experience, I have to say that raising a son is different than raising a daughter. (Before anybody gets into an uproar, notice I didn’t say, “harder” or “easier,” I said “different), not the least of which is the different issues boys and girls face as they prepare to enter adulthood.

Joseph Campbell, Desmond Morris, and innumerable sociologists and psychologists have written millions of words concerning the fact that in virtually every human society, there’s a profound difference in the ways that boys become men, as opposed to the ways that girls become women.

In most cultures, typically, a girl crosses the threshold into womanhood once she begins to menstruate. This means she’s physically capable of doing things only a woman can do, namely bear children. However, from society’s perspective, this is a more or less passive event. It’s biological. It just happens when it’s time to happen, and the girl doesn’t have to actually do anything to cross that threshold into adulthood.

For a boy, however, it’s different. There’s no natural or biological event that “triggers” his passing into manhood. It’s therefore more difficult to define when a boy crosses that threshold into manhood, and as a result, most societies have created “rites of passage” which clearly draw the line of that threshold. The bar mitzvah in Jewish culture is but one example. At the age of thirteen, (usually), Jewish boys are considered responsible for their actions, they commit to following the Torah, and they are considered men. (Yes, there’s an equivalent ceremony for Jewish girls, called the bat mitzvah, but its popularity is of a relatively recent vintage, barely one hundred years. The bar mitzvah traces at least to the Middle Ages, and some forms of the ceremony are even older. But I digress).

In other cultures, adolescent boys have become men by way of ritual circumcision, or by performing some “manly” event for the first time such as participating in a hunt or some kind of raid on a neighboring tribe or, yes, even some sexual event.

While it’s now the twenty-first century, and we don’t have to go out and kill and skin a bison anymore, it can’t be denied that for the male gender, there’s still a social dividing line between adolescent boys and adult men and, just as importantly, between adult men who behave in certain ways and “real” men who behave in different, more socially acceptable ways.

Consider Rudyard Kipling’s famous poem, “If.”

“If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;

(And so on for twelve more stanzas, finishing with:)

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!”

More or less sound advice, but the key word, in fact the very title of the poem speaks volumes. IF you do these things, you’re a man.

It’s even ingrained in the language. “Big boys don’t cry.” “This’ll make a man out of you.” “This’ll put hair on your chest.” The metaphors are clear. Son, you have to do this, you have to achieve something before you can be considered a man. Until then, you’re still just a child.

My point is that boys and men seem to be stuck. If you don’t adequately complete the rite of passage or cross the appropriate threshold, what happens then? Do you have to wait in some anteroom for the less-than-completely-masculine for another chance to take the test?

For that matter, what is the appropriate test for manhood these days? Bison are few and far between, and ritual circumcision has gone out of style. That hasn’t stopped social commentators from mouthing off about what’s appropriate behavior for “Real Men” and the apparently “less-real” variety.

Back in the 1980’s, Bruce Fierstein sold millions of copies of his book, “Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche,” for example. Susan Faludi’s more serious book “Stiffed” hypothesizes that the American man has been systematically emasculated by…get this…American society. Feminism has apparently chopped off our collective balls, fellas. We’re just not the macho guys we used to be.

Modern conservatives are great at delineating who are bona fide members of the Penis Club and who aren’t. For example, take the present occupant of the White House. Born in Connecticut, the spoiled scion of an east-coast old-money family, Ivy-Leaguer, draft dodger, substance abuser, multiple-business failure and all-around wastrel, George W. Bush successfully marketed himself as a go-get-‘em type Texas good ol’ boy who uses a chainsaw to clear brush on his Crawford ranch, the sort of fellow “you could go have a beer with,” as if this was the perfect sort of qualification for President. At the same time, the Bush propaganda machine successfully marketed Al Gore and John Kerry as being wafflers, pseudo-intellectuals, serial exaggerators and even “stiffs.”

It’s continuing with the present Presidential campaign. Republican Presidential hopeful Fred Thompson, for example, was a Senator for just one term. He sponsored no groundbreaking legislation, chaired no powerhouse committee, delivered no impassioned speech on the Senate floor. He’s most famous as an actor. Yet, he LOOKS like a Real Man. He’s tall. He’s got broad shoulders. He’s got a deep, booming voice. He’s got a hot trophy wife. Those seem to be, in the eyes of his supporters and the pundits, sufficient qualifications to pursue the nation’s highest political office.

Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, also happens to have a hot babe-a-licious wife, but since he’s short and kinda mousy-looking, not to mention the fact he doesn’t look good on TV, well, he’s not a genuine Presidential candidate.

Ann Coulter even went so far as to call John Edwards a “faggot,” which is apparently the ultimate put-down when it comes to qualifications for the White House.

Getting away from the race for the White House, it appears that Real Men dig NASCAR, they hunt and fish and shoot guns, they shy away from operas and classical music, never keep lapdogs in their homes, don’t get into “feminine” professions such as secretarial work, nursing, or elementary school teaching, and never do anything even remotely effeminate in nature or, worse, suggesting homosexual urges.

That’s the big one. Reverend Ted Haggerd and Idaho Senator Larry Craig had their macho credentials taken away when they got busted engaging in homosexual-type activities. Never mind the fact that both men had kids, shot guns, and gay-bashed with the best of them. Once that single pink card came up, boom. Turn in your union badges, guys.

The only exception to this rule seems to be those photographs of Rudy Giuliani in drag that keep floating about. Nobody’s challenged his bona fides. Maybe it’s because he’s been married to three different women. I dunno. Frankly, I find the whole thing confusing.

That’s part of my problem. When I’m trying to figure out what to teach my son about being a man, the rules about “Real Man”-dom don’t make any logical sense. Real Men don’t dance ballet, but nobody can deny Mikhail Baryshnikov is in the Manly Man Hall of Fame. Real Men don’t cook, but Paul Prudhomme does all right for himself. Real Men don’t read or write poetry, but then there are William Shakespeare, Robert Frost, and the aforementioned Rudyard Kipling.

I’ve therefore taken it upon myself to set up my own test for what constitutes a “Real Man.” It’s not so much a rite of passage as it is a quiz.

And what are my credentials for setting up this test for Real Manhood? Easy. I have a penis.

Not enough?

Okay, I understand. Can’t be too careful these days. I’m qualified to determine who’s a Real Man and who isn’t because I’ve fathered children. I drink beer. I own two pistols, a shotgun and three rifles, and I can shoot them all. I can name the teams, the final score, and the MVP of every Super Bowl ever played. I’ve got an extensive collection of straight porn and I know the appropriate way to slip a dollar bill under a G-string during a table dance.

Now that that’s out of the way, here we go.

A Real Man eats quiche, steak, Caesar Salad or whatever the hell he wants to eat, and he drinks wine, beer, iced tea, or water if that’s what he wants to drink.

A Real Man can tie a necktie or an ascot or just wear a T-shirt if the mood strikes.

A Real Man says to his son, “If you want to quit the football team to dance ballet, it’s fine with me as long as you’re happy.”

A Real Man stands in the middle of the street and yells, “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!”

A Real Man cries when his wife is giving birth, or when his daughter’s getting married, or when his lover dies of AIDS, or at the horrors of war, or whenever he feels like it.

A Real Man says, “I love you,” when he means it.

A Real Man says, “I’m sorry,” when he means it.

A Real Man says, “I’m an alcoholic,” or “I’m depressed,” or “I’m addicted to gambling,” or “I have a problem, and I need help.”

A Real Man…

A Real Man…

A Real Man doesn’t give a flying fuck what other people say a Real Man should be.

Very Important Business...

2008-01-03T13:47:00.000-07:00

As usual, time to link to the hottest and best erotic website on the net.

The Great Liberal Sex Ed Conspiracy--BUSTED

2008-01-03T00:11:00.000-07:00

This is all kinds of stupid.

Radical Conservative Claims That Proponents of Sex Education Want Kids to Get STDs in Order to Advance the Abortion Agenda

Reported by Marie Therese - January 1, 2008 -

There are some people in this country who are are so blinded by their belief in the abstinence agenda that they have left the world of reality and entered a state of delusion. That's the only way to describe Concerned Women for America President, Wendy Wright, who appeared on the December 31st edition of Special Report. Miss Wright, in all seriousness, said this about those who support comprehensive sex ed in the schools: "In fact, they want to encourage [kids to choose to have sex] because they benefit when kids end up having sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies and then they lead them into having abortions, so you have to look at the financial motives behind those who are promoting comprehensive sex ed."

Those sharp minds at the Concerned Women For America are on to us! Yes! We're secretly promoting comprehensive sex ed because we want to cause as many unwanted pregnancies as possible!

The only problem is that our dastardly plans aren't working! In fact, they're having the opposite effect!

Sex Education Works, Study Shows
Teens Who Have Formal Sex Education Delay Sexual Activity, Researchers Find

WebMD) Sex education is effective, increasing the chances that teens will delay having sexual intercourse at least until they reach age 15, according to a new study.

"We were encouraged that sex education is working," says Trisha Mueller, MPH, an epidemiologist at the CDC in Atlanta who led the study. "Sex education should continue to be implemented."
*****
Their major findings, published in the January issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health:

Teenage girls who received sex education had a 59% reduced risk of having sexual intercourse before age 15 compared with those who did not get sex education before their first intercourse.

For teenage boys, sex ed before first intercourse had a 71% reduced risk of having intercourse before age 15 compared with those boys who did not get sex ed before their first intercourse.

For high-risk groups, the benefit was even greater. African-American urban teenage girls who got sex ed before their first intercourse had an 88% reduced risk of having sex before age 15, Mueller says, compared with those who did not get the training.

Teenage boys who were in school or had graduated and had sex ed were about three times more likely to use birth control when they first had sex compared with those who were in school or had graduated and didn't get sex ed.

Curses! Foiled again!

One more post today..

2008-01-02T16:58:00.000-07:00

No more politics for now, just sex.

I Heart Huckabee---NOT

2008-01-02T16:33:00.000-07:00

This is, of course, a sex AND politics blog...

In case you've been living in a cave for the past year, (and I don't blame you), the Iowa Presidential caucuses are tomorrow.

As far as the Democrats are concerned, I don't have a favorite right now, because any of the candidates would be better than the talking chimp in the White House now.

However, hard as it is to believe, the Republican candidates could actually be worse.

One in particular, Mike Huckabee, scares the hell out of me, right now. Why? He could actually win.

McCain's running out of money; after he flops in New Hampshire, he'll bow out.

Romney's campaign won't make it to Valentine's Day. In fact, he's going to be watching the Super Bowl with his feet up and a beer in his hand, being secretly grateful that whole thing's over.

Thompson, Paul, and most of the rest will be toast before long, as well.

Huckabee, however, is in it to stay. He's got the big mo, and, more importantly, he seems to have struck a chord with the Holy Terrors. They're the power behind the Republican Party. They're the ones who need to have their collective dicks sucked, but good, and Huckabee's been blowing them better than most.

That's because he's a True Believer. Bushco's been whoring themselves for the Holy Terrors, but you always had a sense he didn't really believe their line of bullshit.

However, Huckabee's an ordained Southern Baptist Minister, so he's got the necessary credentials, in the eyes of Dobson, Pat Robertson, et al., to be the G.O.P.'s standard bearer.

Unfortunately, Huckabee's also crazy as a shithouse rat.Part of the problem with being a true believer is the willingness to abandon logic, common sense, facts, and even reality. While that's perfectly fine in a neighbor, a preacher, or even a close relative, (Sorry, Uncle Jim), but in a President, it's downright scary.

