News Flash: Virgin Ears of America's Youth Threatened

Sigh:

High court conservatives favor indecency rule

Given the current composition of the Supreme Court, I shouldn't be surprised to see them taking such a position. Nor should I be surprised to see a Bush-appointed Solicitor General acting as flag-bearer for such a ridiculous cause. But I am disappointed, nonetheless.

Ever watch an HBO program? They don't shy away from the language issue on that channel. If the story calls for use of the word "fuck" or "shit", then that's the word they use. The really nice thing about this is that it allows for a level of realism that just isn't possible on normal TV networks. Ever see The Wire? It was the most realistic cop and drug-dealer show ever made, easily. The three broadcast networks, and all the various cable channels who insist on emulating the standards that the broadcast networks are forced to obey, could never have come up with a program like that in a million years. It would have been impossible. They would have had to obey the rules and water down the language, and the effect of that would have been to diminish the realism of the show. Everyone knows that cops and drug dealers use whatever kind of language they want. They don't censor themselves to meet broadcast television standards.

It's not just a matter of pure realism, either. Sometimes an injection of gritty realism allows a fantasy to be explored in a much more satisfying way. There's a newer show on HBO that I've been enjoying, called True Blood, which is a perfect example of this. The show is rife with foul language and has its fair share of raunchy, almost-pornographic sex scenes as well. It's not that I watch the show specifically to enjoy those things. But they are like bonus features. They enrich the experience of watching the show, and by quite a lot. It would be interesting to see a version of True Blood rewritten and re-edited for broadcast televison. They'd have to chop a lot of stuff out. Probably it would still be worth watching, since raunchy sex can be implied rather than shown directly, and they could use the standard euphemisms instead of "fuck", "shit" and so forth. They'd also have to dial back the blood a little bit, probably, and I wouldn't mind that very much. But the sum total of all those missing elements would have a fairly drastic effect on the quality of the program. Not that it would be worse, but it would surely be different. It would just be a regular TV show. Part of the viewing experience would involve having to fill in the blanks where the "offensive" stuff was left out, just like with other TV shows. And that's a bother. It's also annoying, it's childish, and it's so much nicer when we don't have to do it.

Getting back to the article, here is a key excerpt:

"The F-word is one of the most graphic, explicit and vulgar words in the English language for sexual activity," [U.S. Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre] said. Broadcasters can be fined more than $325,000 for a single utterance of the F-word, even if it is blurted out by a guest on a live program.

Really? It's really so critical that the word "fuck" never penetrate the innocent, virgin ears of our precious children ever, that a broadcaster should be fined three-hundred twenty-five thousand dollars for one single utterance?

Who the hell is he kidding, anyway?

Is it even necessary to point out that a typical fourth grader is quite familiar with this word, and probably uses it with his buddies on a regular basis? That is certainly my recollection, having gone through the fourth grade myself. As for girls that age, I can't claim firsthand knowledge, since I didn't hang out with girls very much in the fourth grade. But in the sixth grade? Yes. In fact, the school I went to had the wisdom to arrange student lockers in a mixed-sex arrangement, none of this crap of putting boys in one wing and girls in the other, we were all mixed together. So my locker was next to the locker of a couple of girls, and I can attest that both of them were pretty fluent in the full variety of obscenities in the English language. (They also had an amusing fascination with penises, but that's kind of another topic.)

Sixth grade. Since they were already so familiar and comfortable with all of this language, it can only be assumed that they learned it when they were younger.

So who the hell are we protecting, anyway?

Are we protecting the small number of sheltered innocents who somehow manage to reach the sixth grade without ever hearing the word "shit"? And, if that's what we are really doing, I have to ask WHY????????? I mean, are we really doing them a favor by continuing to shelter them from the cultural reality that they are going to have to live in when they get older?

Honestly, I don't think those very few overly-sheltered children are the reason the government insists on putting its full weight behind these broadcast decency regulations. I don't really know why they do it. Perhaps they do it just because that's what they've always done. Beyond that, there's only speculation.

