TAKE! A! PILL! - an update

I'm going to keep this short, but I felt an update was necessary to my post the other day about Richard Gere and Indian hottie Shilpa Shetty getting in hot water over a little on-screen smooching.

Essentially, it appears that India has sort of a similar situation with respect to sexual morality issues as we do here in the States, namely that there are some extremely conservative and extremely vocal groups who tend to shoot their mouths off a lot, but who also win a little ground through the principle of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." That would explain why an actual court was willing to issue arrest warrants, warrants which will probably not hold up.

More mainstream Indians, as far as I understand, seem to have reacted to this incident sort of the way ordinary Americans reacted to the media circus over the Janet Jackson nipple incident of a few years ago--in other words, even if they felt it wasn't an appropriate thing to do on television, they didn't exactly burst a blood vessel over it, either.

My previous article was also a bit insulting, and I apologize for that.

Chinese to Acquire Flickr

LOL. No, no, no...

But what I have heard a rumour of is that negotiations are ongoing regarding having Flickr open up shop in China. Porn is a capital offense in the People's Republic of China. Yahoo itself, the company which owns Flickr, used to be a-okay with porn--hell, you could get some really wild stuff on Yahoo Auctions at one point. But then, mysteriously, all adult content on Yahoo was suddenly deleted or very strictly regulated. Try to find an adult group on Yahoo Groups now, without having a link to it. It can't be done.

Now, I am not exactly sure of the timeframes, here, but I wonder if that was about the same time Yahoo was starting up operations in China. Could be. Likewise, kissing Chinese ass would be one explanation for the sudden pogrom against porn posters on Flickr. I must say, if that's actually what's happening, then I am really not happy that people in supposedly free countries are being expected to moderate their activites according to the laws of the "People's" Fucking Republic. The intent of the internet was not to put people in a position of having to obey the laws of whichever economic superpower happens to have the most conservative laws, whether that be China, or the United States.

However, I do not want this post to be totally depressing. My source for this tip has also posted the following absolutely lovely pic in his photostream:


Perhaps someone should send a copy of that to 胡錦濤 (Hu Jintao)--who knows, it might inspire him to have a change of heart.

[Note: I considered posting a link back to the person's photostream, but then decided against it. He really tries to maintain a low profile these days, so I felt it best not to leave a breadcrumb trail directly to where he is. Sorry. Besides, he'd have to add you as "family" to see that pic (and others like it), and he's not likely to do that unless you've got something to offer in return.]

TAKE! A! PILL! Gere kisses pretty girl, arrest warrants issued

I dedicate these pictures to the people of India:

 

That's Richard Gere and Shilpa Shetty. Apparently, some people were so offended by this "obscene" act, that, not only was Gere burned in effigy in several cities, but arrest warrants have now been issued for both actors.

I'm not even going to waste my time detailing how ridiculous that is. Shetty summed it up quite well herself, though, when she stated: "I understand this is his culture, not ours. But this was not such a big thing or so obscene for people to overreact in such manner." EXACTLY!

I assume she made that statement prior to the issuance of the arrest warrants, because I recall reading it a couple of days ago, before the current story was released. Perhaps, by now, she is cooling her heels in the local clink. Since Gere himself is no longer in India, it's not clear what will happen to him, although I'd be interested to hear if he releases a statement of some kind in response.

In any case, I offer my congratulations to the people of India: You have now officially done something even more absurd and ridiculous than the reaction of my fellow Americans to the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction incident of a few years ago. You should truly be proud.

Note: I've issued an update to this post, located here. There were further developments, plus, I decided my wording here was a little too inflammatory.

Amy's gone. Life sucks.

This is mostly a personal note about a sad thing that happened today, but it also happens to be very much on-topic for this blog.

A photostream on Flickr by a young woman calling herself amyg4fun - COMMENTS WANTED was deleted, earlier this evening. Amy's photostream was easily the most fun I've ever had on Flickr, and after following her postings and the myriad user comments for the past couple of months, I found myself looking forward to it every day. I also felt the absence on weekends, when she usually didn't post. I was a dedicated fan, maybe even more than I should have been.