According to Matt Taibbi's Rolling Stone article, (linked above), Mike's sincere when he rants about intelligent design, the allegedly coming Rapture, and science. What makes it worse is Huckabee's attitudes toward sex and women.

See? Told ya the sex part was coming.

Back in 1998, Huckabee signed off on a statement endorsing the Southern Baptist Convention's position that “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband, even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”

There we have it, ladies and gentlemen. Mike Huckabee, one of the sharpest minds of the 13th Century.

But wait, there's more. Huckabee's also gone on the record as equating homosexuality with necrophilia, and on Meet The Press the other day, he stated that "While I don’t know whether people are born that way, but one thing I know, that the behavior one practices is a choice.”

I'm of two minds about the Huckster. On the one hand, if he wins the Republican nomination, he's so far out there he'll hopefully scare the shit out of reasonable people and the Democratic nominee will roll to an easy victory. And it's not just about the Neanderthal attitudes about sex and women. There are loads of ugly skeletons in Huckabee's closet that are just itching to get out and dance around a while. (More on that later).

On the other hand, the S.O.B. just might win the whole shebang. THEN, we're in trouble.

Happy Times In New Hampshire

2008-01-02T14:34:00.000-07:00

A real reason to celebrate in the Granite State.

Gay N.H. couples celebrate, gain status in civil unions
Globe Staff / January 2, 2008

PORTSMOUTH - Clad in jeans and loose-fitting sweaters, Rachel Gogan and Katie Raynes walked into the side room of a church basement yesterday and joined in a precedent-setting civil union ceremony.

And then they drove home to Dover for a quiet lunch.

The women, both in their mid-20s, were casual history-makers, among the first of about 100 couples in New Hampshire to unite under the state's civil union law that took effect yesterday. Their more formal and emotional, though unofficial, union took place in October, when friends and family gathered for a ceremony and party in Maine.

"We already had our wedding. This was the signing of our paperwork. The state's finally catching up with us," Gogan said.

New Hampshire became the fourth state to allow civil unions of same-sex couples. Just after midnight, the first 40 or so couples held ceremonies at the State House. Smaller ceremonies took place in other parts of the state throughout the day. By the afternoon, 11 couples, including Gogan and Raynes, were committed at South Church Unitarian Universalist Church in Portsmouth.

This is about more than just people making an emotional commitment to each other. This is about legal rights, as well.

A similar law that was scheduled to go into effect in Oregon has unfortunately been blocked for the time being.
Hopefully, this is only a temporary setback.

In the meantime, Happy New Year!

John McCain: Ignoramus, Idiot, or Whore?

2007-03-18T15:28:00.000-06:00

First, I will give Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) all due credit for his admirable military record. He distinguished career as a pilot, warrior and prisoner of war are a credit to his own courage and to the dignity of our country. He should justly be proud of his service to the United States.

As a politician and Presidential candidate, however, John McCain is a disgrace.

From the New York Times:

SOMEWHERE in NORTHERN IOWA — The unthinkable has happened. Senator John McCain met a question, while sitting with reporters on his bus as it rumbled through Iowa today, that he couldn’t – or perhaps wouldn’t – answer.

Did he support the distribution of taxpayer-subsidized condoms in Africa to fight the transmission of H.I.V.?

What followed was a long series of awkward pauses, glances up to the ceiling and the image of one of Mr. McCain’s aides, standing off to the back, urgently motioning his press secretary to come to Mr. McCain’s side.

The upshot was that Mr. McCain said he did not know this subject well, did not know his position on it, and relied on the advice of Senator Tom Coburn, a physician and Republican from Oklahoma.

His press secretary, Brian Jones, later reported that Mr. McCain had a record of voting against using government money to finance the distribution of condoms.

The transcript of the discussion is VERY enlightening.

Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?”

Mr. McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.”

(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

Mr. McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

To his credit, the reporter gave McCain every chance to rescue himself on this. But let's summarize. We've got a Presidential candidate, who spent four years in the House of Representatives before entering the Senate in 1987, so that's twenty-four years as an elected official. Notice he got started in the 1980's, when the AIDS outbreak first hit the fan. Twenty-four years in government service, during which the AIDS virus and the prevention of same became the most talked-about health issue of our time.

And this guy says he doesn't know whether condoms prevent HIV-AIDS? (Correction: to use McCain's phrase, the question "stumped" him.)

What planet has this guy been living on?

There's loads more to find fault with on this one. McCain's support of Bush's current "Just keep your legs crossed and take lots of cold showers" policy towards stopping the AIDS epidemic in Africa is as inexcusable as Bush's position itself.

Secondly, McCain says he defers to his colleague, Sen. Tom Coburn (an M.D.) on these sorts of issues. Considering another medical doctor, Sen. Bill Frist said in December 2004 that first he "didn't know" whether you could catch the HIV virus through tears or sweat, and then he said that you can, I'm not sure it's a good idea to trust the medical judgments of members of Congress. They seem not to stay caught up on the latest literature.

For the record, you can't catch the AIDS virus through tears or sweat, and condoms are considered "highly effective" in preventing the spread of the virus when they're used properly. Page 3 of the CDC's factsheet says "latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens."

So, essentially Sen. McCain has been living down a rabbit hole when it comes to the most public health issue of our time. When the subject of HIV-AIDS comes up, he sticks his fingers in his ears and runs down the hall going, "La-la-la-la-la! I"m not listening! La-la-la-la-la-la!"

Or, there's another possibility. Sen. McCain knows perfectly well that condoms prevent the spreading of the virus. However, he also knows that if he comes out pro-logic, fact and common sense on the issue in any way, shape or form, he's going to alienate the Holy Terror base of the Republican Party, a base he desperately needs to fellate if he expects their support during his Presidential run.

I suspect it's Option B. McCain's track record demonstrates a willingness to whore himself to the Holy Terrors at every available opportunity. The guy actually once said he'd support ceremonies to join gay couples in civil unions, but ONLY if the ceremonies had no legally binding effect. In the 2000 South Carolina primary, Bush's campaign slandered McCain's family, calling him crazy and a "fag", his adopted daughter illegitimate, and his wife a drug addict. In response to these attacks, McCain should've met Bush in a dark alley behind a seedy bar and beaten the draft-dodging little asshole senseless with a two-by-four. Instead, McCain attached himself to Bush's dick and he hasn't been dislodged since.

The irony is that McCain holds Barry Goldwater's old Senate seat. Goldwater must be spinning in his grave. I'm not a Goldwater fan, but he never would've put up with that shit.

P.S. Upon due reflection, it appears that no culprit has been identified in the 2000 South Carolina primary smear campaign. Call me crazy, but my hunch is the mastermind's name rhymes with "Tarl Bove."

Some truly mind-blowing bullshit from the Holy Terrors

2007-03-17T17:13:00.000-06:00

The anti-sexual freedom crowd seems to have the upper hand these days. An enormous majority of U.S. states have legalized discrimination against sexual orientation and in the overall War On Whoopie, the bad guys are still firmly in control.

And yet there are chinks in the armor. Every time a Holy Terror attempts to justify his thoughts and actions, he manages to demonstrate the illogic and sheer stupidity of his position. As a wise man once said, "It is better to remain silent and have people think you're an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Case in point:

Furor over Baptist's gay-baby article

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
Wed Mar 14, 5:59 PM ET

NEW YORK - The president of the leading Southern Baptist seminary has incurred sharp attacks from both the left and right by suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified.

The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., one of the country's pre-eminent evangelical leaders, acknowledged that he irked many fellow conservatives with an article earlier this month saying scientific research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality.

Proof of a biological basis would challenge the belief of many conservative Christians that homosexuality — which they view as sinful — is a matter of choice that can be overcome through prayer and counseling.

The emphases are mine.

Get all that? The Holy Terrors argue that homosexuality is a choice, not a part of one's genetic makeup. This way, they can argue that homosexuals can be persecuted because they simply made the wrong choice. If homosexuality were something one was born with, such as one's skin color, that'd remove one of their justifications for their bigotry.

So, Reverend Mohler appears to be saying, "mmmmmmmmmaybe there's a scientific basis for homosexuality." He's not following the script. Never mind that the Holy Terrors treat science like a four-letter word. This is big.

But wait. It gets better.

However, Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., was assailed even more harshly by gay-rights supporters. They were upset by his assertion that homosexuality would remain a sin even if it were biologically based, and by his support for possible medical treatment that could switch an unborn gay baby's sexual orientation to heterosexual.

"He's willing to play God," said Harry Knox, a spokesman on religious issues for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay-rights group. "He's more than willing to let homophobia take over and be the determinant of how he responds to this issue, in spite of everything else he believes about not tinkering with the unborn."

Again, the emphases are mine.

So, Rev. Mohler is saying, "Okay. Maybe you can be born gay. However, your loving parents can hopefully save you from assholes like myself by subjecting you to some kind of medical treatment to switch you back from DC current to AC."

As barbaric and stupid as this all sounds, it gets even worse.

(Rev. Mohler) also referred to a recent article in the pop-culture magazine Radar, which explored the possibility that sexual orientation could be detected in unborn babies and raised the question of whether parents — even liberals who support gay rights — might be open to trying future prenatal techniques that would reverse homosexuality.

Mohler said he would strongly oppose any move to encourage abortion or genetic manipulation of fetuses on grounds of sexual orientation, but he would endorse prenatal hormonal treatment — if such a technology were developed — to reverse homosexuality. He said this would no different, in moral terms, to using technology that would restore vision to a blind fetus.

"I realize this sounds very offensive to homosexuals, but it's the only way a Christian can look at it," Mohler said. "We should have no more problem with that than treating any medical problem."

Mohler's argument was endorsed by a prominent Roman Catholic thinker, the Rev. Joseph Fessio, provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Fla., and editor of Ignatius Press, Pope Benedict XVI's U.S. publisher.

"Same-sex activity is considered disordered," Fessio said. "If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science."

What a titanic load of bullshit. In one breath, the Holy Terrors condemn homosexuality as a sin, and in the next they consider it a disease or a "disorder." Make up your fucking minds!

Actually, now that I think about it, they don't have to. In the first place, before you make up your mind, you need a mind to make up with. In the second place, the self-righteous have been painting the sick with the sinners ever since Job's friends said, "Sorry about the boils and pestilence and the deaths of your children, dude. What'd you do to piss God off?"

But I digress.

Such logic dismayed Jennifer Chrisler of Family Pride, a group that supports gay and lesbian families.

"What bothers me is the hypocrisy," she said. "In one breath, they say the sanctity of an unborn life is unconditional, and in the next breath, it's OK to perform medical treatments on them because of their own moral convictions, not because there's anything wrong with the child."

Amen, sister. This is hypocrisy, pure and simple. Again, it's a concept with which the Holy Terrors are very familiar. The good news is that once they give in and admit homosexuality isn't really a choice, they've got one less rationale for their bigotry. That won't stop them from thinking up new ones, of course, but the new ones will be even more stupid and brainless than are the current talking points.

And it only took them...what? Four hundred years to admit they were wrong about that whole "sun-goes-around-the-earth" bullshit? Sorry, Galileo about that whole Inquisition thing. No hard feelings?

P.S. I just had to make one more comment on Rev. Mohler's outlook on all this. Quoting again:

"I realize this sounds very offensive to homosexuals, but it's the only way a Christian can look at it," Mohler said.