I can speculate, for instance, that perhaps the reason is not to protect the innocence of children, but to protect the innocence of adults, who, for some reason I utterly fail to understand, need to believe that children are pure and uncorrupt.

It's a reasonable idea, and I think it's probably correct. However, it does raise even deeper questions, such as why our culture has so much energy invested in such a questionable concept as childhood innocence in the first place. But I can speculate about that one too: I think the answer has to do with wanting to control people. Getting back to the girls in my sixth grade class, there were plenty of them who did not engage in the potty-mouth thing. However, just because they didn't talk that way doesn't mean they were unfamiliar with that way of talking. They had just already decided that that wasn't how they wanted to talk. It was their choice, and adult attempts to shelter them from the corrupting influence of profanity had nothing to do with it. I think that may be the center of the issue: Young people, especially young girls, taking control and making their own decisions. People get really nervous about that.

Anyway, if you happen to be interested in this sort of subject, I have a book recommendation: Harmful to Minors, by Judith Levine. The book deals more with the question of sex and pornography than with profanity, but in many ways, it's the same question.

Buttplugs. And Potatoes. Seriously!

I came across this article today:

A VICAR turned up in agony at a hospital — with a potato stuck in his bottom.

The clergyman told stunned casualty nurses he fell backwards on to his kitchen table while hanging curtains.

He happened to be nude at the time of the mishap.

Um, sure. That seems totally likely to happen.

Mr. Vicar, sir, might I recommend a butt-plug next time? They're ideally made for this sort of activity, with a wide spot on the end so you have something to grab onto when you pull them out--even the big, potato-sized ones! Give it a try! I, myself, have seen many of them in the extra-large size you seem to be needing! :)

Just a word of caution, though: your typical butt-plug is covered in latex, which isn't all that compatible with human skin, especially the delicate tissues of the butthole area. So you will need some lube, too. Water-based! Avoid any type of oil that you might oh-so-conveniently find in the kitchen, because it will dissolve the latex of the buttplug, and you don't want dissolved latex in your asshole, do you? If you skip the lube entirely, well, my first guess is you won't even be able to get the damn thing to go in at all. But if you do, it's going to hurt like an everlasting bitch when you have to yank it out. So don't forget the lube!

One thing I do wonder about in that article is the assertion that they needed surgery to get the potato out. I fail to understand how it went in so easily, just from him falling on it, supposedly, but then refused to come out. It seems contrary to the nature of the human butthole, which is designed to expel stuff, not take it in. The muscles are accustomed to movement in one direction, not the other. So it's a mystery to me why it was so difficult to get the stupid potato out, unless he was all cramped up or something. Yikes. THAT would hurt--butthole cramps. Eeek.

Well, I am done now. :)

[update]

Wrong! Read:

Rectal Impaction Following Enema with Concrete Mix

Um, WOW. More:

Examination of the specimen revealed a perfect concrete cast of the rectum, measuring 12 X 7 X 5 cm and weighing 275 g (Fig. 2). A thin layer of feces coated the surface and crevices. Grooves in the mass were consistent with rectal mucosal folds. A layer of concrete was chipped off the upper part of the specimen and revealed a white plastic ping-pong ball. This corresponded to the radiolucency observed in the abdominal x-ray.

Includes pictures!

Hottie Hayden says the word "fuck" :P

This gave me a good LOL:

See more Hayden Panettiere videos at Funny or Die

Yes, that is Hayden Panettiere, of Heroes and the better of the two Bring it On sequels (that I'm aware of).

Why am I posting this here? Because, for one thing, it's such a delightful contrast to innocent little Claire on Heroes, who would never dream of using such vulgar language. :D (Except Claire has been getting kind of evil lately, hasn't she? So maybe that will change...except this is network television we're talking about, alas.)

Plus, I just think it's a good idea for people to hear teenage girls using the word "fuck" sometimes. It reminds us that they're not the sweet little angelic bundles of innocence that so many people like to believe. Many of them have even engaged in the fucking! And you'll notice that the world hasn't come to an end as a result, right? (Well, maybe it will if McCain wins.)