I don't know why her photostream is gone, but the leading theory is that there was something in it that pissed off the Flickr gestapo, who have been deleting a lot of accounts lately, with no warning and no explanation. As I was looking about tonight, trying to figure out what happened, I noticed a couple of other contacts of mine were gone too (most notably a lovely woman who called herself "Luscious Lii", although she hadn't been active for a while, unlike Amy). Amy's photostream definitely fit within the boundaries of what I talk about on this blog, since it was often very erotic, but at the same time, the primary emphasis was almost invariably on humor. It's kind of hard to explain, but her collection of photos, numbering somewhere on the high side of 1500, was the antithesis of porn. (Actually, I kind of like to think it's what porn would be, if we lived in a world totally free from sexual guilt and recrimination.) Unlike almost all pornography, these photos conveyed a spirit of fun and innocence. Yes, they were sexy, but where porn is quite often soulless and empty, this collection was never like that. It just wasn't even in the same league.

What it was, was an ongoing, online party, with Amy providing the entertainment, and all of us, her dedicated fans and stalkers, chiming in with literally thousands of comments and quips over the past few months. I, myself, must have posted several hundred comments on her photostream, probably more than all my comments on other photostreams put together. Some days, I would comment on every single photo she posted. It was just fun. We all liked Amy a lot, too. I also very quickly lost track of how many times Amy got propositioned by various commenters. :)

An alternate explanation for the disapperance, of course, is that Amy herself deleted her photostream. That seems far less likely to me, though, considering that earlier today, she not only posted some of her finest stuff to date, but broadly hinted at lots more to come. [Update--this theory was proved wrong, she sent me a message confirming her original account got nuked.]

The only reason there's any doubt in my mind is because she didn't talk very much. With her, it was mostly the pictures, and a brief, funny comment on each one. Sometimes she would respond to us commenters, but a lot of the time not. That's just how she was, take it or leave it. Most of us took it, accepted that that's the way Amy was, and loved her anyway. She was a beautiful, sexy sweetheart, what else could we do? :)

In a way, I kind of hope it was Amy herself who decided she'd had enough. I mean, that would be bad, because it would make me wonder if something was wrong, and I might tend to worry. But at the same time, if it was the morality cops that axed her account, that would be a grave injustice, because there was nothing the least bit offensive or objectionable there at all, except possibly to the sorts of idiots who can't tell the difference between play and reality (that's a good description of most morality cops, actually). Not only that, but deleting a person's account without warning, especially a well established one like Amy's, with thousands of comments and probably close to 200,000 views, is completely and totally unfair. The Flickr cops never bother to tell people why they're being axed, and never give anyone any warning. I have read the rules and Terms of Service myself, and they are not exactly clear, but the Flickr cops don't seem to care about that. This is the main reason I referred to them as "gestapo" above. If they were interested in playing fair, they wouldn't be pulling this sort of shit. They would be helping people to understand and obey the rules, and they would be warning people who were crossing the line, giving them a chance to straighten up. I guess I'd better shut up about this, though, because I am starting to get pissed off, and I don't want a second night in a row of insomnia.

The only possible positive outcome that I can see, if she was axed, is that she might decide to come back and give it another go. I suppose I shouldn't get my hopes up, though. Even if she does come back, there's no recovering what's already been lost, in particular the thousands of comments and notes that are totally unrecoverable.

Whatever happens, this is a serious bummer. I suppose I'm going to have to find something else to look forward to every day--my life has been a total bitch for the past couple of years, and lately, this one thing was pretty much all I had to look forward to. I found it much easier to get up in the morning, knowing that there would most likely be a new assortment of pictures waiting. There's plenty of other titillating material on Flickr, but there was only one Amy, and, as I look around at what else is available to me, I find myself feeling quite uninterested. :(

[update, 4/11/2007] SHE'S BACK!!!

This just completely makes my day. :-D

Looking back at what I wrote last night, I was pretty depressed. I feel much better now, and am resisting the urge to go back and re-write this whole post to make it sound more upbeat.

Domai 10th Anniversary

This is a bit late, but what they hey.

Domai.com celebrated its 10th Anniversary last month, and I thought it would be nice to note it here. As part of the celebration, there are three free sets posted on the site, membership not required. Here are the links to the thumbnail pages:

Bonus One
Bonus Two
Bonus Three
Good stuff. Many lovely ladies, all fully nude (except one, who's wearing shoes).

Domai was the very first website I ever subscribed to, if I remember right. That was quite a while ago, and things have changed a lot in the meantime, including their slogan. Nowadays, it's "Tasteful Photos of Beautiful Women." In bygone days, if I can remember this right, it was "Tasteful Nude Photos of Pretty Girls." I was always fond of the original, with it's unabashed lack of political correctness.