Ummm...I thought of another way a Christian can look at it. Just spitballing, here. How about treating homosexuals with the same love, understanding, respect and compassion with which you'd like to be treated? You know, "do unto others as you would have done unto you" and all that?

Just a thought.

More coming up, I promise!

2007-03-16T06:34:00.000-06:00

Manohmanohman! Lots going on but I haven't had much time to blog on it. Big stuff, too. Promise to get some meaningful stuff out soon, after work tonight or tomorrow.

In the meantime...a little cheesecake.

But...but...I'm just furthering diplomatic relations...

2007-03-12T19:28:00.000-06:00

With Mistress Eva, maybe?

Too strange for fiction.

Israel has recalled its ambassador to El Salvador after he was found drunk and naked apart from bondage gear.
Reports say he was able to identify himself to police only after a rubber ball had been removed from his mouth.

*****

Haaretz website reports that police found Mr Refael in the Israeli embassy compound where he had been found bound, gagged and naked apart from sado-masochistic sex accessories.

Here's more from Middle East Times:

According to a story initially published in Israel's tabloid-style Ma'ariv newspaper, police in the Salvadoran capital found Israeli Ambassador Tsuriel Rephael on the streets two weeks ago bound and gagged with sado-masochistic sex accessories.

Despite his inebriated state, Rephael clearly identified himself to officers as Israel's ambassador to the central American state.

Call me crazy, but I'm in the M.Y.O.B. camp on this one. The guy digs S/M but he hasn't broken any laws. Frankly, in light of the things diplomats and politicians of all stripes have been pulling lately, it's nice to know one who's apparently on the receiving end of some punishment instead of administering it.

Words fail me

2007-03-11T13:32:00.000-06:00

I was trying to come up for a catchy title for this post, but no go. I can't sum up in a few words how contemptible, hypocritical, and downright scary this stuff has become.

First, an apology. I know it's been nearly a week since my last post. Real life intrudes, and now it's reached the point where I can't nearly post all the stuff I want to post. Time is precious so it's catch-as-catch can, here. I don't want to feel compelled to put something up every single day just because, and I don't want my posts to just be a link to another site along with a "this sucks" comment. I'd rather it be a little more meaningful than that, so I have to pick and choose and monitor my time carefully.

Then there's stuff like today. Can't NOT post about this one.

Back to business.

You might remember the turncoat Zell Miller, former Senator from Georgia, who stabbed the Democratic party and America in the back by sucking George Bush's dick in the 2004 Republican convention.

Now that we know him for the slimeball traitor that he is, Zell's free to continue his rants unimpeded. This one's a doozy.

Zell Miller: Abortion has shrunk our military, hurt social security, caused illegal immigration

Michael Roston

Zell Miller, the former Democratic Senator from Georgia who backed President George W. Bush in 2004 and spoke at the Republican National Convention, recently told an anti-abortion gathering that the "killing" of unborn babies was the cause of many of America's woes, including its military, social security, and immigration problems.

"How could this great land of plenty produce too few people in the last 30 years?" Miller asked. "Here is the brutal truth that no one dares to mention: We’re too few because too many of our babies have been killed."

Miller claimed that 45 million babies have been "killed" since the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade in 1973.

"If those 45 million children had lived, today they would be defending our country, they would be filling our jobs, they would be paying into Social Security," he asserted.
Miller was speaking at a fund raiser for Sav a Life Center of Macon, Georgia, an organization which tries to persuade women not to have abortions.

The emphases are mine. I have no idea whether Miller's figures are accurate, but I don't believe a word out of that chickenshit sumbitch's mouth. For now, I'll assume the asshole's telling the truth for once when he says there've been 45 million abortions since Roe v. Wade came down in 1973.

Now the rant.

Miller's assertions are beyond perposterous on so many levels. This country's just passed the three hundred million mark in population. It's ludicrous to claim we're producing "too few people." And for what purpose? Let's say that all forty-five million people allegedly aborted since 1973 lived to the present day. (A very iffy assumption, for reasons on which I'll elaborate later). So right there, the country's population is boosted by fifteen percent. Fifteen percent more people to feed, clothe, educate, and provide for. For every six mouths to feed, add one more. And, in light of our current economic situation, all those who are doing without, we can add fifteen percent more of those to the mix. Instead of 50 million people without health insurance, we've got another 7.5 million doing without. Instead of 37.8 million people living below the poverty level, we've got 43.47 million people doing so, almost 5.6 million more. You get the idea.

Now, I admit it sounds a little grisly, insensitive, and cold-blooded to reduce forty-five million people to a bunch of numbers. To treat human lives as a series of columns, without any attempt to measure the depth of their experiences.

And yet that's exactly what Zell Miller has done. All those additional people would be great for contributing to the tax rolls, for padding employment numbers, and (here's the one that made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up), for being cannon fodder in our military's adventures in imperialism.

This line of thinking is nothing new. As I've recounted in this blog, the righties have this obsession with making babies, not for their own sake, but for keeping the population boom going, for making sure blacks and hipanics stay in the minority, and for making "arrows for Christ." I shit you not. (Too many links to add, for now--those damn time constraints. Hopefully later. For the time being, check my archives).

This is what the "sanctity of life" crowd is pushing when they oppose women's right to choose. The Righties don't give a damn about those babies in the creches once they're born, except as part of a numbers game. They don't support health care programs for them, they don't support education, they don't support economic assistance. They're just worried about the bottom line. The U.S. standard of living, especially with regard to health issues, has been steadily declining for more than a decade, especially when compared with the progress in other western nations. And yet, in the eyes of Zell and the rest of the Holy Terrors, the solution is to add more to the rolls.

Finally, let's not forget that abortion is as old as is civilization. According to "When Abortion Was A Crime," by Leslie J. Reagan, about 2 million abortions were performed per year in the 1930's and 1940's. That's about, on average, five hundred thousand more per year than are performed today, in a population that has more than doubled. For Zell to think that sort of stuff simply didn't happen before Roe v. Wade, then...well...he's been sippin' at his daddy's moonshine a little too much.

My rant is getting off track. The ultimate point is that the Holy Terrors and their tools in the pseudo-conservative, neo-fascist wing of American politics are still trying to stifle Americans' sexual freedoms, and their motives are being made ever more clear.

They want us to breed like bunnies. After all, all those pawns on the chessboard gotta come from somewhere, don't they?

John Amaechi, Gay Pro Athlete

2007-03-05T00:00:00.000-07:00

From the Washington Post. In case you didn't know, or knew but had simply forgotten, John Amaechi, former NBA basketball player, wrote a book about being gay in the NBA. Haven't read the book yet, but he seems like an articulate, thoughtful, well-spoken fellow.

Which makes it hard to believe he was able to spend any time in the NBA at all.

From the article, an online chat.

Houston: John,

Based on your experiences, have your found homophobia to be more prevalent in the black community or the white community? Also is homophobia more prevalent in the U.S. or the U.K.?

Thanks.

John Amaechi: I don't think that Europe and the UK is a utopia, but governmental backing of homophobia doesn't exist in the same way it does in America. As for the white and black communities, I think they have a disconnect that is being manipulated by people for political gain. I think both regional and national elections are being won on the back of trumped up bigotry.

******

Lugano, Switzerland: When did you realize that you are gay, at what age?

John Amaechi: Nine or 10.

******

Crazy In Alabama

2007-02-28T15:07:00.000-07:00

From AVN...

Here's the long and the short of it. Sherri Williams, a businesswoman, was charged for selling "adult entertainment devices" in violation of Alabama law.

You know...dildos.

Ms. Williams won her case, but the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals kept sending the case back for new trials. See, the Court figures that although the Alabama legislature's reasons for banning sex toys is a stupid reason, they don't need a SMART reason to do so. ANY old cockamamie reason will do.

Mark Kernes' analysis is much better and more thorough than any I could provide. It's worth reading the whole thing.

Sheesh. What do they say in Mississippi? "At least we're not Alabama." If you're a Seymore Butts fan, you're probably aware that Alabama's where that fisting video got sent which started all his legal troubles.

One part I liked..

News Analysis: Does Williams Case Call For The Return Of Sexual Hysteria?
By: Mark Kernes
Posted: 10:00 am PST 2-23-2007

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, defines "female hysteria" as "a popular diagnosis in the Victorian era for a wide array of symptoms including faintness, nervousness, insomnia, fluid retention, heaviness in abdomen, muscle spasm, shortness of breath, irritability, loss of appetite for food or sex, and a 'tendency to cause trouble.'"

"Patients diagnosed with female hysteria," the entry continues, "would undergo 'pelvic massage' — manual stimulation of the woman's genitals by the doctor to 'hysterical paroxysm', which is now recognized as orgasm." Wikipedia also calls it an "incorrect diagnosis," but if the ruling in the Williams case remains unchallenged, physicians in the Eleventh Circuit may find that they have to resurrect the "condition" in order to keep their patients out of jail.

In its latest Williams opinion, the Eleventh Circuit notes that Alabama's obscenity statute exempts sales of sexual devices "for a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement purpose." Is what's called for, then, some form of guerilla theater, where hundreds of free-thinkers, feminists, porn stars and strippers display "faintness, nervousness ... muscle spasms, shortness of breath, irritability ... and a 'tendency to cause trouble'" in public places across the state, and have friendly medical practitioners prescribe dildos and vibrators to relieve their "female hysteria"?

Ahem.

Honest, Judge! I have a prescription!!

More on Mitt Romney

2007-02-24T18:25:00.000-07:00

I know I'm picking on him lately, but this is too rich to pass up.

ROMNEY FAMILY TREE HAS POLYGAMY BRANCH

by Jennifer Dobner and Glen Johnson
Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY — While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate's great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.

Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.

None of my business, of course, and frankly, if consenting adults want to engage in polygamy that's none of my business, either.

I just find it interesting. Romney's trying to burnish his fascist-right credentials and this certainly won't help. Of course, he has no control over what his ancestors did, but this is one more reminder to the Holy Terrors that as much as the Mormons WANT to be considered part of the Evangelical Right community, they're really not a part of that community.

Rhode Island to recognize Massachusetts gay marraiges

2007-02-21T18:19:00.000-07:00

At least, the R.I. A.G. thinks the state should do so...

PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch says his state should recognize the gay marriages of state employees performed in Massachusetts.

A letter dated yesterday from Lynch says Rhode Island prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and also extends benefits such as health insurance to domestic partners of state employees.

And because there’s no Rhode Island law banning gay marriage — Lynch says there’s no reason to deny recognition of same-sex unions performed in Massachusetts.

****
Lynch spokesman Michael Healey says the opinion is not binding, but a staff attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders says she expects most government agencies in Rhode Island to heed the legal advice of the state’s top lawyer.

Another of those small victories that add up. States usually honor reciprocity agreements with regard to what constitutes a valid marriage in one jurisdiction. For example, the state of Colorado recognizes common law marriage, but New Mexico doesn't. If a common law married couple moves from Colorado to New Mexico, New Mexico would recognize the marriage as being valid under Colorado law.

Until now, no state has taken the position that a gay marriage recognized in Massachusetts should be honored in another state. In fact, most states have expressly taken the opposite position.

The Flip-flopper (one of them) who would be President

2007-02-21T10:40:00.000-07:00

Not sure why I'm picking on Mitt Romney so much. It's not as if I think he can really win the Presidency.

From the column, talking about how Romney's been dancing around his pro-choice past/anti-choice present.