Aside from that, the video is just FUNNY. :)

Hell freezes over: Colleges say 21 year old drinking age is "not working"

Well well well:

Colleges: Drinking age 'not working'

I never thought I'd see that in a million years. The gist of it:

Six college presidents in Maryland are among more than 100 college and university presidents nationwide who have signed a statement calling for a public debate on rethinking the drinking age.

"Kids are going to drink whether it's legal or illegal," said Johns Hopkins President William R. Brody, who supports lowering the drinking age to 18. "We'd at least be able to have a more open dialogue with students about drinking as opposed to this sham where people don't want to talk about it because it's a violation of the law."

First, I'd recommend 19 instead of 18. A 19-year-old drinking age was tried for a few years in the early 1980's, and from what I remember (having been just a few months too young to benefit from that law), it worked fairly well. There are very few 19-year-old high-school students, so the age served to limit drinking by high school students, and since most college students turn 19 in their first year, their level of compliance was actually fairly reasonable. The 21-year-old drinking age, on the other hand, is not only ignored by huge numbers of college students, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that it had an impact on the level of drinking in high schools too.

Getting back to the article, what unfortunately doesn't surprise me is the quote from the Mother's Against Drunk Driving (MADD) representative, which has no apparent logical connection to the issue at all: "Drunk driving used to be a part of American culture until someone stood up and said we need to make a change, and 25 years later 'designated driver' is a commonplace term in every household in America." Hello? The designated driver concept is totally seperate from the minimum drinking age, it arose seperately, and it could easily continue to exist regardless of what the drinking age actually is. More:

She said [she] was disappointed that the university presidents did not talk with MADD before signing the statement. She said she also questions their commitment to upholding the law.

Why exactly should they talk to MADD when it's clear that all MADD ever does is repeat the same thing over and over? Obviously they already knew that MADD would just say it was an awful idea, would provide no sensible justification for that position at all, and would refuse to budge an inch. This position, however, is precisely the one which the college people say is not working.

Furthermore, since when does advocating a change to the law constitute a lack of committment to upholding the law as it currently stands? Is she completely incapable of seeing that these are two different things?

All in all, however, it's a very interesting and promising development.

(As for MADD, it would be really nice if they would change their position and do their best to advocate responsible alcohol use by legal adults, rather than continuing to use the ridiculous strategy of trying to ban as much alcohol use as they possibly can. They might, for instance, come out in favor of late night mass transit or improved taxicab coverage in smaller cities, or maybe even the undue influence that tavern leagues have on local politics--all issues which pertain to the continuing problem of people having to drive someplace to drink, and then drive home afterwards. Designated drivers, after all, are not always available, and some cities have really shitty taxi coverage. It would be nice if people could go out at midnight, get some alcohol, bring it home, and then drink it. That would be safe, wouldn't it? But you can't do that here--it's illegal. The only way to buy alcohol at midnight around here is at a bar.)

John McCain's Penis: Everyone's Business!!!

So, Repubican presidential candidate and presumptive nominee John McCain has been getting some flack in the press for supposedly messing around with a younger woman, who also happens to be a lobbyist.

I so wish McCain had just replied, "Yeah, we fuck. Typically it happens on my desk, but sometimes I've got a lot of work laid out there, you know, so then we have to use an actual bed. A couple times we've done it on the floor, too--that was really fun. I bet Democrats never do it on the floor! BTW, she really loves it up the butt."

But instead what we get is yet another chapter in the never-ending "You bad man, you had no business messing around with that woman!" chronicles. SO TIRESOME.

For the record, I wasn't planning on voting for him. I still am not. But I do feel a slight tug in the direction of giving him my vote just out of spite for this idioicy.

One more thing. This should be fucking obvious, but I feel I better put this here anyway just to shield myself from asshat lawyers: The above "quote" is totally fictional, and, furthermore, I have no idea whether the lobbyist is actually into anal sex or not. Nor do I have any idea whether McCain has actually had sex with her, NOR DO I CARE, which is the whole point of this rant. YOU SHOULDN'T CARE EITHER. NONE OF THIS IS ANY OF OUR BUSINESS.

