Archive for the ‘Sex’ Category
Roll Call reported yesterday that another Republican politician was arrested for lewd behavior in a public bathroom.
Seriously, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS as of late?
I mean this completely un-snarkily. But this summer alone, we’ve had Larry Craig’s grabby hands under bathroom stalls, David Vitter’s diaper shenanigans, Michael Flory’s rape conviction, the chairman of the Young Republicans sexually assaulting a sleeping man, Bob Allen’s public restroom escapades, and possibly others. This summer alone!
It always brings me back to this kid in the no-sex-before-marriage-no-masturbation-grown-30-year-old-men-must-share-bedrooms-so-they-don’t-do-these-things-cult-like-religious-group back home, who took to masturbating in grocery store parking lots. Hating non-procreative sex doesn’t stop people from having non-procreative sex, not even the most rabid hateful proponents of all those who would do otherwise. It just leads to sad, sad things like offering someone $20 to suck your cock in the public restroom stall.
The RNC should really start psychologically screening all candidates. It’s bad when you’ve had a summer full of more and kinkier sex scandals from politicians than from young hollywood.
Definitely not safe for work.
But there’s a web-site called moanmyip.com. Basically you click on the link and the web-site displays facts about your hostname, your system, and other various computer geeky information.
What separates this web-site from the rest, though, is that a sexy female voice starts to moan out your IP address, as if the mere mention of your address triggers an orgasm. It’s funny and embarrassing at the same time.
… but luckily, Mike Adams wants to help you clear up that nasty case of emotional crabs. He’s a criminal justice professor, after all. Which means he’s, like, totally qualified to talk to college students about sexual health. How does that make him qualified? … Um, why are you asking such tough questions? Have you, too, been brainwashed by the women’s studies professors teacing blow-job techniques and the dish of condoms in the dining hall salad bar? Obiously, you were. Otherwise, you might even be questioning what the picture accompanying the article has to do with college campuses.
A bartender arranges packets of free condoms in a bowl at India's first 'Condom Bar' in Chandigarh May 26, 2007. REUTERS/Ajay Verma (INDIA)
You see, it’s because bowls of free condoms are much like terrorists. You might think condoms in India to not affect the hymens of our daughters here at home, but let me assure you that bowls of free condoms anywhere in the world make the whole world that much less safe for wingnuttery.
You can click the link above, and read Adams’ whole column. But I highly recommend just reading Kyso’s fabulous take on it here.
Adams: If you are gay and engaging in anal sex, it is unlikely that you will ever see the words “anal sex” listed among the risk factors for contracting AIDS in any campus publication anywhere. Nor is it likely that you will ever hear these words mentioned by any professor discussing such risk factors in a relevant lecture.”
Kyso: To be fair, you do actually have to open the publications and read what’s inside of them rather than just imagining what might be inside of them.
We all know there are men out there who don’t think women are much good for anything other than being available for sex whenever and however they want it. Roissy in DC takes this one step further and says women aren’t even good for that — at least, not as good as inanimate objects.
It makes you wonder about some people’s sex lives.
The basis of Roissy’s New Theory of Life, Dating and the Future of Male/Female Interactions as We Know It is that, with the increasing technological advances in sex robots (“she’ll move her limbs and gyrate during sex as well as talk dirty and respond to commands,” Roissy explains), men will actually no longer have any need for real live women. Given the choice between a sexbot designed to look like a supermodel or a real live “average-looking” woman, men will, in aggregate, choose the former, Roissy predicts.
His predictions are surprisingly (embarrassingly?) detailed, with sub-predictions for different castes of human beings, as he sees it. The basic premise is that unattractive women will be forced out of the dating/mating pool as unattractive and less-than-perfect men have sex exclusively with their sexbots; averagely attractive women will have to become more subservient to men in and out of bed just to be able to snag one away from his sexbot; and beautiful women will harem-style date the “alpha” males, who are the only ones who won’t rely on sexbots. All in all, this will lead to more polygamy, adultery, and male power.
Sexbots are a very real threat to the established order because men’s sexuality is so visually driven. The entire market structure of dating will shift seismically in the direction of men becoming choosier and less willing to please and women becoming looser and more willing to please.
It’s beautiful, isn’t it? It’s the perfect Nice Guy® fantasy, priceless in its equal mix of misogyny, insecurity, and entitlement (for a definitive rundown of the Nice Guy® phenomenon, see here). Yeah, yeah, well who needs all you real women when I can have sex with my Jessica Alba robot? Guess you’re all gonna hafta start putting out more and stop demanding treatment as an actual human being, aren’t ya now?
So let’s even just put aside for a moment here the fact that Roissy and his commenters seem to think that real live women are pretty much obsolete (except for making babies, as a few insightful commenters point out). Moving on to the “And People Say Feminists Hate Men” category … dear god, what kind of low expectations of the male species does it take to posit that a good portion of men, given the choice between sex/love/companionship with a fellow human and an inanimate object, would choose the inanimate object? Roissy Inc. seem to feel that no men actually have the capacity to feel emotions, care about people, desire love, etc. Real men are, in fact, only concerned with finding the prettiest possible thing, living or not, to stick their penises in. I mean, non-batshit-crazy guys, don’t you take offense to that? I’m offended, just on behalf of all the guys I know.
Of course, I take more offense to on behalf of women, who I’m pretty sure would be okay even if the whole futuristic sexbot scenario did play out. I mean, Roissy seems to believe that in a world where men showed no interest in sleeping with them, women would continue to be so desperate to snag a man that they’d either convert to polygamy en masse or revert back to an idealized 1950s style of submission. Sheesh. It’s as if Roissy’s never heard of lesbians.
McClatchy Newspapers has a “Wounded Warriors” blog, which is basically a collection of reports about veteran issues. It’s a great resource for stories which, in my mind, are essential to understanding the Iraq War. And it is also how I came across this commentary, “Pervasive wound of war,” from the Washington Times.
The commentary is about a hundred blog years old, which means it was posted a few days ago, but it has lingered with me since I read it. In particular, the part (pointed out by the Wounded Warriors blog) about females in the military.
The problem [of PTSD] becomes even more complex in the context of women serving in the military. In their combat roles, service women in Iraq are subject to both violence from the war and assault from fellow service members or superiors. According to a 2003 study, about one-third of female veterans visiting the Veterans Administration for health care reported having been subject to rape or attempted rape during their military service.
The combination of sexual assault with the psychological trauma from combat known to contribute to PTSD in military personnel has created an environment in which an estimated 20 percent of servicewomen will develop this condition — 4 times the rate in the civilian population and more than double the rate of PTSD in male soldiers (about 8 percent).
Yet despite these alarmingly high rates of PTSD, the unique needs of servicewomen have not been adequately addressed. This lack of attention is significant given the recognition over the last decade of the inequities in women’s health research and care and the importance of focusing on sex differences.
The prevalence of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment in the military disturbs the hell out of me but it does not shock me. My five years in the army only served to confirm that men and women have completely different experiences while they serve. While attending one of the many classes on how to be aware of and prevent sexual harassment made mandatory by the military, one of the instructors told us that over half of all female servicemembers experience some level of sexual harassment. Over half.