Romney proceeded to expound one of the odder positions I've heard in years of listening to politicians talk about a subject most would prefer to avoid: "I can tell you what my position is, and it's in a very narrowly defined sphere, as candidate for governor and as governor of Massachusetts," he said. "What I said to people was that I personally did not favor abortion, that I am personally pro-life. However, as governor I would not change the laws of the commonwealth relating to abortion.

"Now I don't try and put a bow around that and say what does that mean you are -- does that mean you're pro-life or pro-choice, because that whole package -- meaning I'm personally pro-life but I won't change the laws,
*****
During his Massachusetts races, Romney paraded his conviction that "abortion should be safe and legal in this country" and promised that "you will not see me wavering" on Roe v. Wade.

Now Romney says he opposes abortion except in cases of rape and incest or to save the life of the mother, and supports overturning Roe. At the National Review Institute Conservative Summit last month -- at the very hotel where he had told us of his commitment to not altering state law one way or another -- Romney boasted that each time an issue involving reproductive rights came up during his governorship, "on every single one of them I came down on the side of respecting human life."

Romney's "Extreme Makeover: Political Edition" goes beyond abortion rights. Once he supported allowing gays to serve openly in the military and backed a federal law to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation -- not anymore. He's gone from saying "I don't line up with the NRA" to becoming, last August, a life member.

I suppose I'm bringing this up to illustrate how strongly the Holy Terrors still have a hold on the Republican Party. A few years ago, Romney claimed to be a semi-progressive governor of a semi-progressive state. Now that he's seeking national office, he's abandoned any attempt to position himself in the political middle and he's moved to the far far right to secure the G.O.P.'s base. The only problem is that he's like the witness on the stand who's been caught in a prior statement inconsistent with his present testimony.

Lawyer: So tell me, Governor, were you lying then or are you lying now?

To Commemorate President's Day

2007-02-19T11:51:00.000-07:00

Found this on Susie Bright's website. I'm not net-savvy enough to link to it directly, so here's the link through her.

Making The Procreationists Put Up Or Shut Up

2007-02-19T10:48:00.000-07:00

The bad news is I haven't posted much lately. The good news is there's no shortage of stuff to post. Going to be busy just keeping up.

Anyway, one of the favorite arguments against gay marriage is the notion that marriage is all about having kids and, since gay people (theoretically) can't have kids, they shouldn't enjoy the benefits of marriage.

This isn't a fringe argument, either. High courts in New York and Washington have actually said the marriage isn't about love or companionship or legal rights, but about procreating.

Okay, so the Washingtion Defense Of Marriage Alliance is pushing the issue. They're pressing to put on the state ballot an initiative requiring heterosexual couples to have children or have their marraiges decertified, among other things.

Here's Initiative 957 in a nutshell:

If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:

add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;

require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;

require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
benefits.

The WDMA admits they're pushing a ridiculous agenda.

Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.

I admire their ingenuity, but the execution is flawed. People don't like being called on their hypocrisy, so I fear that Initiative 957 will die a quick death and it won't even make it to the ballot. Especially since the WDMA admits it's promoting a pro-gay marriage agenda.

They'd be better off if they'd pretended to be funded by Holy Terrors and claimed to be an ANTI-gay marriage group. THAT would get them backing.

Gay Civil Unions in Jersey, Whoo-hoo!

2007-02-19T10:26:00.000-07:00

No, it's not real marriage, and it's now in only the third state in fifty.

Still, small victories add up.

Benefits for gay couples start in N.J.
By Nick Petruncio, Asbury Park (N.J.) Press

ASBURY PARK, N.J. — Five gay couples filed civil union applications in the predawn hours Monday in Asbury Park, N.J., as the state law enacted to give gay couples the same rights as heterosexual ones without calling the relationship a marriage went into effect at midnight.

The city was one of a handful of New Jersey municipalities that opened its records offices in the early morning hours so gay couples could apply for licenses and start the required 72-hour waiting period before a civil union ceremony could take place.

"There aren't words to describe how happy we are. It's time for this," said Brett Noorigian, a 31-year-old who came to City Hall with his partner of eight years, Sean O'Dea, 32.

Noorigian called the law a step toward marriage equality.

The New Jersey Supreme Court in October ruled that gay couples in the state were constitutionally entitled to all the benefits of marriage, but left it up to lawmakers to decide the details. Instead of following Massachusetts, the only state that allows gay couples to marry, the state legislature chose to offer civil unions, as Vermont and Connecticut permit.

Thomas Mannix, 44, and Kevin Pilla, 43, were domestic partners in New Jersey. Mannix said he is happy civil unions have been extended to them, but not calling their relationship a marriage is a shortfall.

"It's a second-class status," Mannix said. "It doesn't have the same weight."

However, Richard Clayton, 46, who was applying for a license with his partner of 15 years, Ron Fleckenstein, 43, is not bothered by the difference in terminology.

"It's a big step. I don't find it insulting that it's not called marriage," Clayton said.

To him, marriage is a religious bond between two people and civil unions are for people who want to feel bonded without the religious aspect. The only difference Clayton sees is that he and Fleckenstein cannot file federal income taxes jointly, and that is OK with him.

But to gay-rights advocacy group Garden State Equality, marriage is the only currency people understand.

"Civil unions are like a song with the words but without the music," said Steven Goldstein, the group's chairman.

Goldstein fears that some people in places such as hospitals and schools may not know what "civil union" means.

"Our goal is marriage for gay couples," he said. "We do see that on the horizon in the next two years or less through legislation."

Sarah Branin of Roxbury, N.J., refers to her sister's partner as her wife. Branin came to support and be a witness for Julie Branin, 26, and her partner of three years, Sue Abatemarco, 31.

They already had a ceremony done and were applying for a civil union license to make things official.

"I'm just really happy for them. I'm glad they have equal rights, but I was hoping it would be called marriage," Sarah Branin said.

Degn Schubert, 40, and Mark Rado, 35, moved from California and have been together six years. This is the seventh time the couple has had to go through procedures to have their relationship legally recognized because of obstacles such as changes in laws and resolutions that were non-binding.

"It's a game. You try to do the best that you can," Schubert said. "You know what you mean to each other."

Deputy City Clerk Kiki Tomek opened the office from midnight to about 1 a.m. and planned on being open again during the daylight hours of President's Day, when many government offices are closed.

"The law took effect at midnight, and our residents called and asked if we'd be open, and we take care of our residents," Tomek said.

If it's any consolation, as I've written about myself several times, the real benefits of marriage are the legal ones; legal rights, health benefits, property rights, adoption and child-rearing rights. Whether it's called a "marriage" or a "civil union" makes little difference from that perspective. And, technically, Richard Clayton has a point; any mutual, exclusive relationship that isn't solemnized in a religious ceremony can be considered a "civil union," including the millions of people married by justices of the peace, or by common law. Or, for that matter, myself. My Lovely Wife and I were joined in union by a religious leader (a family friend) who nevertheless conducted a non-religous ceremony that was not in keeping with the tenets of his faith. (Don't ask. Long, complicated story).

Now THAT'S what I call therapy!!

2007-02-07T08:31:00.000-07:00

He's cured!!! After only three weeks!

In case you didn't know, or knew but simply had forgotten, Rev. Ted Haggard, formerly of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and the National Association of Evangelicals, got busted hanging out with a gay prostitute and doing crystal meth last year.

But he's much better now.

Seems that after only three weeks of intensive counseling, Rev. Haggard is now completely heterosexual. He's cured! Cured! Praise Jesus!!!

This is revolutionary. James Dobson has bragged about how homosexuals can overcome their perversions, but after only three weeks? These guys outta bottle that stuff and sell it!

Rev. Tim Ralph, a spokesman for the four ministers, says Haggard underwent intensive counseling at an "undisclosed Arizona treatment center." Wow. Stuck in the desert with four other guys? If I were gay, that would sure as hell cure me.

Interestingly, I haven't found much about the qualifications of any of these ministers or about this treatment center. Rev. Ralph, in addition to his duties at the New Covenant Fellowship in Larkspur, IS a volunteer Larkspur fireman, which I'm sure is helpful.

Who knew going ex-gay was so simple that non-qualified non-professionals could get someone to break the habit?

Tanned, Rested And Ready!

2007-02-07T08:24:00.000-07:00

Okay, so here's the situation. Haven't figured out whether to take this blog in a new direction yet or not. Haven't figured out whether I want to turn it into a sex news blog or just keep posting pictures and ranting as often as possible. Haven't figured much out.

What I have figured out is I've missed doing this, for whatever reason, and for whatever I get out of it.

So, for now, I'll just have to jump back in with both feet and see where the blog goes of its own accord.

Onward!

No, not dead, not quitting

2006-12-26T11:13:00.000-07:00

Hi, there.

I know it's been early a month. The holiday season has been busy, sure, but it's no excuse.

And it's not as if there hasn't been stuff to talk about, either. Mary Cheney's pregnancy, New Jersey legalizing gay unions, Mitt Romney's dancing around being pro-gay before he was anti-gay, and the news that soy makes you gay.

It's just that I've found myself turning this blog into a "sex news" blog, only posting stuff I get from news sources. That's not what I'd intended, but I honestly can't tell you what I'd intended when I started this project, either. It's been so long. It started out as a "Hey, this is something fun," but I didn't plan for anything beyond that.

So I've been taking something of a sabbatical, here. I'd like to get a clear handle on how to proceed and where I want this to go. It's been tons of fun so far, so much fun that I don't want to proceed further without a clear idea of what to do next, and how to make it as good a blog as possible.

Stay tuned. I'll have a handle on things after the new year starts.

J.T.

Now the Serious Stuff...

2006-12-01T20:31:00.000-07:00

I'm not going to link to these knuckleheads. Why encourage them? They're called "Respect Life Tulsa" and they're posting billboards all over Oklahoma that say, "Birth Control Is Harmful." Go to their website, and you're introduced to a long intricate list of lies.

"Birth Control Is Harmful..." (Some of them are repetitive--My responses are in plain text.)

"It creates a sex on demand attitude." And what's wrong with that? Oh, yeah. Answer below.

"It does not protect against sexually transmitted diseases." Actually, Respect Life Tulsa admits that condoms reduce the risk of STDs. However, the website adds that birth control doesn't prevent STDs, it only reduces the risk. It doesn't add that the effectiveness of condoms against most STDs is greater than 95%.

In addition, Respect Life Tulsa barely mentions condoms at all. Most of their hot air is spent talking about the pill and other hormonal forms of birth control. You'd think if RLT was so anti-birth control, they'd spend a little more time talking about the least expensive, most effective birth control available.

"It contributes to sexual addiction." Not one shred of scientific evidence that this so-called addiction even exists, let alone that it's made worse by birth control.

"It causes abortions." Here's the logic. The pill and other hormonal controls prevent a fertilized egg from settling in the uterus and thus this constitutes an abortion. Never mind that no responsible medical authority agrees with them. Also, never mind that most forms of birth control (condoms, sponges, diaphragms, spermicides) actually prevent fertilization in the first place.

"It degrades women and makes them simply a sexual object." Hmm. From what I remember of the history of feminism, birth control gave women the opportunity to obtain educations, enter the workforce, and make greater contributions to society without necessarily being baby machines. If expanding womens' opportunities is degrading them, how are they being exalted by having as many babies as possible?"

"It allows people to bond without a commitment." Without a commitment to having a baby, that is. Or is having a baby the only valid form of commitment two people can make?