Wikileaks, and some meta stuff

First the metastuff: I haven't been as active on this blog in recent months as I used to be. More recently, I've been wondering where to take this blog, including the question of whether to host it somewhere else. Haven't decided yet. Out of all my blogs, this is likely the only one that would be continued. Maintaining several blogs is simply not something I am interested in doing anymore. I'm also concerned about the content of this blog--I feel the need to go over all the old posts, review them for quality, and even for whether or not they still reflect my views on the various things I've posted about. I'm also intrigued by the possibility of actually making some money off of this blog. Out of my three original blogs, this one gets the lion's share of the hits, even when I neglect it for months. (Much of the traffic seems to come from Addison Rose fans...which is totally understandable. I've been known to do some searches on that little hottie myself, heheheheh.)

But enough of that for now, on to a real topic:

Wikileaks, which is a site I never even heard of until three hours ago, has had it's domain name revoked on order of an American judge. The revokation is apparently temporary, until the judge has a chance to review the case, sort of like putting a defendant in jail prior to trial. The funny part of this is that the actual server for the site is located outside of U.S. jurisdiction, so the site itself is still available (although server response was a bit slow when I tried it--most likley it's getting hit pretty hard today, since it is now famous, for the first time in its history).

What I also find interesting about this story is the site which hosts Wikileaks, PRQ. To quote an article I read earlier:

PRQ's home page offers clues that it's not just another hosting company. It paraphrases a quote from Mike Godwin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation: "I worry about my children all the time. I worry that 10 years from now, they will come to me and say, 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of speech away from the Internet?'"

As it turns out, PRQ is owned by two founders of the Pirate Bay, the BitTorrent tracker site that is Hollywood's least favorite online destination. The Pirate Bay guys have made a sport out of taunting all forms of authority, including the Swedish police, and PRQ has gone out of its way to host sites that other companies wouldn't touch. It is perhaps the world's least lawyer-friendly hosting company and thus a perfect home for Wikileaks, which says it is "developing an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking and public analysis."

In other words, it sounds like these PRQ people are my kind of people.

The irony here is that I only became aware of these sites, which are strongly dedicated to information transparancy and freedom of speech, through the lame efforts of some bank to shut someone up. Ooops. Thanks to this bank, awareness of the Wikileaks site and their freedom-minded hosting company has probably increased by many times. I know I'm happy with the result, even if I am irritated at the action of a certain Bush-appointed federal judge.

One other commentator noted that, with this action, the United States joins the likes of China and Thailand in its effort to censor Wikileaks. Yay. However, as I noted earlier, this appears to be a preliminary order while the judge reviews the case, rather than an outright closure.

I'll also be interested in hearing if any question is raised as to whether the domain name registrar can be held in any way responsible for the contents of the site whose domain registration they hold. The judge apparently thinks they can, at least to the extent of them being required to blank out the "wikileaks.org" domain. I'm not aware of whether anyone has ever ruled on that question, or whether any relevant laws exist.

Vivid Cows on the Loose

Looks like Vivid Video is having a cow because--get this--they're having trouble making money on their expensive, lame-assed, high-budget, fakey-looking couples-porn when there's so much free stuff (much of which is substantially more erotic, quite honestly) available on the internet:

Porn filmmakers join fight against Internet piracy

I mean, really--why should I pay $20 or $40 or whatever the current going rate is for a DVD when I can download clips of real-life college girls dancing their naked asses off on spring break? Given that, why exactly would I be at all interested in the photo-shopped, surgically enhanced bimbos offered up by the mainstream porn industry?

However, that argument is not very substantive (heh), so I'll try this instead:

Just because someone decides to set up a website and allow other people to upload stuff to it does not place upon them a legal requirement to ensure that those uploads are not infringing. This is, to the best of my knowledge, according to current U.S. law. However, reading this quote from the article, one might be tempted to think otherwise:

Similar to [YouTube], PornoTube has become a destination for free porn by letting anyone post sex videos without filtering out clips that might be copyrighted.