Looking at what Domai has accomplished, that one site has pretty much single-handedly created a market for a style of photography which the webmaster calls "Simple Nudes." This style is fairly easy to define: A smiling, naked girl, preferably outdoors, preferably in color, preferably totally nude (the webmaster himself defines it in a little more detail, in an essay which I consider to be recommended reading for anyone--in fact, it's so good, I really ought to link it over in the sidebar at some point).

This style was quite a contrast to the old Playboy/Penthouse/high-fashion dogma which claimed that a woman was sexier in lingerie than she was totally naked (something which I have never believed), and where "sexy" and "smiling" were generally not two things that went together. Well, obviously, Playboy is still around, but so is Domai, so I guess there are a lot of folks out there in both camps.

Anyway, if you have any doubts about checking out those three pages, here's a little sample pic: Yes, I realize she's not smiling, and she's not outdoors. :)

Of course, Domai is primarily a pay site--for a monthly or quarterly fee, you get access to a new set of pictures five days a week. The cost is more reasonable than a lot of places, and every set is also available in ZIP format, so you don't have to waste your time saving individual pictures if you want to keep them all. I think it's a pretty good deal, which I guess explains why I've been a subscriber for a while now. :)

More on COPA

Some more on the recent judicial overturning of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA)--this comes to us from the lovely folks at Playfuls.com:

Is Your Child Searching for Online Porn?

One thing I've noticed about Playfuls.com is that they never seem to pass up the opportunity for an inflamatory headline. Nevertheless, their articles are usually pretty interesting.

In this case, I wanted to focus in on two specific things.

1) Backers of COPA are going to push for an appeal of this decision. Personally, I wish these people would all grow a brain and shut the fuck up, but I'm not holding my breath. Quoting from the article:

"It doesn’t matter if the Republicans are in the majority or the Democrats. This issue is something both sides of the aisle feel strongly about," said Donna Rice Hughes of Enough Is Enough, an Internet pornography watchdog group, cited by Reuters.

Notice how prudes almost always presume to speak for everyone? This is no exception. Hughes uses a clever but fairly transparent rhetorical dodge, putting the burden of dissent on the opposition--if we don't say anything, we are assumed to agree, a strategy used most effectively in situations where disagreement will result in maximum embarrassment to the dissenting side. Hughes even goes one better by failing to explicitly mention the position she's assuming for both sides, which implies it is so obviously correct that she doesn't even need to mention it. Well, screw that. While she is correct in assuming strong feelings about the issue, the truth is, I feel myself strongly in disagreement with her implied postion. Laws like COPA should not only be expunged from the books, but the dipshit legislators who foist them upon us should be voted out of office entirely.

The Hughes quote is also interesting to me because it's the first time I've ever heard of this organization "Enough is Enough." Under what moss-encrusted rock did Playfuls find them, anyway? Or did I miss out on them simply because I don't watch television? Does this nation really need another whackjob right-wing front organization?

2) Here's another quote that I find particularly amusing:

The exposure to porn occurs while simply browsing the Web and usually in an accidental manner, the study revealed. Among those questioned in the study, 42% have confessed that they have seen pornographic content (images or even short movies) in the last year. 66% of those who responded that exposure to porn occurred while they were Web-browsing have declared that they did not intentionally search for pornographic content and did not want it.

Uh huh. All I can say is that a good chunk of those 66% percent were probably lying their little asses off. Seriously--how in the world can any legitimate researcher claim to know that kids aren't going to lie on a questionnaire like that? Kids know full well they're not supposed to look at porn online, so are they then going to admit that they went looking for it? Seriously? Who are these people kidding?

Allow me to explain something: The very first thing that would have to happen in order for kids to answer a question like that truthfully is that they would have to admit to themselves what they were doing. Are they going to do that? And, if so, how exactly are researchers going to find that out? Has someone invented telepathy and not told me? Has someone forgotten the absolutely immense capacity for self-deception that human beings possess?

Of course, this leads to the obvious question of why kids would deceive themselves about this issue in the first place. Well, that's simple. When kids get the idea to take a peek at something they know they shouldn't be looking at, one thing that goes through their minds is, "what if I get caught?" They know full well that if they get caught, they're going to have to lie about it. And what's the best way to lie about something? Make up your story, make it convincing, and then believe it yourself, if you can.