"It gives a false sense of safety in having promiscuous sex." Joke response: No, it gives a legitimate sense of safety in having promiscuous sex. Serious response: According to Planned Parenthood, (Providing the full link below) 53% of married couples in the U.S. used birth control on a regular basis in 2002. RLT seems to be operating under the belief that married couples don't need birth control.

"It negates the wedding vows." When I married my lovely wife, we promised to "love, honor, and obey," just like every other married couple we ever knew. I don't remember promising to knock up my wife at every chance, nor did she agree to breed like a bunny at the drop of a hat. And what about couples who just end up childless? Should their marriages be annulled? Call me nut, call me crazy dreamer, (Go ahead. "J.T., you nut! You crazy dreamer, you!") I'd thought marriage vows were about love, and not necessarily about making babies. But I could be wrong.

"It does not honor the purpose of sex." You got me there, RLT. I'd always thought the purpose of sex was to bond with another human being, give someone else pleasure and make her feel good and beautiful and sexy, and have a little fun, myself. Obviously, I was all wrong. The only purpose of sex is to make babies.

"It decreases the natural consequence of a child from extra marital affairs, which has for a long time been a deterrent." Let me get this straight. Reducing illegitimate births is a bad thing? This world needs more bastards?

"It treats the body like an object, not a person-something just to be used for sexual pleasure." Whereas RLT is interested in using the body only to breed, to reproduce, to propagate, to be fruitful and multiply. The woman's body, that is.

"It creates a sex on demand attitude, which can lead to sexual assaults and rape." More problems with having sex when you want to, not just when your partner's ovulating. And I fail to see how sex when you want to negates consent. After all, I can only assume she wants to have sex on demand just as much as he does.

"It has caused social chaos." Not a clue. Not a fucking clue what they're talking about. When did this chaos start? At the turn of the last century, when the early feminists started advocating birth control? 1962 when the Pill came out? '66 when the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. CT? What chaos was this that came out of birth control? The Super Bowl? The Beatles? Watergate? Britney Spears? Oh, never mind.

"It treats children like accidents or mistakes and creates an anti-child mentality in society." Wait a minute. I thought accidental children (like bastards) are a good thing. Seems to me that if we give couples more options when it comes to having kids, the kids will be more wanted than if they were simply "oops" babies.

"It treats the woman's body and her fertility like some kind of disease. It treats the body like it is just a machine-something to be used just for sexual pleasure." Whereas they ought to be considered a finely honed baby machine.

"It allows people to bond without a commitment."
"It degrades women and makes them simply a sexual object."
"It does not respect the Creator's purpose for our bodies and our sexuality."
"It does not honor the purpose of sex."
"It negates the wedding vows."
"It treats the body like some kind of machine-something just to be used for sexual pleasure."

We're repeating ourselves, RLT.

The website elaborates on some of these, without providing any sort of study or proof to back up their claims. However, if you want a little verification, Planned Parenthood is kind enough to provide.

A while back, I posted a story about how the Feds are trying to push consenting adults into abstaining from sex until they're thirty. Dubya's new head of family planning is anti-family planning. There's a movement among Evangelicals to produce as many children as possible to be "arrows" in God's army. The campaign between the Holy Terrors and their whores in the government is coordinated and obvious.

I know, I know. A whole week away. Sorry.

2006-12-01T20:25:00.000-07:00

Something to make up for all the time away.

Serious stuff a little later.

The consequences of Bush's ignorance-only sex ed in Africa.

2006-11-25T15:47:00.000-07:00

People die.

Found this at AmericaBlog. Heartbreaking.

Aids pandemic gains renewed strength·

Report highlights reversal of prevention in Uganda · Improvement in Europe
and US 'not sustained'

Sarah Boseley, health editorWednesday November 22, 2006The Guardian

The spread of the HIV/Aids pandemic continues unabated, with the number of
people infected rising once more in some countries which had been thought to be
beating the disease, according to the UN.
There are now 39.5 million living
with HIV infection, according to the annual UNAIDS report, released ahead of
World Aids Day on December 1, and 4.3 million of those were infected in 2006.
That is 400,000 more than were infected in 2004.

Most alarming is the
increased prevalence in Uganda, long held up as a showcase to the world of what
could be achieved in Africa with campaigning, education and widespread condom
use. The report shows a rise from a low of 5.6% infection among men and 6.9%
among women in 2000 to 6.5% in men and 8.8% in women in 2004.

The reasons for the increase are not clear, but there has been a shift in
the message from Uganda's leadership. Between the early 1990s and early 2000s,
HIV prevalence fell sharply in major cities among pregnant women - the group
most commonly monitored because they have contact with health services - as
President Yoweri Museveni worked to raise awareness of the dangers of HIV and
put the authority of his office behind condom use.

But in recent years the message on condoms has been diluted in
favour of greater emphasis on sexual abstinence until marriage - in line with
the thinking of the Bush administration, which is spending millions of dollars
on HIV prevention and treatment. Critics say many women are not in a position to
abstain from sex and that many are infected by their husbands.

The report says further research is needed to validate the apparent trend
"but the current findings do hint at the possible erosion of the gains Uganda
made against Aids in the 1990s". There is evidence of erratic condom use and
more men having sex with multiple partners.

In Mali also the epidemic could be growing after remaining stable for some
years, with HIV prevalence among pregnant women rising from 3.3% in 2002 to 4.1%
in 2005. While Kenya's epidemic is in decline, the report says there are
suggestions that this could be because of the high death rate and "the
saturation of infection among people most at risk".

In North America and western Europe also, the gains made by programmes
aimed at preventing infection have not been maintained. The number of infections
in the US, with a far greater proportion in African-Americans and Hispanics, is
stable but not declining. In the UK, there is a steady rise.

In western Europe, says the report, "the largest increases have been
reported in the UK, where HIV remains one of the principal communicable disease
threats". New diagnoses are increasing in areas other than London, which has the
most cases. Most of those with HIV were infected in sub-Saharan Africa. Fear of
stigma and discrimination is discouraging Africans in the UK from being tested,
says the UN.

Peter Piot, UNAIDS's executive director, was concerned by the trends. "This
is worrying - as we know increased HIV prevention programmes in these countries
have shown progress in the past, Uganda being a prime example ... Countries are
not moving at the same speed as their epidemics."

The emphases are mine. The Bushies are bound and determined to make sex as risky as possible. Even at the expense of peoples' lives.

More On Gov. Romney's Special Brand Of Homophobia

2006-11-25T15:23:00.000-07:00

It seems the battle lines are being drawn for the '08 race.

On the one hand, we have Sen. McCain, formerly a courageous Vietnam veteran and P.O.W., nowadays a spineless waffler and Bush kissass in the Senate. A few weeks ago, he said he supported letting gay couples participate in ceremonies, just as long as the ceremonies weren't legal. Like when little girls drape towels on their heads and play at being brides.

Then, last Sunday, Sen. McCain bravely stuck himself out on a limb once again, taking the spineless position that while he opposes gay marriage, he's cool with letting the states decide whether to legalize it or not, even though he doesn't think it should be legal.

Get all that?

But wait. There's more.

In this corner, the outgoing Governor of the only state in the Union to legalize gay marriage, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Gov. Romney wants to overturn the will of the MA Supreme Court and the state legislature that the issue is decided, and demand, DEMAND, I say, that the Court put the issue on the next statewide ballot, because he just can't abide the democratic process working on an issue he doesn't like.

And then, Gov. Romney, unhappy with Senator McCain's flip-flopping like a trout in the bottom of a boat, had this to say about the good Senator's position.

“Look, if somebody says they’re in favor of gay marriage, I respect that
view. If someone says — like I do — that I oppose same–sex marriage, I respect
that view. But those who try and pretend to have it both ways, I find it to be
disingenuous.”

Romney doesn't just want to get rid of gay marriage in Massachusetts, by the way. He supports amending both the MA Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, as well.

So, on the one hand, we have a spineless, waffling limpdick on the subject, and on the other hand, we have an outright bigoted homophobe. Both these men are jockeying for position to obtain the G.O.P.'s nomination for President in 2008.

Can't hardly wait.

Here we go again....setting the stage for the 08 gay bash

2006-11-20T20:39:00.000-07:00

The stench from the midterms has barely wafted away, and already the G.O.P. is gearing up to drag the issue of gay marriage back into the mud.

Milt Romney is the Republican governor of Massachusetts, the only state to legalize gay marriage in the U.S. He's also got Presidential aspirations, not to mention the fact that he's a Mormon.

So, what does a G.O.P. Presidential wanna-be do to court favor with the Holy Terrors he hopes will put him in office? Why, he targets gay marraige, of course!

Romney seeks Mass. court help on gay marriage ban
By Kevin McNichols
Sun Nov 19, 6:04 PM ET

BOSTON (Reuters) - Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said on Sunday he would
ask the state's highest court to intervene to let voters decide on a proposal to
ban gay marriage in the only U.S. state where it is legal.

"This week we will file an action before the courts calling upon the
judiciary to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens," Romney, a
potential Republican presidential contender in 2008, told a rally organized by
opponents of gay marriage.

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a
conservative Christian organization that opposes gay marriage, said his group
would also file lawsuits seeking to put the measure to the ballot.

Lawmakers in the state's Democrat-controlled legislature earlier this
month dealt a huge blow to opponents of gay marriage when they adjourned without
voting on a constitutional amendment that would have helped pave the way for the
ballot question in 2008.

Romney, a vocal critic of gay marriage, plans to ask the state's Supreme
Judicial Court, which legalized gay marriage, to order Massachusetts' secretary
of the commonwealth to put the amendment on the ballot, his spokesman, Eric
Fehrnstrom, said on Sunday.

Roughly 8,000 same sex couples have wed in the state since they got the
right in 2004, but opponents of gay marriage say the issue should be up to
voters to decide.

Speaking from the steps of the city's historic gold-domed statehouse,
Romney, who is retiring and will be replaced by a Democratic governor in
January, addressed nearly 5,000 people demonstrating for and against same sex
marriage, according to state police estimates.

"It is an embarrassment that this governor is using the steps of the state
house to promote bigotry and to promote his own presidential campaign because
that is all this is. It is flat-out, unadulterated opportunism," said Boston
resident Robyn Ochs.

In order for the proposal to ban gay marriage to get on the ballot in 2008,
25 percent of Massachusetts' 200-member Legislature would have to approve the
measure in the current legislative session and one more time before the general
election in 2008.

The Legislature returns on January 2, the last day of the session, but it
is not expected to consider the amendment.

Keep in mind it was the Massachusetts court system that legalized gay marriage in the first place. I'm not sure whether Romney expects the Mass High Court to override its own authority and that of the legislature, or whether he expects this attempt to fail so he can at least say to his Holy Terror pimps, "See! I did my best! It's these liberal judges who shot us down!"

Bush's Anti-Family Planning Head Of Family Planning

2006-11-17T18:59:00.000-07:00

Does this make sense? In Orwell's 1984, sure. And Bizarro World.

And, oh yeah. The Bush White House, where the Clean Skies Initiative creates more pollution, No Child Left Behind means abandoning kids, and torture isn't torture anymore.

Bush Choice for Family-Planning Post Criticized
By Christopher
LeeWashington Post Staff WriterFriday, November 17, 2006; Page A01

The Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning
programs at the Department of Health and Human Services who worked at a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that regards the
distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women." Eric Keroack, medical director for A Woman's Concern, a nonprofit group based in Dorchester, Mass., will become deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the next two weeks, department spokeswoman Christina Pearson said yesterday.