"In other words," the lawsuit reads, PornoTube "deliberately and knowingly built a library of infringing works ... enabling them to gain an enormous share of the Internet traffic, increase its businesses and earn vast amounts of revenues in the process."

Look, the facts of this are pretty simple. The landscape has changed. Vivid's business model no longer works as well as it used to. They are trying to turn back the clock by suing someone. They are trying to lock the barn door after the horses have already escaped. Good luck with that strategy.

Personally, I'm kind of glad to see this. For one thing, I haven't bothered much with PornoTube myself, and, quite frankly, this lawsuit is pretty indicative of the fact that Vivid is not doing a good job of adjusting to the new reality. Which means they might go out of business someday, and, frankly, I would be happy to see that happen.

Yahoo should allow freer access to adult content

This post is in response to this article which I saw today:

Yahoo promises change as profit slips

The gist of the article is that Yahoo isn't making as much of a profit as its shareholders would like, and so one of Yahoo's co-founders, Jerry Yang, is promising to make more money. He's apparently long on ideas, but short on specifics.

Well, here's a specific: porn. Yahoo used to be a great place to find porn. Between auctions featuring pornographic content of every type, to well-classified and easily findable adult groups (adult groups are now impossible to find without a direct link), Yahoo was actually pretty cool in that area. That ended several years ago, for reasons that were never very clear. One could speculate that the switch was primarily due to shareholder distaste at the idea of peddling porn on the internet, however, that's just one idea. There may have been practical reasons, such as not wanting to have to worry about ridiculous 2257 verification laws. Or they may have just noticed how much flat-out illegal stuff was being sold or promulgated through their site (it wasn't hard to find beast porn or Traci Lords videos on Yahoo Auctions, for example, both of which are pretty illegal in the United States). Or perhaps there was lots of worried handwringing and pearl clutching about minors accessing adult content (an idea which seems almost ridiculous today, when teenagers with cameraphones or webcams are perfectly capable of making their own).

Well, I suggest if Yahoo wants to increase profitability, they should get back into porn. Yahoo Auctions is now defunct, a fact I became aware of only just now (when they banned adult-content auctions years ago, I immediately left and never looked back). But at the very least, they could bring back the publicly accessible listings of "adult" Yahoo Groups [see footnote]. They could also add an "Adult Search" to their search page. Hell, porn is a vast business, I'm sure there are dozens of ways they could make money off of it. Why they don't bother is beyond me.

------

Footnote
I had to add this in here--one Yahoo group that I subscribe to was forced to relegate itself to the "adult" section of Yahoo groups when Yahoo staff stumbled across some pictures one of the members had posted of his topless girlfriend. They deleted the pictures, and sent a message to the admin of the group telling him that if anyone posted anything like that again, they would delete the group without warning. He could either keep the "nudity" out, or agree to move the group over into the adult section. After some discussion with the members, it was agreed to move the group over into the adult section. The irony of this is that, since then, there has been absolutely no further nudity in the pictures section. So here we have a group that's stuck behind the wall of "adult content", just because somebody screwed up one time.

Of course, on Yahoo's site Flickr.com, things tend to be even worse--there, accounts are deleted with no warning at all. Well, there are claims (made by Flickr staff, I believe) that people receive one warning, but does this actually happen? Not that I know of. The only "warning" I've ever heard of is when word gets around that accounts are being deleted, that another pogrom is in progress. Refer to my earlier post about a friend who got her account nuked one day--she received no warning at all. Sure, she's got another account now, but, as someone else wrote on Flickr (in a group that was deleted within the last 24 hours, ironically), you can come back, but now that you know you can be busted at any time, with no warning and no explanation, you've lost your edge, you've lost your mojo. I think that is entirely the intention of the Flickr gestapo, to keep people scared. They're borrowing a technique from the U.S. federal government. In the United States, obscenity is illegal, but there is no definition of obscenity for porn producers to follow, making it impossible for them to tell if they are obeying the law or not. The real-world effect of this is to keep people from taking risks with their content. It's even worse on Flickr--since Flickr users have no constitutional right to their accounts, there is no inconvenient messing around with due process, just summary execution.

