Fuck Me Lord!

Observe:


The good part happens more towards the end, after all the fear and terror and mercy bullshit.

I saw this video here. It's worth clicking on that link just to read some of the comments. The most pertinent comment is this one, in my opinion:

I've always found it fascinating how blatantly sexual these fits seem to be. She called on the lord like she was about to get there...and the supposed spiritual attack really just seems like an orgasm.

I guess if you're raised in repression, you gotta get your ya yas out somehow.

Posted by Sandy | March 23, 2007 11:52 PM

Why can't people just masturbate in private when they need a spiritual experience?? :)

The YouTube site of the guy who put that video together is here. He's got a few others, too--part of an ongoing project he's working on called "When Christians Misbehave."

The other thing that kind of comes to me after watching that video clip is, do other countries have to put up with nutjobs like that? I mean, do they actually have to take them seriously like we do, here in the United States? I also think it would do the rest of the world a whole lot of good to be made aware of this sort of freakishness, and that these people have so much influence on American policies, including how the U.S.A. relates to other countries. Are the Chinese aware of this, for instance? I suppose, at some level, they probably are--the Chinese are not stupid. (I'd guess that their big, American-related concern at the moment is their slow, symbiotic death-fuck with Wal-Mart.)

Anyway, this whole article is sort of off-topic for this blog, so, in reward for the reader who actually read through all this crap, I offer the following--enjoy!

COPA struck down

Good news:

Judge strikes down anti-Internet porn law
Of course, this was a federal court and not the Supreme Court, but there's no mention in that article of an appeal.

In summary: The Child Online Protection Act was enacted in 1998 with the purpose of "protecting" minors from online porn. Anyone found guilty of providing access to minors of "harmful material" over the internet could face up to US$50,000 in fines, or six months in prison. (The primary real effect of the law, as far as I can tell, was to encourage the proliferation of "age check" sites--sites which were essentially scams, where you paid a small amount via credit card in order to "verify" your age, being told that by doing so, you'd be given access to a crapload of really hot stuff. I tried one of those once, and found it to be virtually worthless. I don't remember the details anymore, other than that I rushed to cancel my membership as quickly as I could, and I retained as much proof as I could gather that I had, in fact, cancelled it. This would tend to suggest that, not only was the whole thing not worth any money, but that I had gotten the distinct impression of shadiness from the company involved. I don't know--some of those sites might be legit, but in my experience, they're just designed to suck your credit card without giving you anything but crap.)

The law was challenged by the ACLU. The Federal District Court in Philadelphia (Judge Lowell Reed) agreed that the law is too restrictive of free speech, and that other means of restricting access to online porn by minors exist that are less so. The one example given was commercial software filtering. I am not aware of how effective this is, since I have never used it (nor had to circumvent it), but I do know that virtually every American porn site that I've ever seen has some sort of notice on its front page declaring open cooperation with Net Nanny or the like. Pornographers aren't stupid--they know full well how the general public feels about this issue, and know that their best strategy is to voluntarily do what they can to help.

I think the long term reality is that, in another generation or two, the whole issue will be considered kind of silly. But in the short term, this is good news.

Addison Rose

I'm going to follow the lead of Kindgirls and declare today to be Addison Rose Day. Click on that link to see naked pictures of 19-year-old cutie and hot babe extraordinaire Addison, one of the smoking-est girls in porn today (or yesterday--she might be out it already, for all I know).

That one little set of pictures is clearly not enough, though. So here are a couple of others. First, Addison's Myspace Page (no nudity that I can see, but worth a look, if you can tolerate Myspace).

Better than that, though, is this: Addison Rose Pictures, featuring total, explicit nudity and a teeny bit of hardcore boy-girl action too. Sweet. Some of the pics on that site lead to other pics, some lead to some commercial signup page, but mostly it's a pretty decent site, rating very low on the obnoxiousness scale.

Just in case you're wondering, this pic right here is my fave.

Here's one more site, just for good measure. That's page four of a four-page hardcore set, with facial cumshot to top it off.

The Anorexia Myth?

An interesting article:

The Haunting Myth of American Anorexia
A couple of choice excerpts:

More Americans die from obesity-related illness in two hours than die from anorexia in a year.

This is ironic, considering that anorexia is considered a mental illness, and obesity is not. It's ridiculous, actually--I've been obese myself for a number of years, and I can tell you with full honesty that my problem is in the brain. My life is shit, and food is my only comfort. Obesity starts in the brain, and, at some point, a person can mess their body up so severely that they've passed the point of no return, and need medical intervention to avoid literally eating themselves to death. This is a far more serious cultural problem than anorexia, and yet, wherever I go, I run into people making absolutist (and insulting) statements like "real women have curves" or implying that thin women are somehow "fake", "bony", "ugly" or even anorexic, just because their ribs and hipbones happen to be visible (I sometimes have to wonder if these people have ever seen a real anorexia nervosa sufferer). Worst of all are those who hint that men who are attracted to skinny women are closeted pedophiles. The implication, over and over, is that it's the fat women who are normal and who should therefore be considered the new standard of feminine beauty [see footnote].