The Keroack appointment angered many family-planning advocates, who noted that A Woman's Concern supports sexual abstinence until marriage, opposes contraception and does not distribute information promoting birth control at its six centers in eastern Massachusetts. "A Woman's Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness," the group's Web site says.

*****
Marilyn Keefe, interim president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents 4,000 family-planning clinics, said Keroack's work "seems to really be geared toward furthering anti-choice, anti-contraception policies." She added that despite the congressional election results, the appointment "goes to show you the importance of controlling the White House and how important
federal agencies are in the delivery of health services." The federal
family-planning program, created in 1970, supports a network of 4,600
family-planning clinics that provide information and counseling to 5 million people each year. Services include patient education and counseling, breast and pelvic exams, pregnancy diagnosis and counseling, and screenings for cervical cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.
Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, called Keroack's appointment "striking proof that the Bush administration remains dramatically out of step with the nation's priorities."

Big surprise. More of Bushco's systematic War On Whoopie. Discourage contraception. Promote "Abstinence Only" sex ed, more accurately described as "Ignorance Only" education. Get women to squeeze out as many babies as possible to use as cannon fodder..correction..as arrows in God's Army.

What amazes me is the fact that the Bushies just don't get it. They don't understand that they're losing the War On Whoopie. They don't understand they're in the minority. Most Americans don't think the way they do. If a normal executive branch found itself on the short end of the stick when it comes to what people say they want and need, the executive would at least take the opinions of the majority into consideration. But then, we're not dealing with an normal executive branch.

Earlier this week, Bush's gruppenfuhrer Karl Rove muscled his way into the Republcan National Committee's meeting and announced that Florida Senator Mel Martinez was Bush's pick to be the Committee's new head. Martinez is a stout Bush minion who's often shot off his mouth in favor of the Bushco/Holy Terror anti-gay agenda.

The only problem (for the G.O.P., that is), is that Martinez isn't as anti-gay as he asserts. At least when it comes to people working for him. What does all this mean? Just that Martinez is like most Republican politicians; when it comes to sucking the dick of his base, he's as anti-gay as the rest of them, but that he doesn't really believe it. So when he talks, he's talking out of both sides of his ass.

Babies? Or Arrows?

2006-11-16T20:57:00.000-07:00

Found this in The Nation.

It's worth reading the whole article, but some of the main points:

'Arrows for the War'
Kathryn Joyce

Janet Wolfson is a 44-year-old mother of eight in Canton, Georgia. Tracie
Moore, a 39-year-old midwife who lives in southern Kentucky, is mother to
fourteen. Wendy Dufkin in Coxsackie has her thirteen. And while Jamie Stoltzfus,
a 27-year-old Illinois mom, has only four children so far, she plans on bearing
enough to populate "two teams." All four mothers are devoted to a way of life
New York Times columnist David Brooks has praised as a new spiritual movement
taking hold among exurban and Sunbelt families. Brooks called these parents
"natalists" and described their progeny as a new wave of "Red-Diaper Babies"--as
in "red state."

But Wolfson, Moore and thousands of mothers like them call themselves and
their belief system "Quiverfull." They borrow their name from Psalm 127: "Like
arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the
man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they
contend with their enemies in the gate." Quiverfull mothers think of their
children as no mere movement but as an army they're building for God.
Quiverfull parents try to have upwards of six children. They home-school
their families, attend fundamentalist churches and follow biblical guidelines of
male headship--"Father knows best"--and female submissiveness. They refuse any
attempt to regulate pregnancy.

*****
Though there are no exact figures for the size of the movement, the number
of families that identify as Quiverfull is likely in the thousands to low tens
of thousands. Its word-of-mouth growth can be traced back to conservative
Protestant critiques of contraception--adherents consider all birth control,
even natural family planning (the rhythm method), to be the province of
prostitutes--and the growing belief among evangelicals that the decision of
mainstream Protestant churches in the 1950s to approve contraception for married
couples led directly to the sexual revolution and then Roe v. Wade.
*****
But if the Quiverfull mission is rooted in faith, the unseen, its mandate
to be fruitful and multiply has tangible results as well. Namely, in Rick and
Jan Hess's words, to provide "arrows for the war."
After arguing Scripture,
the Hesses point to a number of more worldly effects that a Christian embrace of
Quiverfull could bring. "When at the height of the Reagan Revolution," they
write, "the conservative faction in Washington was enforced [sic] with squads of
new conservative congressmen, legislators often found themselves handcuffed by
lack of like-minded staff. There simply weren't enough conservatives trained to
serve in Washington in the lower and middle capacities." But if just 8 million
American Christian couples began supplying more "arrows for the war" by having
six children or more, they propose, the Christian-right ranks could rise to 550
million within a century ("assuming Christ does not return before then"). They
like to ponder the spiritual victory that such numbers could bring: both houses
of Congress and the majority of state governor's mansions filled by Christians;
universities that embrace creationism; sinful cities reclaimed for the faithful;
and the swift blows dealt to companies that offend Christian sensibilities.

"With the nation's low birth rate, the high divorce rate, an
un-marrying and anti-child viewpoint, and a debauched nation perhaps unable to
slow down the spread of AIDS, we can begin to see what happens politically. A
half-billion person boycott of a company which violated God's standards could be
very effective.... Through God's blessing we would be part of a replay of Exodus
1:7, 'But the sons of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly, and
multiplied, and became exceedingly mighty, so that the land was filled with
them.'" "Brethren," they write, "it's time for a comeback!
So, what does all this have to do with the price of Trojans? This "Quiverfull" movement among Evangelicals isn't too far removed from the bile put forth by some of the more mainstream Holy Terrors, including members of the G.O.P.
For example, the FORMER Junior Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick "Man On Dog" Santorum is more famously known for comparing homosexuality to bestiality. However, lesser known is a statement the Senator once made on the Brian Lehrer Show:
“(T)he point of marriage from a societal point of view is not to affirm the love of two people, and to make people feel good about who they are in their relationship, but in fact the point of marriage is for having children …If we change that, we devalue the institution and we change it, and re-orient it more toward parents, and away from children.”
The highest courts in New York and Washington have said the purpose of marriage is to have children, and many other G.O.P. politicians have been gracious enough to shoot off their mouths on the subject as well. More details here.
I've got nothing against kids, myself. I'm happily married, and I've got four progeny of whom I'm very proud. But the fact is my Lovely Wife and I chose to have kids according to our plan, and not those of God, or the Republican Party. To reduce women to machines popping out babies and marriages to infant sweatshops seems so...Medieval to me. The next thing you know, they'll be trying to shut down any form of sex that doesn't expressly produce children. You know, gay sex, sex toys, pornography, contraception, and oh, I dunno, just about everything else fun about sex. A veritable War On Whoopie, if you will.
Or do I repeat myself?

More on Arizona's bucking the trend.

2006-11-15T14:08:00.000-07:00

As previously noted, of the eight states with anti-gay marriage initiatives on their respective ballots, Arizona (Arizona?) was the only state to NOT pass such an initiative. Why?

Glenn Greenwald at Salon has an idea. (You might have to sit through a free daypass to access the article. Well worth the time, IMHO).

Anyway, Glenn's theory is that the Arizona referendum failed not because of a sudden willingness of Arizonians to accept gay marriage per se, but it failed because of an aversion on their part to permit the government to meddle in their personal affairs.

From the article:

the successful campaign to defeat the Arizona referendum was based on a
generalized libertarian aversion to governmental intrusion into the private
sphere, rather than support for gay marriage per se. And therein lies the most
significant lesson to be drawn from the weakening support for these referendums
in 2006 -- namely, the rejection by Western states of the activist social
conservative agenda that has fueled the Republican Party's dominance of the
South.

In other words, Western state voters are more inclined to have a MYOB-type philosophy than are the social conservatives who dominate the Republican party these days. I can buy that. As noted below, the Colorado anti-gay initiatives passed, but not by the wide margins seen in other states, and Referendum I (giving gay couples legal rights) actually led in the polls for a long while.

Then There's The Catholic Church...

2006-11-15T05:12:00.000-07:00

boasting some of the sharpest minds of the Fourteenth Century.

Bishops Back Guidelines Urging Gay Celibacy
By NEELA
BANERJEE
Published: November 14, 2006

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 —The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops voted
overwhelmingly today to support initiatives based on traditional teachings that
call for gay and lesbian Catholics to remain celibate and for married Catholics to reject artificial contraception.

At a semi-annual meeting in Baltimore, the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops voted to adopt guidelines aimed at
clergy members and others who provide pastoral care to gay men and lesbians.

The guidelines welcome gay people, but they also affirm church
teachings that “homosexual inclinations” are inherently disordered. While having such inclinations is not sinful, gay sexual activity is, according to the core teachings. The guidelines, called “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination,” passed by a vote of 194 to 37. They also speak out against same-sex marriage and adoptions by gay men and lesbians.

DignityUSA, an advocacy group for gay Catholics, said the new
guidelines would further alienate gay people from the church. Bishop Arthur J.
Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the doctrine committee, which
developed the guidelines, acknowledged Monday that the committee did not consult
with gay men and lesbians on the document.

“It’s really disappointing,” Sam Sinnett, president of DignityUSA, said
of the new guidelines. “At some point, the bishops have to realize that they
speak in willful ignorance about what homosexuality is and about sexuality in
general. They have to decide if they are moral teachers or simply employees of
the Vatican.”

The bishops also adopted “Married Love and the Gift of Life,” which is
meant to explain church teachings about contraception for engaged and young
married couples.

The document, approved by a vote of 220 to 11, asserts that artificial
contraception introduces a “false note” into a marriage and has led to a decline in respect for life in society. Catholics use birth control to the same extent as other Americans; only 4 percent, according to the document, use natural family planning, the type of birth control backed by the church.

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., said Monday that gay
Catholics who are not celibate and married Catholics who use artificial
contraception should not receive Holy Communion.
Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, which supports the use of artificial contraception, said the bishops’ policies on sexuality did not offer reliable
guidance for most Catholics.

“Heterosexual Catholics, married and unmarried, understand that the
responsible exercise of their sexuality includes the use of contraceptive
methods that the church forbids,” Ms. Kissling said in a statement. “Almost no
one is looking to the bishops for guidance on contraception, sexuality and law
making, and if the bishops continue making pronouncements such as those issued
this week in Baltimore, they will find themselves increasingly isolated.”
The emphases are mine. The prohibitions against birth control also crack me up. Considering this institution gave us the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Immaculate Conception, and the torture of Galileo Galilei, why am I not surprised?
Oh, yeah. Then there's the coverup of the priests-as-sexual-predators scandals. Can't forget that.

Mexico City and South Africa OK gay unions

2006-11-14T15:39:00.000-07:00

So lemme get this straight...

Mexico City, (90% Catholic, btw) and South Africa are more forward-thinking than the good old U.S.A.

Geez, this place is a mess.

And to make up for being so long away...

2006-11-14T10:53:00.000-07:00

A little porn...

to go with my political

post-mortem.

Doesn't this lovely lady

resemble Maggie

Gyllenhall?

Who's hot n' sexy-and-

a-half, btw.

Finally back at the computer!!

2006-11-14T10:02:00.000-07:00

Geez...a whole week away. Sorry. As much as I like blogging real life intrudes much too often, and it's been especially frustrating because so much has been going on.

First the election....a real mixed bag from my perspective. The Democrats won big, (We showed those sons-a-bitches who's boss, didn't we, Pa?) but President shit-for-brains is still in the White House, Iraq is becoming more deadly with every passing day, and if we're going to get anything done in the Senate we're pretty much going to have to give Joe Lieberman a daily blowjob.