And now I see that my footnote is longer than the main part of this post. Oops.

I *LOVE* cheesecake

Both the traditional pie-shaped variety, and this kind:


Now ain't she just the sweetest thing? :)

Update: Well FUCK! The video appears to be gone. Not sure what's happening. I should have provided a link to the page where I originally found it. In fact, it's kind of weird that the embed code they provided at grindtv.com didn't also include active hyperlink code leading back to the page. Those dumbasses.

I considered posting another vid from there as a substitute, but as I looked around, I realized the site is actually kind of a pain in the ass. So forget it. Sorry. I'll just put a link here to the site--click on this link, and then click on "girls" towards the upper right of the page. And make sure you've got scripting and shockwave and all that crap enabled.

It's just a beer, you wankers!!!!

I discovered something wonderful today. Not to mention very, very timely, given that the next Harry Potter movie and the final book in the series are scheduled to come out soon, so the hype is already ramping up to insane proportions.

Here's what I found:




Yes, that is the lovely Emma Watson, apparently having polished off a whole bottle of Corona. Granted, there apparently aren't any photos of her actually taking a swig, but hey. Who really cares? Reportedly she's 15 years old in these pictures, so I can just imagine the self-righteous outrage (not to mention histrionic pearl-clutching) when the MADD freakazoids and their ilk get wind of this. I've already found one reference to her as "the next Lindsey Lohan" for fuck's sake.

Give the girl a break. So she likes having a good time, big deal. Furthermore, unlike in the land of the "free" and the home of the "brave", there are a lot of countries in the world where limiting consumption of alcohol to people 21 and over would be considered patently ridiculous. As well it should.

I was already a fan of Emma--I mean, she's totally hot in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and a fairly smokin' cutie in Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban. Yeah, I know she's way below the age of consent. I'm not saying I want to bone her, I just think she's cute, sexy as hell, and talented--in fact, her acting talent is a big part of her appeal. Besides, get a load of this quote:

Oh man, If I could only have her for one night…she wouldn’t be able to sit anymore, nor to close her legs. None soad would be able to remove all the sperm from her face, and she would want to eat anything more after se taster my cum.

See? Oh, the poster of that takes pains to point out that he's the same age as her, as if ejaculating on someone's face is somehow different depending on the age of the person providing the semen. Give me a break.

Er, hold on, I'm getting waaaaay off topic here. Sorry. :)

As I was saying, I was already a fan, and now, because of this, I may have to consider myself a raving fan. So there. I really hope she doesn't get raked through the coals because of this.

It's just a beer, not proof that she's going to be in rehab five years from now. Furthermore, it's high time to acknowledge the simple fact that teenagers like to experiment with this stuff, and, unlike what some seem to believe, that is not a harbinger of the end of civilization. In that respect, I can honestly admit to a certain amount of admiration for her. In my own admittedly non-mainstream way, I think she's setting a good example.

You can all feel free to have a spastic morality attack now. Me, I'm going to pour myself a glass of cheap red wine.

Liz = Hotness

This post is totally gratuitious (but then again, isn't it in the very nature of decadence to be gratuitous, at times?). I was looking at the website of a lovely little redhead who calls herself Liz Vicious, when I noticed an offer to post any of her pictures on my blog for free. Well, what a cool idea. Liz's site is one of those I would sign up for if I had more money and time to spare. She's a total cutie, I think. She's currently 19 years old.

So here I am. The toughest part was choosing which pic to use, but this one I especially like. There are some much more explicit ones on her site.

All text below this paragraph is hers, not mine (I did fix a couple of bad typos, though). Enjoy.



I was getting ready to go out and finish my Chrisymas shopping and decided to let you in on the magic. Just another piece of my life i wanted to share with all of my beautiful members. It's not much, but it's another part of my life you get be be involved in.