That is why I find the contention that 66% of these kids came across porn accidentally and in an unwanted way laughable.

Movie comments: Grindhouse

This movie is fucking awesome. Seriously. I haven't had this much fun in a movie theater in a good long time.

Granted, it's not for everyone. Those who abhor movie violence are probably going to loathe this film, because it's about an eleven on the Mel Gibson Violence-o-Meter. Not only that, but the first feature in this slightly-over-three-hours double-feature is the brilliant and disgusting slime-o-rama known as Planet Terror, which rates sky-high on the gross-out scale. Planet Terror features bloody, snotty pustules which ooze and splatter all over things, especially people's faces; much severing of limbs and heads, with frequent spurting of blood; a diverse and amazing selection of injuries and dismemberments; freaky zombie-ish creatures who rip people apart and eat them; and, just to balance things out, Rose McGowan. She plays Cherry, a young woman who formerly aspired to be a doctor (or something like that), but who ended up working as an exotic dancer. She starts out the feature with two legs, doing a lovely go-go dance number, and finishes with only one leg, the other having been ripped off (and presumably eaten). I kid you not when I say that Cherry gives a new appeal to sexy amputee-women everywhere--and the thing with the machine gun is just plain entertaining. Also featured is the fabulous Marley Shelton, who is not only gorgeous, but who ends up with a disablity of her own for most of the story. As well, her character has a fetish for needles, which is hot (in kind of a sick way).

Basically, Planet Terror has got it all, except for nudity and sex, but, fuck, I honestly did not care. They wouldn't have had time anyway. All in all, it kicks a lot of ass. I'd take my hat off to director Robert Rodriguez, but I don't wear a hat.

The second feature, Death Proof, is quite a switch. At first, it seemed like it was going to be nothing but dialog, and I actually began to wonder what the hell was going on. Then I remembered this was a Tarantino flick, and Tarantino's got to have lots of gritty dialog scenes, because he just loves that shit. And, admittedly, it is pretty good dialog, very realistic. It's just that, after the extremities of the first feature, I was starting to suspect that Death Proof was going to be a big yawn. I was quite wrong, as it turned out.

You see, Death Proof is really all about the cars. And what, pray tell, happens when you put three or four lovely, 1970's-era muscle cars into a movie? Well, they go really fast, make lots of cool noises, engage in many high-risk maneuvers, and get smashed up a lot. It's all very magnificent and exciting, and includes what must be one of the finest chase sequences in the history of cinema.

Death Proof is almost two seperate movies in its own right, the only things tying the two halves together being the car theme, and Kurt Russell's character, Stuntman Mike. The first half starts with the aforementioned dialog, and then builds up to a massive bang of an ending--in fact, I just about had to pick my jaw up off the floor. The second half begins with more dialog, which inevitably leads to an absolutely huge action sequence. I would love to describe this...but I would be doing a disservice to reveal much about it at all. Suffice it to say, people in the audience applauded at the end. Cars were involved, as well as some astounding stuntwork by the brilliant Zoe Bell. It was fucking cool.

This is a crowd film, so see it in a theater. No, I am not kidding. This movie isn't going to be half as good on DVD. You need to arrange to go to a prime-time Friday or Saturday night showing, in a high-quality theater, ideally. Myself, I went to an afternoon matinée, and I wish I had waited for the 7:30 show. It would have been worth the extra three dollars, just to see it in a mostly full theater.

The other problem I foresee with DVD viewing is that this movie, even more than most, is absolutely crammed full of lovely little details designed to increase the sense of 1970's-ness for the viewer. The most obvious are the almost constant dings and scratches that have been added in, and the deliberate use of a grainy image to simulate a low-budget, el-cheapo production. Aside from that, though, you're really not going to be able to appreciate the full grotesqueness of the special effects in Planet Terror if you're only watching it on a boring old TV set.

I also think one of the primary benefits of this film is to allow modern viewers to compare their own moviegoing experiences to the sort of bullshit that people often had to put up with in the 1970's: scratchy films that had been played to the point of wearing out, including being respliced in many places where the film had broken; cheesy advertisements; cheap production quality; projector jam-ups and misalignments; and even entire reels of the film gone missing (presumably due to projectionists stealing whichever reels contained the sex scenes). These, and others, are all used as effects in Grindhouse, and, personally, I enjoyed them all the more knowing that I never had to put up with any of them (except for cheesy ads) in a modern, high-quality theater. Would that have been the case sitting in front of a TV set, even a high-definition one? I doubt it.