Then, there're the ballot initiatives. Anti-gay initiatives won in every state but Arizona (Arizona?), and in my own home state the homophobes got a two-fer. Amendment 43 passed and Referendum I failed, despite having favorable poll numbers as late as Halloween.

So what happened?

Over at AmericaBlog, they're running stories indicating that in Virginia and Wisconsin, Rove's tactics of "Get out the homophobic vote" by putting anti-gay initiatives on the ballot might have cost G.O.P. candidates the election. People voted to pass the anti-gay legislation, but more of them voted to do so than for the Republican candidates. The conventional thinking is that anti-gay voters who might normally have voted the G.O.P. ticket still came out, but they cast votes against the G.O.P. instead of for it.

I suppose that makes sense. I'm no expert, but that's the way it appears to have happened in Colorado, too.

Approximate results:
Governor
Bill Ritter (D) 780,000 56%
Bob Beauprez (R) 567,000 41%

Amendment 43 (Defining Marriage as being between a man and a woman)
Yes 768,700 55%
No 612,155 44%

Referendum I (Granting gay unions legal rights)
No 727,433 53%
Yes 641,443 47%

In terms of actual numbers, about 21 thousand more people voted either for or against Referendum I, and about 33 thousand for or against Amendment 43, than actually voted for Governor. (My numbers aren't final. They're actually still counting votes in Denver. Major snafu).

For the record, I don't think the big chunk of people who voted against gays and for Bill Ritter were doing so because they were fed up with the scandal-heavy G.O.P. candidate. Bob Beauprez was actually a fairly clean candidate.

I think what hurt the gay agenda most was the double-punch of the Mark Foley and Ted Haggerd scandals. Pro-gay campaigns are going on saying, "Gay people want to be treated like regular people," and the two gay people getting the most publicity are a sexual predator and a hypocritical anti-gay preacher. Hardly representative of the gay community as a whole, but they're the ones people are talking about. The Haggerd and Foley scandals actually played to the worst sort of stereotypes otherwise rational people have about homosexuals. Ironically, Mark King, the gay prostitute who threw Haggerd out of the closet, said he did so because he wanted to expose Haggerd (one of Amendment 43's main advocates) as the hypocrite that he was.

So where do we go from here? The pro-freedom forces have to say we've lost some battles. But the anti-choice law in South Dakota was defeated, George "Macaca" Allen and Rick "Man-on-dog" are gone, and we can actually claim victory in New Jersey and Arizona. (Arizona?).

The war ain't over, though. The Supreme Court is hearing abortion cases this term, and ultimately I think that's where the gay marriage battle is going to end up. Somebody somewhere has to make it clear that gay marriage is an issue relating to fundamental equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution. And, we've got to make sure the makeup of the court is radically different than what it's made of now.

Stay tuned.

Election Day!!!!

2006-11-06T20:35:00.000-07:00

To quote my dear old granddaddy....

Time to show those sons-of-bitches who's boss.

Vote.

E-Day Minus One...From Last Month's ERWA

2006-11-06T20:22:00.000-07:00

ALL WORKED UP ABOUT NOVEMBER 7TH
By J.T. Benjamin
Copr. 2006

When I first set out to write about sex, I’d planned to only write about…well…sex. I’d have been perfectly happy to limit the discussions to such things as contrasting the acting abilities of Jenna Jameson and Nina Hartley. The benefits of doing it with voluptuous women as opposed to stick insects. How Anais Nin was just a better writer than Henry Miller. Intermingling sexual discussions with political topics just seemed so….dirty.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a political junkie of the first order. I’m perfectly willing to wax rhapsodic about political topics as is any man. In my youth, I’d just believed that political issues should be reserved for one end of the writing spectrum, and sexually oriented topics were of a more private nature, and that it was best not to attempt to intermingle the two; sex and politics just didn’t naturally mix.

Oh, was I ever really so young and naïve?

It's been a particularly pungent election year, hasn't it? You can smell it in the air. Some blend of old sweat-socks, the floor of a bus station men’s room, and a decomposing rodent underneath the patio deck, I should say. Yes, indeed. It is an especially pungent lection year.

And that means that it’s time to talk about sex, sex, sex!

Now, when it comes to the intermingling of sex and politics, I’d be perfectly willing to fall back on my standard mantra on the subject: Mind Your Own Business. Don’t go busting into my bedroom passing judgment and casting stones, and I’ll likewise be perfectly happy to let you indulge in your own twisted perversions in peace.

Unfortunately, ‘twas not meant to be. Sex and politics are intermingled like peanut butter and jelly, like beer and baseball, like Lennon and McCartney. And I’m not just talking about sordid scandals meant to defame candidates for public office. This isn’t about stains on blue dresses and secret trysts with one’s mistress and rumors about being secretly gay. Sex is a legitimate political issue, one that must be considered when members of the electorate step into their voting booths tomorrow.

And I have to point out that it wasn’t Yours Truly who decided to inject sex into the current political debate. Like I said before, I’m a believer in the M.Y.O.B. plank in the political platform. The decision to make sex a political issue rests exclusively with the Powers That Be.

It’s a well-known belief that one of the reasons President Bush won re-election in 2004 was that he was able to put the sex-and-politics issue to good use. Apparently, Bush’s uber-advisor Karl Rove was the architect behind putting anti-gay initiatives on the ballots in several strategic states that year. Homophobes, frantic to prevent the government from treating homosexuals like real human beings, headed to the polls in a frenzy and, while they were busy casting their votes in favor of bigotry and discrimination, they also took the opportunity to vote Dubya to a second term in office.

This year, it appears to be more of the same. However, since Dubya can’t run for another term (Thank GOD!!) the sex-and-politics angle is tied into the mid-term elections, where the U.S. will elect county and state officers, the entire U.S. House of Representatives, and a third of the U.S. Senate.

As an example, let’s discuss my own home state of Colorado. Following Karl Rove’s playbook, the Colorado Family Action Issue Committee put an anti-gay measure on the fall ballot to get homophobes to the polls, where they would presumably also vote to put homophobic candidates into office as well. The measure, called Amendment 43, would specify that matrimony can only be a “one-man/one-woman” arrangement, banning gay marriage and embedding discrimination into the Colorado Constitution. Seven other U.S. states have similar initiatives on the ballot, as well.

However, if you use a tactic too often, your opponents start using it as well. Coloradoans for Fairness And Equality got their own measure on the November ballot, called Referendum I. This initiative would grant gay couples the right to qualify for “domestic partnership” status, giving them legal, insurance, and medical decision-making rights, similar to those available to heterosexual marriage.

Get all that? Colorado voters have the chance to pass a pro-gay initiative and an anti-gay initiative on the same ballot. And, according to the latest poll, both measures are winning. In other words, if the election were held today, Colorado voters would happily say to gay couples, “Benefits? Sure! Marriage? No way!”

And don’t think it’s just about gay marriage, either. Politicians have the power to affect sexual liberty in a wide variety of ways. State governments have been legislating against making contraceptives available to poor people in Missouri. They’ve been trying to ban the sale of sex toys in South Carolina. They’ve been prosecuting sex toy salespeople in Texas and Alabama. They’ve been trying to push abstinence-only (a.k.a. “ignorance-only”) sex education in states across the Union. The Federal government, through Congress, the Bush Administration, and a conservative-packed judiciary, is prosecuting the adult film industry with more vigor than they’re pursuing suspected terrorists.

And yet, despite the current government’s efforts to stifle freedom of speech, of the press, and of sexual identity, the puppetmasters in charge are actually upset that the Powers That Be aren’t doing enough.

Dr. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family and one of the grand exalted mucky-muck pooh-bah Dragons of the right-wing fascist-religious movement I’ve dubbed the Holy Terrors, said last September 18th that he was “flat-out ticked” at the Republican leadership’s failure to adequately advance his anti-gay, anti-freedom, anti-whoopie agenda. However, Dr. Dobson also said that if his minions didn’t continue supporting the G.O.P., the alternatives were “downright frightening.” So, if Dr. Dobson gets his way, can we count on the government acting with more restraint and tolerance, or will they “kick it up a notch?”

Back in college, one of my professors told me it’s an easy trick to predict the future. Simply observe a trend, and then decide whether or not the trend will continue. The way things are going, will we Americans see more of the same from our leadership, or will things be different? More obscenity prosecutions or fewer? More attempts to stifle sexual expression and identity, or fewer? More attempts to legislate homophobia and prosecute sexually “deviant” practices, or fewer? More attempts to batter down our bedroom doors, or fewer?

I won’t push for particular candidates or for particular issues. But I can only assume that people who read this column and visit this website are creative, rational, open-minded, intelligent people, especially when it comes to sex. So please, please, please, fellow ERWA readers, use all that creative, rational, open-minded intelligence when you step into the voting booth.

Vote with your hearts, vote with your minds, vote with your sense of common decency, vote with your knowledge of what is right and wrong.

Hell, vote with your loins.

But vote.

Then some serious stuff...

2006-11-04T17:12:00.000-07:00

First, the good news...

Sex is good for you.

Like I said, I'm all for finding rationalizations for the things I like to do, but I'm not supposed to do. Red wine, coffee, porn, and sex itself. Woo-hoo!

Is Sex Necessary?
Alan Farnham

Fans of abstinence had better be sitting down. "Saving yourself" before the big game, the big business deal, the big hoedown or the big bakeoff may indeed confer some moral benefit. But corporeally it does absolutely zip. There's no evidence it sharpens your competitive edge. The best that modern science can say for sexual abstinence is that it's harmless when practiced in moderation. Having regular and enthusiastic sex, by contrast, confers a host of measurable physiological advantages, be you male or female. (This assumes that you are engaging in sex without contracting a sexually transmitted disease.)

In one of the most credible studies correlating overall health with sexual frequency, Queens University in Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study was designed to compare persons of comparable circumstances, age and health. Its findings, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal, were that men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards. Other studies (some rigorous, some less so) purport to show that having sex even a few times a week has an associative or causal relationship with the following:

- Improved sense of smell: After sex, production of the hormone prolactin surges. This in turn causes stem cells in the brain to develop new neurons in the brain's olfactory bulb, its smell center.

- Reduced risk of heart disease: In a 2001 follow-on to the Queens University study mentioned above, researchers focused on cardiovascular health. Their finding? That by having sex three or more times a week, men reduced their risk of heart attack or stroke by half. In reporting these results, the co-author of the study, Shah Ebrahim, Ph.D., displayed the well-loved British gift for understatement: "The relationship found between frequency of sexual intercourse and mortality is of considerable public interest."

- Weight loss, overall fitness: Sex, if nothing else, is exercise. A vigorous bout burns some 200 calories--about the same as running 15 minutes on a treadmill or playing a spirited game of squash. The pulse rate, in a person aroused, rises from about 70 beats per minute to 150, the same as that of an athlete putting forth maximum effort. British researchers have determined that the equivalent of six Big Macs can be worked off by having sex three times a week for a year. Muscular contractions during intercourse work the pelvis, thighs, buttocks, arms, neck and thorax. Sex also boosts production of testosterone, which leads to stronger bones and muscles. Men's Health magazine has gone so far as to call the bed the single greatest piece of exercise equipment ever invented.

- Reduced depression: Such was the implication of a 2002 study of 293 women. American psychologist Gordon Gallup reported that sexually active participants whose male partners did not use condoms were less subject to depression than those whose partners did. One theory of causality: Prostoglandin, a hormone found only in semen, may be absorbed in the female genital tract, thus modulating female hormones.