Click here to see more Liz Vicious!

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. :(

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?

インリン・オブ・ジョイトイの日記 - livedoor Blog（ブログ）

For anyone who can read Japanese, this might be of interest:

インリン・オブ・ジョイトイの日記 - livedoor Blog（ブログ）
No idea what she's writing about. She's a model of some kind.

London Studio Group

Check it out:

LSGmodels.com
Lifetime membership at $9.99 per month.

No, I'm not getting paid to post this. I'm just thinking it's a really nice deal, considering a lot of these places charge upwards of $25 or $30 a month. I'm actually considering taking it myself. Pictures, and high-definition videos. Another thing I noticed that I really like is that they appear to tell the truth about the age of their models--unlike so many places that lie through their fucking teeth about "HOT! NUDE! TEENS!", when most of these women are actually in their early 20's. Yes, some of them really are 18 years old, but some of them are also 26, and, quite honestly, I like to know that. (Hell, one site, Domai.com, recently posted an absolutely stunning set of pictures of a 39-year-old brunette--I'd post a link to it, but it's in the members-only area.)

Anyway, the main point: Good deal, naked girls. Go for it. Offer expires March 1st, 2007, and I feel kind of like an ass for making this post sound like such an advertisement.

Blowjobs on Flickr, Haiku Style

I came across this link a few days ago and have been meaning to post it here:

Blowjobs on Flickr, Haiku Style

It's a blog consisting entirely of pictures of women giving blowjobs, or, in some cases, having just finished, complete with the resultant mess all over their faces. What makes it impressive isn't just the wide variety of pictures, but the fact that each one is accompanied by a haiku. A terrific effort!

This one goes into the sidebar, for sure.

los coños en flor

Check this out:

los coños en flor
Graphic nudity. In fact, this is one of the most extensive collection of pussy closeups I've ever seen.

I'm not sure about the translation--Babelfish copped out on a translation for "coños." The rest is fairly obvious. :)

Martha's Girls

Came across this site in my internet travels this afternoon:

Martha's Girls
Or, if you don't feel like messing around with all that "enter" crap, try this direct link to the free tour pages:

Martha's Girls Free Tour
I like this concept so much, and the samples I've seen are so good, that I'm adding it to my "Money Grew on Trees" section in the sidebar.

Valentine's Day

I think Valentine's Day should be a national holiday in the United States. Not one of those fake holidays like Columbus Day, either, but a holiday where people who don't work for the government or a bank actually get to have a day off from work.

Once that gets taken care of, then comes the question of what sort of holiday Valentine's Day should be. Should there be parades and fireworks like on the 4th of July? Should there be big extended-family gatherings with lots of food like on Thanksgiving? Should there be lots of praying and groupthink like on Christmas?

No, none of these are quite right. Valentine's Day has always been dedicated to romantic love, and since the primary purpose of romantic love is obviously to trick people into believing that they are meant for each other and should therefore have sex (preferably getting swept away in the thrill of the moment so any form of birth control is conveniently forgotten), it stands to reason that the Valentine's Day holiday should be dedicated to fucking.

Yes, that seems like an excellent idea. In fact, since each of the other major holidays has some sort of traditional structure associated with it, I'll go so far as to suggest a structural outline for Valentine's Day. It goes something like this: Get up, fuck, shower, fuck, eat breakfast, fuck, and so on. The objective is to devote the majority of the day to sex. I'd also suggest that, to help facilitate that goal, clothing should be prohibited--except most of the United States is in the midst of winter on February 14th, so that would kind of pose a problem. To make up for it, I'd suggest massive, indoor, totally nude sexathons, complete with prostitutes provided for those who don't have partners of their own, or even for those who do. Obviously, the prostitutes would be paid for with taxpayer dollars, preferably by a new tax to be instituted on churches that protest against the new holiday, or that don't meet some minimal standard of aesthetic worthiness (this one here would be a perfect example).

Yeah, that ought to just about cover it.