When the DVD version does come out, there are likely to be some decent bonus features, including the unrated versions of the "trailers." I'm also hoping Rodreguez and Tarantino will do commmentary tracks. But, for the main viewing, you need to see this in a real fucking theater.

(On the other hand, if you're stuck in a place where all the movie theaters suck, then fuck it, just wait for the DVD. Cheap-assed theater chains don't deserve your business, nor the business of anyone else. Save your money. Invite a bunch of friends over for a DVD viewing party, get stocked up on booze and munchies, and accept my sympathies.)

"Grindhouse" - Opening on Good Friday; "This Film is Not Yet Rated"

How funny is it that Grindhouse, Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez's tribute to classic low-budget trash cinema is opening on Good Friday?

Pretty damn funny, if you ask me.

Of course, the MPAA seems to have had the last laugh--the movie got cut down to an "R" rating. Those fuckers. According to industry buzz over the past few weeks, extensive cutting had to be made. Here's an older article on the subject--this is probably not the original source, since there were only about 52,000 Google matches on this subject (and I'm positive this is not the original title): “Grindhouse” Should Be Renamed “Porn House” Some of the choicer tidbits:

there’s no question it’s headed for an NC-17 without big cuts,” says a Page Six operative, who got a sneak peek at the most over-the-top footage.

“Grindhouse” is actually two short movies - one directed by Tarantino, the other by Rodriguez - with an intermission between them. During the break, a series of fake trailers will be shown for such fictitious titles as “Werewolf Women of the SS,” directed by Rob Zombie.

“In one scene, a cute, topless girl is roughly tied down on a table by evil female Nazi experimenters who begin draining her blood and, as she screams in agony, they brand her like livestock with a coal-hot steel swastika,” our source said. “And every girl in the Nazi concentration camp is topless.”

Another trailer, directed by Eli Roth, of “Hostel” fame, is called “Thanksgiving,” in which a town’s celebration of Turkey Day is interrupted by a mad slasher.

“There’s a part where Jordan Ladd [daughter of Cheryl Ladd of ‘Charlie’s Angels’] is in a car with her boyfriend and giving him [oral sex] when she lovingly reaches to stroke his hair and discovers his neck is just a bloody stump - some maniac had just cut off his head while she was in the act.”

Later, a frisky cheerleader climbs onto a trampoline and begins stripping naked as she jumps up and down until she does a split and her skirt blows up without panties underneath. “You get the full ‘Britney Spears-getting-out-of-the-limo view,’ ” our source says. Another jolting scene shows a grossly obese man chewing on a baby.

I'm guessing all of that will either be removed entirely, or cut down to meaninglessness. So much for authenticity. Screw the MPAA. Yes, you'll be able to see it all on the unrated DVD, but if you think you're getting anywhere near the level of viewing quality on a DVD that you would be in a real theater, all I can say is, either you're a dumbshit, or else you need to get your eyes checked.

Seriously, this is the United States of fucking America, so why can't we see the original movie, as it was intended to be seen, in a real fucking theater? It's not like they're going to let the little kiddies in anyway, are they?

Incidentally, if you want to see a really good exposé of the MPAA, be sure to rent This Film is Not Yet Rated, a fairly well-done documentary on the subject. The producers of the film went so far as to hire private investigators to track down the identities of the people on the super-secret MPAA ratings board, and the even-more-secret appeals board. This appeals board is, surprisingly, entirely staffed by reps from big movie studios and major theater chains. There are also two priests, one Catholic and one Episcopalian, who oversee the proceedings of this board. So much for objectivity and fairness, eh?

Eensy Weensy Thong Bikinis

I love this:

Microkitten Brazilian Bikinis
Fabulous. Just fabulous. In particular, note this little bottom here:


That is just great. You can buy one here. Please do me a favor and get one. For yourself, or your female significant other.

No, I'm not getting paid to write this. I just think these tiny little bathing suits are fantastic. They epitomize what this blog is all about, given that we still live in a world where people are required to wear clothing in most places. I also enjoy the fact that, due to the way they are designed, the wearer has to pretty much remove all of her pubic hair in order to wear them. That, in my somewhat perverted opinion, is hot. :)

Unfortuntely, if a woman dressed like that where I live, she'd most likely be arrested. Because I live in a free country, you know? The U.S.of A. Hurray. :(