Metal Yarmulke
Friday, November 28, 2003

The reverse brain drain

I tend not to blog on scientific and/or technological matters because they're largely way out of my expertise. But I thought I'd post a link to this Wired article about a senior biologist who's fled the U.S. for the U.K. because of the existing ban on stem-cell research.

Two and a half years ago, President Bush restricted federal funding for research that uses embryonic stem cells. So one of America's top scientists in the field, Roger Pederson, got the hell out of Dodge. He resigned from UC San Francisco and started the Cambridge Centre for Stem Cell Biology and Medicine at the University of Cambridge, in England. It was a controversial move in a controversial field; Pederson was the most senior scientist to relocate, responding to British promises of a welcoming environment, both in terms of funding and ethics rules. Now Pederson has the resources to continue his work — and to ask what our protean nature tells us about being human.

Meanwhile, Glenn Reynolds links to an article at New Scientist about a London firm, TriStem, that claims it "can turn ordinary blood into cells capable of regenerating damaged or diseased tissues. This could transform the treatment of everything from heart disease to Parkinson's." It would also largely bypass the controversy over stem-cell use.

Like Reynolds, I certainly hope it's true too. However, I note in the article that other scientists are wary of TriStem's founder, Ilham Abuljadayel, because she's never had these results published in a reputable journal, she's never held a permanent academic position, and TriStem's work flies in the face of scientific dogma that specialized cells cannot revert back to an unspecialized state or be converted into a different type of specialized cell. Perhaps these are all political quibbles — scientists play politics as much as any other professionals do, and they are after all academics in great part. But I'm not knowledgeable enough to bet one way or the other.

The research environment in Great Britian isn't a scientist's Eden. Animal research is still heavily, and often violently, opposed, to a much greater degree than it is here. The same Luddite contingent also loudly denounces genetic modification to foods. But those factions have nowhere as much political power as do anti-abortion American politicians to thwart research that offends their personal sensibilities. Pedersen's defection, if you will, to a nation that's at the moment and in the balance more congenial to scientific progress being made in its labs has worrisome implications for the U.S.

I'm not one who makes a hobby of bashing America as "backward" and so forth. I think we get a lot of things right that Europe and even Britain do not, largely because we're less hobbled by the Left, and possibly even in part because, rather than in spite of, the percentage of Americans who profess to a religion. (That includes not only non-Christians, and not only non-monotheists, but pagans, a number of whom are my friends.)

But in the U.S., we can't even teach evolution as universally accepted by the reputable scientific community without a large percentage screaming that their own religious creation myth should be taught alongside it as equally valid. Let alone acknowledge that teenagers are by nature sexual beings and thus abstinence-only programs don't work (and note in which publication that article appeared; hint: it's not a left-wing one). So I don't have high hopes for a sensible stem-cell research policy any time soon. 
Comments- [ comments.]   (0) comments
Wednesday, November 26, 2003

Some people have no sense of irony.

I guess when you move in social circles that require you to nasally tune out the fetor of unwashed epidermes, undeodorized pit, and fermented patchouli, it's easy to interpret a sign that says "This Protest Needs Soap" as racist.

Oh, and...fourth-year poli sci major? I snickered at the comment on Fark predicting that next year, Mike Cox (yeah, say it out loud) will be repeatedly asking, "You want fries with that?" The sad truth is, though, that he's prime material for a career in academe. Which means the PC wars are far from over. 
Comments- [ comments.]   (0) comments

"Mother Earth" first, humans always.

If you live here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, you might not want to eat red grapes for a while...unless you relish the thought of being bitten by a black widow spider.

But don't worry! The tree-huggers say it's for our own good. Money quote:

"We're seeing four or five people coming across spiders in their grapes, but we're seeing a lot less people being exposed to greater use of pesticides ... and long-term health hazards," said Paul Tierney, director of the state's Food Protection Program in the Department of Public Health. "What is the greater good here?"

Same thing Rachel Carson and her fellow eco-alarmists told us about DDT. Hey, who cares if two million people die of malaria every year? It's for the en-viiiiiiiiiii-ro-mennnnnnt!!!!