Continuing on to the second excerpt:

So, please, ladies - the girl who has the body the rest of you wish you had is not anorexic. The girl who delicately refuses the eighteen-ounce wedge of deep-fried cheesecake the rest of you dive into after dinner is not anorexic. The girl who is obsessed with fitting back into those size 1 jeans is not anorexic. She’s just thinner than you, knows how to say no to herself, and it makes you jealous. [emphasis in original]

I might add that the rate of obesity in this country has reached the point where obese women are a significant enough segment of the population that they now have enough influence to begin a cultural shift towards bias against thin women, and against the people who are attracted to them. It's not a conspiracy, it's just tens of millions of fat women saying, in chorus, "Hey, I want to be beautiful too!" It's understandable, but does it give these women the right to dictate to me (or to anyone) what I'm supposed to find attractive? More importantly, why is it now the case that the only socially acceptable snide comments relating to body-type are those directed at skinny women? I'm sure a lot of people in my age group and older (I'm 39 at this posting) can recall school days where the fattest kids in the class were invariably ridiculed. None of us would consider this to be excusable behavior, and yet, as adults, people are now doing something pretty close to this towards thin women.

To put it succinctly, the problem is that, once again (see my comments a few days ago on male reproductive rights), one problem is being replaced with another. Intolerance and contempt for fat women is being replaced with intolerance and contempt for thin women. Why? To quote a favorite TV character of mine, "Why can't we all just be who we are?" That includes fat people, thin people, as well as the people who like people of either or both types? Would that be so damn difficult to achieve? Why does this have to remain a question of status and competition? (Oh, I forget: We're humans.) Beyond that, we need to continue to acknowledge the truth that obesity is typically dangerous to a person's long term health. How many fat 100-year-old people have there been in the world? Do we want to die before our 70th birthdays?

In conclusion, I need to emphasize a couple of things, just to ensure clarity: First, for those who actually do suffer from anorexia nervosa, it is not my intention to minimize or otherwise diminish the importance of this problem. Those who clicked on the link above can see how serious it is. Anyone who's ever seen a woman so thin that the bones of her pelvis can be seen in detail know how serious it is. I (and the author of the original article at the top) am merely pointing out that there are a lot more people suffering from the opposite type of eating disorder (which can be equally harmful or deadly in the long run), and this means that, strictly from the point of demographics, anorexia is a smaller problem. This fact is contrary to the conception (or, as the original author called it, the myth) that zillions of young women are starving themselves to death, and that something! must! be! done! immediately!

Secondly, if someone manages to read into what I've wrote here an implication that women should be thin, then I suggest you try reading the actual words that I wrote, rather than putting words into my mouth. Be fat, or thin, whatever you want, just don't judge other people based on their choice, and don't judge other people based on who they're attracted to. That is what I'm saying. If you feel that beauty is a construct of the patriarchy, fine, but what gives you or anyone the right to replace that construct with a different construct and then give people shit when they don't happen to fit into the new construct? Or to give people shit who still seem to prefer the old construct? (I will sidestep the question of whether beauty actually is a construct of the patriarchy, intended to oppress women, and simply acknowledge that the topic is itself quite interesting, and beyond the scope of this essay.)


------

Footnote: Regarding normalcy and standards of feminine beauty, this raises another interesting question, specifically, "Since when has beauty been 'normal?'" Has beauty ever been the norm, or can we be honest with ourselves and admit that beauty has always been the exception? A favorite thing to do among body-type activists is to show a photograph of an ancient mother earth figurine. Literally thousands of years old, it depicts a feminine torso with large, full thighs, swollen belly and pendulous breasts, a shape which is actually pretty common today. But was it common 10,000 years ago? If we are to accept these figurines as an ancient standard of feminine beauty, we must first ask ourselves whether this interpretation is actually valid. What exactly did these figurines symbolize? Were they, in fact, symbols of feminine beauty? Or were they, perhaps, symbols of prosperity, held with pride by men who succeeded in providing such riches for their wives that they were able to achieve that shape? Were they held with aspiration by young husbands who hoped to be able to give their wives that level of prosperity? Perhaps they were simply toys to be played with by young girls, much as Barbie Dolls are today (and, ironically, depicting a similarly difficult-to-achieve feminine shape, for the time). Or maybe they were intended for young men on their first hunting expeditions, who missed their mothers terribly. Or perhaps they were figurines of the queen of the tribe. Or, in what seems to be a standard catch-all explanation for anthropologists, "perhaps they had some religious significance." Or maybe they were pure works of conceptual art. Hell, maybe they were sex toys! Or porn, from the year 10,000 BCE! Obviously, I'm engaging in some wild speculation here, but the point is, we really don't know what these things were for, so using them to demonstrate anything at all, much less holding them up as examples of a natural or unconstructed beauty standard, is pretty questionable.