- Pain-relief: Immediately before orgasm, levels of the hormone oxytocin surge to five times their normal level. This in turn releases endorphins, which alleviate the pain of everything from headache to arthritis to even migraine. In women, sex also prompts production of estrogen, which can reduce the pain of PMS.

- Less-frequent colds and flu: Wilkes University in Pennsylvania says individuals who have sex once or twice a week show 30% higher levels of an antibody called immunoglobulin A, which is known to boost the immune system.

- Better bladder control: Heard of Kegel exercises? You do them, whether you know it or not, every time you stem your flow of urine. The same set of muscles is worked during sex.

- Better teeth: Seminal plasma contains zinc, calcium and other minerals shown to retard tooth decay. Since this is a family Web site, we will omit discussion of the mineral delivery system. Suffice it to say that it could be a far richer, more complex and more satisfying experience than squeezing a tube of Crest--even Tartar Control Crest. Researchers have noted, parenthetically, that sexual etiquette usually demands the brushing of one's teeth before and/or after intimacy, which, by itself, would help promote better oral hygiene.

- A happier prostate? Some urologists believe they see a relationship between infrequency of ejaculation and cancer of the prostate. The causal argument goes like this: To produce seminal fluid, the prostate and the seminal vesicles take such substances from the blood as zinc, citric acid and potassium, then concentrate them up to 600 times. Any carcinogens present in the blood likewise would be concentrated. Rather than have concentrated carcinogens hanging around causing trouble, it's better to evict them. Regular old sex could do the job. But if the flushing of the prostate were your only objective, masturbation might be a better way to go, especially for the non-monogamous male. Having sex with multiple partners can, all by itself, raise a man's risk of cancer by up to 40%. That's because he runs an increased risk of contracting sexual infections. So, if you want the all the purported benefits of flushing with none of the attendant risk, go digital. A study recently published by the British Journal of Urology International asserts that men in their 20s can reduce by a third their chance of getting prostate cancer by ejaculating more than five times a week.

So, sex is good for your physical health, right?

But, but, but...wait a minute! The Holy Terrors and the Federal Goverment are doing everything possible to keep us from having sex! At least, any sex that doesn't involve making babies. Keep it to a bare minimum, they say. Don't have gay sex. Don't use erotica or porn to get you in the mood. Don't use birth control. Don't use sex toys. Don't have fun. Don't teach kids about having sex. Don't let them get vaccinated against HPV. Don't encourage them in any way. Teach them only to abstain. Hell, teach grown-ups to only abstain. And when they do have sex, make it as risky as possible. Think of it as a throbbing, squishy, wet version of Russian Roulette.

Now, keep in mind that the Holy Terrors are also opposing gay marriage on the grounds that marriage is such a wonderful (and vulnerable) institution we can't let gays in on the fun, or they'll destroy it. They're opposing letting gays adopt or have kids or teach kids. They're depriving people (kids and potential parents) of the chance to beh happy.

And the porn. Don't forget the porn. Porn reduces crime. So, naturally, the Holy Terrors are screaming that we've got to shut down the porn. (But not before we take their campaign donations, of course. Just make it out to the RNC.)

The only conclusion I can draw from all this?

First, keep in mind that the Holy Terrors are real big on the Endtimes and Revelation as interpreted by Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and others. The Holy Terrors are so big on Jesus' second coming they insist on having a voice in America's foreign policy, especially that of Israel, because they seem to think that by getting in good with God's Chosen People will look good on the resume when the Rapture kicks in. Some of these crazies have actually been pushing for the Iraq war and other conflicts in the Middle East precisely to get the Four Horsemen out of the stable that much more quickly.

So, it stands to reason that if the Holy Terrors are trying to get us to the end of the world ASAP, they're also trying to get us into Heaven on an individual basis as quickly as possible, as well.

In short, the Holy Terrors, through the Federal Government, are trying to kill us.

First, a little eye candy for Saturday night..

2006-11-04T17:06:00.000-07:00

ABC Confirms the GOP's Porn Connection

2006-11-03T19:24:00.001-07:00

And I'm not talking about Mark Foley.

Remember this?

Turns out the G.O.P. will gladly accept money from pornographers with one hand, while they're beating the drums for the execution of those same pornographers with the other hand.

ABC News blows the lid off the whole shameful episode.

In case you didn't know, or knew but had simply forgotten, it seems a prominent contributor to the Republican National Committee is a fellow named Nicholas Boyias, who's the president of Marina Pacific Distributors. Marina Pacific distributes, among other products, porn. And not just porn, but gay porn.

But wait. There's more.

According to ABC...

Marina Pacific Distributors calls itself "the leader in adult video distribution." Included in the movies for sale on their Web site are videos made by "Active Duty Productions." Active Duty, as their name suggests, has cast active duty soldiers in some of their films but not without serious consequences for the soldiers.

Three Fort Bragg soldiers were found guilty and sentenced to prison in separate courts-martial earlier this year for appearing in pornographic videos made by Active Duty. The charges included sodomy and conduct detrimental to the Army. Four other soldiers accused of appearing in Active Duty videos were also punished outside of the military court system.

So much hypocrisy...so many choices....who's the worst scumsucker in this scenario?

Fort Bragg for prosecuting these soldiers? Marina Pacific for exploiting them and sabotaging their careers? How about the RNC for taking Boyias' money?

My bet's on the RNC. They sell moral values but the only value they treasure is measured in dollars.

The Truth About The War On Marriage

2006-11-02T22:36:00.000-07:00

From Nerve.com.

The G.O.P. is good at nothing except winning elections and telling lies. I'm talking about the BIG lies, the ones which are the exact opposite of the truth. One of their favorite boogeyman stories is how if the Democrats win, the institution of marriage in its current form will die.

Well, guess what? It's already dying.

From Ken Mondschein's article:

Last week, the Census Bureau announced that married couples are now in the minority of American households. This didn't happen all at once, of course. It's the result of a long-term trend that goes back two generations.
If you were to go to any town in America in 1940, pick a house at random and knock on the door (perhaps you were selling subscriptions to Grit magazine), there'd be a ninety-percent chance you'd find a married couple living there. Thirty years later, despite the new sexual freedom supposedly discovered by the Baby Boomers, the chance was still eight in ten. But then something funny happened: between 1998 and today — a mere eight years — the number of homes containing a married couple fell from six out of seven to one in two. The median age of first marriage has risen to twenty-seven for men and twenty-six for women from its historical low in 1950 of twenty-three and twenty. About one-quarter of Americans, or seventy-five-million people, live alone, and while most Americans do eventually get hitched, today as many couples cohabitate as marry. Singledom — and living in sin — are the new norm.

*****
While they were dating, our parents and grandparents evaluated each other as potential life partners and helpmates. We, on the other hand, don't know if we will be working the same job, let alone dating the same person, in a year. If the traditional incentive for a long-term relationship — that is, building a shared life together — is a pipe dream, why commit? As NYU sociologist Richard Sennett wrote in his 1998 book The Corrosion of Character, our society's clockwork practice of treating people like oranges — eating the pulp and throwing away the peel, to paraphrase Willy Loman — has led to a general decline in long-term thinking. Much like corporations acquire smaller companies solely to bolster their own stock prices, we've taken to pursuing relationships based on short-term goals. Nor is the lot of the married particularly enviable. Despite the prevalent idea that "sharing your feelings" (as my stepmother puts it) is what makes relationships work, economics are still the number-one cause of divorce.
*****
The whole marketplace of vice so decried by conservatives — internet personal ads, serial monogamy, sex parties, vibrator boutiques, porno chic — may be an appealing alternative to monogamous monotony, but they're a symptom, not a cause, of the decline of marriage. Where a demand exists in a capitalist economy, people are quick to fill it. If, in the end, we decide to act in "defense of marriage," we are going to need a program of paternity and maternity leave, affordable housing, guaranteed health care and social security. In other words, it seems that in the end, true family values are cognate with the "liberal agenda."

Having spent time in the trenches as a soldier in the marriage wars, I can vouch for how economic issues tend to control relationships.

I myself have argued that there needs to be a shift in the way we even look at marriage. The so-called "traditional marriage" advocates mostly seem hung up on having kids together, and how marriages need to stay together "for the sake of the children."

Pardon my language, but that's bullshit. When couples who don't belong together stay together "for the kids" the kids learn how to be a bitter and resentful adult stuck in a loveless relationship. Sometimes, it's simply better for parents to divorce more or less amicably than stay miserably married.

But I digress. My point is that the conservatives who push the "Traditional Marriage" agenda are also pushing the very anti-progressive, anti-fair trade, anti-non-traditional family agendas that are killing the "traditional family." On top of it all, since the "traditional marriage" forces seem to be interested only in producing more kids, at the expense of womens' rights and the entire concept of marrying for love, maybe the "traditional marrigage" needs to be re-thought anyway. The way things are moving, it's going to change whether we want it to or not.

A brief roll call of people in my Lovely Wife's and my circle of friends:

A couple with two kids together, and he's got a third child by a one-night stand he had in his young and impetuous days.

A couple with one child together, she's got another child by a previous marriage, and he's got two from another previous marriage.

A lesbian couple married in Canada, one of whom has a son from a "traditional marriage" that ended after three years of violent abuse on her ex-husband's part.

A boyfriend-girlfriend arrangement, also abusive. She's got two ex-husbands and a grown-up child of her own, and he's got an ex-wife and a son from that marriage.

In fact, in our circle of friends the only couple I can honestly say meets the definition of a "traditional marriage" is my Lovely Wife and myself. We've even successfully met our requirements to advance the species by having kids.

But then, we're hardly traditional when you get to know us.

A Holy Terror Comes Out Of The Closet!!!

2006-11-02T20:28:00.000-07:00

Well...he was shoved out, actually.

I will restrain myself. I won't give in to the urge to exploit this. I won't I won't I...

I WILL, I WILL, I WILL, OH GOD I WILL!!!!

By Rocky Mountain News
November 2, 2006

COLORADO SPRINGS — The Rev. Ted Haggard stepped aside as senior pastor of the 14,000-member New Life Church and resigned today as president of the National Association of Evangelicals amid allegations by a former gay male escort that the two had a three-year sexual relationship.

*****

Mike Jones, 49, of Denver, made his allegations on the Peter Boyles show on KHOW 630 AM, saying he was compelled to come forward because he believes Haggard, an opponent of same-sex unions, is being hypocritical.

"After sitting back and contemplating this issue, the biggest reason is being a gay man all my life, I have experience with my friends, some great sadness of people that were in a relationship through the years," and were not able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as a married man and woman, Jones told Boyles on air.

"I felt it was my responsibility to my fellow brothers and sisters, that I had to take a stand, and I cannot sit back anymore and hear (what) to me is an anti-gay message."

Haggard told KUSA Channel 9 that "I’ve never had a gay relationship with anybody, and I’m steady with my wife. I’m faithful to my wife."

Jones, who told a bankruptcy judge last year that he is a self-employed fitness consultant, told Boyles that he was paid money by Haggard, who he says made frequent trips to Denver for sexual liaisons, that he has recorded voicemails and a letter from Haggard, and that he had also witnessed Haggard use methamphetamine.

This guy supposedly gets a weekly phone conference with Dubya himself.

This is big. It's not just the politicians being homophobic/hypocritical assholes, this is one of the Holy Terrors himself.

More later.