As far as the "long-term health hazards" go, I'd rather risk them than a fatal spider bite — my instinct is that I'd have more of a fighting chance. People who don't want to take those risks always have the option of buying overpriced rotting organic produce.

I'd love to see that twit Tierney's reaction if a black widow crawled out of a bunch of grapes on his kitchen table toward someone in his family, especially a very young child or an old and frail relative, neither of whom would have immune systems that functioned optimally.

Still, Tierney said the scary discoveries serve as a reminder to consumers to carefully inspect and wash produce. "As consumers we have to learn not to assume that everything is perfect," he said.

Once upon a time, caveat emptor alluded only to risks presented to buyers by unscupulous sellers. Apparently the meaning has been expanded to include risks presented by boneheaded laws imposed on honest sellers "for our own good."

(More links, and a great cartoon from this summer, at Cox & Forkum.)

Comments- [ comments.]   (0) comments
Thursday, November 20, 2003

Getting to the bottom of things....

Mark Simpson, writing in Salon yesterday, compares the current scandal about Prince Charles and his valet with the classic British "Carry On" comedies. I don't subscribe to Salon, but a friend who does forwarded me the article, and my reply ended up being so long and involved that I figured I might as well blog it.

The timing is kind of funny. Not long ago, I won on eBay a video that was labeled Caligula's Home Movies. I was much disappointed to find out that it wasn't two hours of serious debauchery à la the notorious Guccione flick, but a "Carry On" film, specifically Carry On Cleo. I'd never heard of the genre before. I owe my friend Storvik a hearty thank-you for forwarding me the Simpson piece, as selected quotations implying a brand-new relevance to British current
<cough> affairs may help me re-sell the video successfully. :-)

You can't understand anything about the British psyche until you've seen a "Carry On" movie.

Well, as Simpson adds, having seen Are You Being Served? and/or any of the Austin Powers movies (especially vis-à-vis Dr. Evil) suffices as a key to such understanding.

Incidentally, Yanks may not know that the phrase "up the Khyber," as in Carry On up the Khyber, is Cockney rhyming slang. "Khyber" = "Khyber pass" (the latter word spoken with a broad English a, of course) = "arse." Although some of the more, um, homophobic undertones of Kipling probably helped the association along. There's a song out there that goes something like, "Up the Khyber, up the Khyber, up the bloody Khyber/You've never had it 'til you've had it up the Khyber," and if I weren't so bloody lazy, I'd Google on it to see if it's an actual marching song or just another piece of clever filk.

...sodomy-saturated royal sex farce...

Reminds me somewhat of one of Storvik's own bits of filk (not safe for work).

Speaking of which, anyone with a penchant for tastelessness simply must see Meet the Feebles, a sort of anti-Muppet movie done by Peter Jackson of relatively new-found LOTR fame. The song "Sodomy" is a show-stopping number rivaling anything in the Rocky Horror Picture Show. In fact, I could easily see Tim Curry (JEEZ! Almost typed "Tim Robbins"! Paging Dr. Freud!) singing it...

talked excitedly about "smears" and "gags"

Huh, huh, huh. They said "smear." They said "gag." Huh, huh...

imposed by a royal valet with the name of Fawcett


and a judge with the name of Tugendhat.

Actually, Tugend is German for "virtue" (as in the German adage Jugend hat keine Tugend — "youth has no morals; boys will be boys"), so I'm guessing that the "English" (Huegenot ancestry, perhaps?) name is a corruption of something like Tugendheit (which may or may not be an actual German word), or "virtuousness." Good name for a judge.

(As long as we're (kind of) on the subject, a few decades ago, National Lampoon reprinted a news clipping about the trial of a British man who'd allegedly strangled a prostitute. The proceedings involved the prosecutor attempting to demonstrate the strangulation on a blow-up doll, which became punctured and deflated slowly and noisily in the courtroom. I mention this because the judge's last name was Pain.)