For those who didn't get the point the first time...

...blogger Violent Acres has kindly posted a followup.

Fuck--if anything, this one is even better than the last.

(Much of what she writes actually covers stuff I wrote about two days ago, but then again, she's got her own take on the issue, and it's worth reading.)

Male Reproductive Rights

I'm actually not sure which of my blogs to post this on--it's very political, so Chunks, Eggs & Prix would be a good match, but on the other hand, it's about sex, too. Furthermore, my viewpoint on this doesn't match the typical liberal dogma, so it would probably fit better here than there. (There's also the fact that this blog gets more traffic than both of my other blogs put together.) Anyway:

Blogger Violent Acres ought to get a fucking award for what she posted yesterday.

Her post deals with the fact that, in modern America, men have no reproductive rights at all. Read the link. She explains it very well. Honestly, this has been bothering me for quite some time, but I've shied away from writing about it, because I am not looking forward to the inevitable namecalling. But, since the subject has come up, I guess now is the time.

I'll start by saying that the "my body, my choice" slogan has seemed a bit disingenuous to me for quite some time. Really, who's body is it that's legally obligated to provide child support for eighteen years if the condom happens to break, or if the woman forgets to take her birth control pills, or if some other misfortune happens to occur? That's not to say that the woman isn't going to be burdened too, but she at least has a choice about it. She can choose to abort the pregnancy, she can choose to give the baby up for adoption, or she can insist on keeping the kid, and the father has no say in any of these decisions at all.

Whenever men complain about this, we are invariably labelled sexist pigs and admonished that, as a matter of fact, we do have reproductive rights: we can refrain from sex. (This is commonly known as "abstinence", a practice which is absolutely ridiculed by most women when it's suggested that they apply it to themselves--and rightfully so, because it's bullshit.) This is often followed by claims that, since we men aren't capable of squeezing a bowling ball out of our asses, we have no right to any say in the matter at all, as if childbirth and pregnancy are somehow worse than eighteen years of virtual slavery (commonly known as "child support"), or as if epidural blocks or other modern obstetric innovations don't exist. Yes, there's a risk of death or injury during childbirth. There's also a risk of death or injury in the workplace. What's the difference?

VA concentrates a lot on what happens later on, too, rather than just on the initial decision like I have here.

I am certainly not suggesting we return to the dark days when a woman was considered the designated dishwasher/toilet-cleaner/womb-life-support-system. What I am saying is that feminism is supposed to be about achieving equality and equity between the sexes, not about power grabbing by women. Feminism is necessary in order to correct a variety of historical injustices between the sexes, all of them perpetrated by men upon women. Turning the tables, even in just one or two small ways, does not resolve that situation, it simply replaces one injustice with another.

It's been suggested that men should have the right to "abort" a pregnancy if they so choose. This does not mean that we would have a right to force women to have abortions. Rather, for a man, "abortion" would mean having the legal right to terminate paternal responsibilities (and privileges) under certain circumstances. There would be a time limit--once the kid had reached a certain age (measured most likely in weeks, not years), the option would disappear. It's a good idea. Not a simple idea, I agree. Working it out would be complicated. But it would be worth it in the long run.

There's actually a lot of info and material pertaining to this, out there on the web--more than I can sift through at the moment. Do a Google search on "male abortion" if you're interested. A variety of links come up--I have read none of them, so I can't vouch for anything that any of them say. I'm only advocating what I specifically say in this blog entry. (I feel like I have to say this because, I have found, a lot of men's rights advocates are raving, Old-Testament-quoting nutjobs with whom I have no interest in associating myself.)

Patrizia Berger

I just happened to come across the weblog of a cutie calling herself Patricia Berger.

Includes pictures. Some very nice pictures, if I must say so myself. Like I said, she's very cute. :)

What's cool is that she appears to be maintaining the blog herself, and once and a while will respond to comments people post there. I left a couple of comments. I'm curious if she'll answer. :)

Regarding what kind of content in the pictures, mostly explicit nudes, and some girl-girl photos, as well as some non-nude portraits. I didn't notice any boy-girl photos.

Becky's Angels

Check out Becky's Angels, a blog wherein "Becky" (not sure who Becky is, but whatever) posts thumbnailed images from various girls' websites. The thumbnails also link to larger-sized images.

Now, technically, it's a "non-nude" blog, but it's "non-nude" in the modern definition, which means something like "no labia and no nipples." Everything else is fair game, including bare asses, and even a little peek of landing strip from time to time. This, for example, is pretty typical:


And then that thumbnail leads to a full-sized version (on the other site, not here). Trust me when I say that the full-sized version is worth looking at, unless you're offended by tattoos. ;)

Here's another one that counts as "non nude":


But hey, I'm not complaining. You know?