There's even a "now you see it, now you don't" guest appearance by the late Princess Diana and her "crown jewels" (kept, of course, in her locked "box").

In the animated short "Jean-Jean and Ze Evil Cat do Washington" (seen at Spike & Mike's Sick & Twisted Animation Festival and probably on one of these videos/DVDs), made during the Clinton Administration, there was a special room in the White House filled with walnuts, peanuts, etc. It was the room in which Hillary kept Bill's "nuts."

...with a heavy-handed archness that even Kenneth Williams would have found difficult to execute...

I guess the "Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more!" skit in The Meaning of Life is Monty Python's tribute to this sort of "humour."

Of course, in the U.S., the tone is pure locker-room. Perhaps we <heh> come off like a bunch of crude colonials to the Brits, but as "homophobic" as we might sound in comparison, it strikes me as, at the very least, more honest homophobia.

Thing is, we Brits don't really want to know.


....there is a Web site offering a hardcore 3-D computer-generated simulation of the act

Google is your friend, Mark...and ours.

We'd rather leave it to our overactive imaginations and...


wagging tongues, thank you very much.

British libel laws, much stricter than those in the United States, are not so much the cause of our love of tittle-tattle and innuendo as the function of it. Free speech is all very well, but it isn't a patch on the pleasure of gossiping over your garden fence, or reading tabloid newspapers.

Another advantage of the First Amendment, IMHFO.

Besides, we'd hate it if we discovered that the allegation turned out to merely involve polite heavy petting rather than full-on rear-entry conjugation.

See, that's where "scepticism" comes in handy (ouch!). The solution would be to say, "Yeah, right, I'm sure we're being told the truth about THAT one."

We Brits love our buggery jokes and won't let anyone take them away from us. There's nothing for the British quite so satisfying as talking, gossiping and sniggering about buggery. Except possibly buggery itself.

With sodomy and the lash close behind (OUCH!).

No, actually, thinking about it, even buggery itself has to "come behind" buggery jokes.

Now that's pretty sad. :-)

Of course, buggery jokes that manage to involve royalty are the nearest thing to sexual satisfaction the British can experience.


The British attitude toward sex is much the same as their attitude toward class: So long as you are seen to suffer for it, and consider it some kind of duty, then you'll be left unmolested.

No pun intended, I'm sure.

...George Michael's Beverly Hills arrest for cottaging (as we Brits like, in our "Carry On" way, to call cruising public lavatories)

Does this explain something about the association of little ivy-covered "cottages" with quintessential Britishness, or am I reaching?

Obvious gays who so clearly know their place — or should that be their "position" — have always been very popular in the U.K.

While this is less so in the U.S. due to the higher value placed on machismo, it still pertains somewhat. Actors like Charles Nelson Reilly and Paul Lynde pre-date(d) Stonewall, I believe, but as long as their actual sexuality was never discussed, it was a non-issue.

Ironically, because they know their place they get ahead:


They are all over TV — Graham Norton, a sweaty,

Tsk. Horses sweat, men perspire, "poofters" glow.

reanimated, more explicit but much less funny Irish version of the sadly long-deceased Williams, is probably the most popular TV presenter in the country (and is apparently headed to the United States).

Christopher Lowell must be sharpening his fingernails in preparation for battle.

But why do the British love buggery jokes so much? Partly because in their Rabelaisian, excremental way they bring the high low and make a joke of all human sexuality.

Well, it's not limited to sodomy. There was Charles' phone call to Camilla in which he slavered about being her tampon. Then there are shows like Black Adder that are replete with toilet humor.

Now I like bathroom humor as much as anyone else, but it's kind of interesting that for all the vaunted British "sophistication" and absence of FCC-mandated "prudery," the Limey obsession with bodily-function humor outpaces anything seen on Beavis and Butt-head or South Park.

After all, sodomy is a great prank to play on the body, this alien, rather ridiculous veil of rebellious flesh we all inhabit

Most bathroom and sexual humor has at its root the human fear of vulnerability. When an animal is mating or excreting, not only is it impaired in its ability to defend itself against predators, but, if it is a human animal that has been enculturated to feel shame at its own nakedness, it is emotionally vulnerable. Considered in this light, smutty jokes serve a purpose similar to that of sick humor.

Mrs. Slocombe's pussy (a running gag on "Are You Being Served?") is as terrifying a prospect as it is amusing.

I wonder if she dyes it a different color every night, too.

But mostly, and this is something that seems to have been forgotten, because the English are a martial race. The original Angles/Anglos were rough foreign mercenaries who were hired cash-in-hand to scare off the beastly Vikings

Uh, that's not quite true, IIRC. The first invaders from the Continent were Angles, true, and they had no trouble driving the Celts back into Wales and Scotland. But then they started having trouble with newer invaders whence they themselves came, so they themselves called on the Vikings, to their long-lasting regret. Of course, when the Normans sailed over in 1066, the distinctions between the different Germanic sub-ethnicities were lost (but then again, the Normans were essentially jumped-up Vikings with a Gaulish/Frankish patina due to a few generations of rapine that settled down into intermarriage).

The Normans who arrived later were even more warlike, and fond of their young male pages. Masculine warrior homosexuality, as exemplified by Richard the Lion-Hearted and Gordon of Khartoum, is even more a part of our history than camp followers like Williams and Norton.

The Dark Ages were quite misogynistic not only because of the early Church fathers, but because obviously, in an anarchic, desperately poor society, the "masculine" virtues are most highly valued. Not to mention that for most warriors, Christianity was but a veneer on martial pagan traditions, in some ways even centuries after their ancestors were first baptized, if one believes William Manchester's controversial book A World Lit Only By Fire.

Of course, ancient Greece (especially Sparta, as the writer notes) was the original homoerotic military culture hostile to women, and it didn't have the excuses of poverty and lawlessness, not to mention that it did honor (at least by lip service) various goddesses. The late Randy Shilts, in his book Conduct Unbecoming, several times mentions Greek troops that "fraternized" openly whose motto was, "Against an army of lovers, no foe can stand."

Buggery, or at least the ticklish thought of it, permeates barracks, messes and boarding schools

And this certainly isn't limited to Great Britain. Conduct Unbecoming at times makes the American military sound like an even better place than the local leather bar to meet other guys (or gals).


Not to be confused with "Tearoom."

was won not just on the playing fields of England but also in her dormitories. In the 18th and 19th centuries, "effeminacy" in England — the "fop," for example — was a function of being too interested in the ladies. Or just of being French.

Yep, and even today and even in the U.S., a "ladies' man" is considered not quite as masculine as a "man's man."

Years ago I read a mystery novel in which the Boston-area protagonist, visiting a newly-made friend in Texas, noted how at the dinner table the men didn't deign to include the wife or daughter in the conversation; the women seemed to exist simply for child-bearing purposes. This attitude is also reflected in the ideal of men as "strong and silent"...and I believe it was Maryland whose state motto, until recently, was the Latin for "womanly words, manly deeds." Articulateness is suspect.

I think this has something to do with the cultural divide between those who supported Clinton and those who support Bush. On the one side, you've got people who sneer at anyone whose speech is less than fully polished; on the other side, you've got people who distrust "smooth talkers" and the "book-learnt". Both attitudes, in my opinion, are extreme, but their influences on, respectively, "Old World" and "New World" cultures are immense.

Winston Churchill, a former First Sea Lord (so he should know)

And, as a Sea Lord, Churchill would have been intimately familiar with seamen. <rimshot>

famously described the Royal Navy's traditions as being nothing more than "rum, sodomy and the lash"

As alluded to above. I've read, though, that Sir Winston enjoyed a bit of cross-dressing. Which doesn't diminish my respect for him one bit, any more than does what today would be classified as his "alcoholism." (Thank $DEITY no one attempted to force him into a 12-step program in which he would have been pressured into abdicating all control to a "higher power." The world map might look very different today had that happened.)

It began life as a "penal" colony


and as late as 1821 men outnumbered women 15 to 1 in New South Wales. The records are full of lashings handed out to men caught carrying on behind, a futile attempt to discourage the unnatural vice.

I wonder if that's one reason that sheep were imported in such great numbers...and that part of the new country was named after part of Wales, reputed among the English to be full of "sheep-shaggers."

Australia, you see, really was the arsehole of the world.

Well, now they've projected that status onto the poor Kiwis. :-)

The transportation of convicts to Australia was eventually ended in large part because of the loud and bitter complaints from clerics and respectable Australians — there were some, apparently —

It may take a few generations, but inevitably the human desire for class-based hierarchy will assert itself.

about how widespread the sin of sodomy was among prisoners

Plus ça change...

and how this was lowering the tone of the continent.

Yeah, I imagine the incessant Broadway musicals were getting a little hard to take.

Perhaps because of an Australian guilty conscience, or ancestral sore arse, today it is a well-known Australian-born media magnate who is most keen to use the "Carry On up the Valet" scandal to ridicule the British in general and bring down the monarchy in particular by lashing them in his newspapers around the world. The New York Post recently ran the puerile headline "PRINCESS CHARLES."

Of course, Murdoch's right-wing attitude toward gays probably has something to do with it...

I'd like to see him tell those Outback sheep shearers there's something essentially effeminate about a spot of situational sodomy.

"Bend over, city boy. Hand me a spot of lanolin, mate!"

Of course, being British we don't need Australians to whip us — we like to punish ourselves for our favorite pleasures. Not only with lashes; the occasional hanging was also handed out for carrying on behind. Oscar Wilde, of course, was famously given two years' hard labor for "gross indecency" with a member of the lower orders

If Wilde had consorted with a well-born, wealthy buggerer, would all have been forgiven?

Field Marshal Montgomery, the famous empire homo of El Alamein

Now THERE'S a title to put on a business card.

In other words, much of the sodomy going on in the United Kingdom remained completely illegal and therefore still rather enjoyable.


These days Britain no longer has an empire. Its army and navy have shriveled

Is there a double entendre left in the English language that Simpson hasn't yet worked into this article?

Consequently, in place of the noble lash we now mix our pleasure in buggery jokes with hypocrisy, phony moralism and faux-seriousness.

Sad to say, this tone in public discourse throughout the West has increased over the last three or so decades with the ascent of women into political and economic power. Not that I'm saying the clock should be turned back, but just as men bring certain foibles common among their sex to the table, so do women, and among the latter is a sort of preachiness that's less common among males. Women like me with a rather coarse sense of humor who've ever tried to crack a joke among either fervently religious women or militant feminists will understand what I mean.

"the worst crisis since the death of Diana"

Diana's death was a "crisis"? Oh, I'm sure it was for her immediate family, and many undoubtedly saw it as tragic, sad, untimely, etc. But a crisis? On a par with...what, the Third Reich's strafing of London?

that seriously "threatens to bring down the House of Windsor." its KNEES!!

So the uncorroborated allegation, by an alcoholic ex-servant with a documented penchant for uncorroborated sightings of homosexual acts —

Is that the Limey version of seeing Elvis in the Waffle House or being abducted and anally probed by aliens?

Regardless of the truth or falsehood of the allegations (which no one has gone on record as saying they believe)

Or disbelieve.

the truly shocking thing would be if a member of the royal family, former public schoolboy, and former serving officer in the British Army had never had sexual encounters of any kind with other males. What kind of bloody pansy would that be?

With all due respect to British slang, I'm not sure "bloody" is the right adjective here.

A life of pristine heterosexuality might be suitable for the delicate sons of the suburban middle classes — and contemporary Australians — but hardly for a future king of England.

I wonder what certain American conservatives would make of that statement.

But the press in England today, even the popular press, is irredeemably suburban and middle-class

Another function of women rising to power. It's not even close to a bad thing overall — the more education and economic freedom women get, the better their families tend to do financially, it's been shown, and this correlates with a rise in class. But there is a negative side, as was seen in the Victorian era, and it's an increase in prudery.

Even the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, a professionally politically correct figure, saw fit to talk about this "revolting and sordid gossip," although if the gossip revolved around an allegation of royal naughtiness with, say, a willing black female servant instead of a white male one, he would be admonishing himself for his own rash choice of words.

I'm not making light of slavery or sexual harassment here, but the existence of a Sally Hemings figure in Buckingham Palace would be food for thought indeed...

Some have prissily suggested that if there is any truth to the rumor it means that a) Charles is gay or at least bisexual

Because this is supposedly my "tasteful" political blog, I'll only paraphrase her, but a late and beloved member of alt.tasteless once observed that lots of married and thus ostensibly "heterosexual" men have had more male members in their mouths than has the average public toilet.

b) this will cause major constitutional problems for the heir to the throne, as the English monarch is also the head of the Church of England.

Gah. I think the class of the valet presents more of an obstacle, legalistically speaking, than does the actual type of sex (allegedly) involved.

...most of our buggery jokes lately have revolved around the "split," "rupture" and "schism" that the "big issue" of homosexuality is threatening to cause in the Anglican "base."

Well, it's true, but Great Britain isn't where the schism would be most felt. The fervent heart of Christianity of all sects is no longer in the First World, but in the Third, where opposition to homosexuality runs so deep that "homophobia" isn't even yet a concept.

...the Anglican Church should get down on its knees and thank the Lord for buggery, since without it half the church would have nothing to do on Saturday night

Another .sig, even more priceless than the last one!

we find men in frocks on telly talking about sodomy a real hoot.

So do we, although the frock fashions are a bit different. Considering this national obsession with anal sex, maybe Henry VIII was a good thing for England. 
Comments- [ comments.]   (1) comments
Saturday, November 15, 2003

Vouchers, please. Faster.

This twit teaches pacifism instead of what he was paid to teach ... and the reporter — for a web publication called Teacher Magazine, mind you — practically glows as she describes the crap he gets away with.

(Oh, and scroll down for a look at the photo. Jeeeeezus.)

Some choice quotations:

"At the end of the year," he recalls, "one of the mothers called me up, a little curious—she didn't see her daughter slaving over any homework for my class. She said, 'How did my daughter do in your class?' I said, 'How would I know? I'm her teacher.' 'Did I hear you correctly?' she said. I tried to explain what we were doing. I told her Walker Percy's great line: 'You can earn all A's and go out and flunk life.'


Leaning against the teacher's desk, McCarthy flipped through the stack and read selected excuses aloud: "'I didn't write the paper because I came home late from night school and I forgot— seriously.' 'I didn't write the paper because I am so focused on my other subjects.' 'I didn't write the paper because I didn't desire to do so.'" McCarthy held this page aloft and nodded approvingly. "I admire that."


An elegant- looking teacher in her 40s wandered up and joined the conversation. The truth, she said conspiratorially, is that when you close your classroom door, you're in charge and there's a lot you can get away with. The others nodded in agreement.

Suddenly, the teacher registered with alarm that a reporter's tape recorder was running. She declared that her comments were off the record and abruptly walked away from the group.

The fact that someone like McCarthy wasn't thrown out of the public school system years ago confirms to me that the educational system in this nation is in even deeper trouble than I'd thought. No wonder the NEA is shaking in its shoes at the thought of vouchers. 
Comments- [ comments.]   (0) comments
Friday, November 07, 2003

M2K* Compliance

*Makes Kids Kill

The following portion of Roger Ebert's review of the new Gus Van Sant movie, Elephant, should give you a good idea why the "violent movies make violent kids" meme will not die, as idiotic as it is.

Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about Basketball Diaries?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

UPDATE: Hey, it's OK. When kids bring guns into school with little to no provocation, they're not imitating Hollywood; they're imitating the cops.

Goose Creek should rename itself Goose Step Creek. 
Comments- [ comments.]   (0) comments
Saturday, November 01, 2003

HA! I'm not completely abnormal.

Linked by Women enjoy online erotica, too. And apparently not just us corrupt big-city types, either.

"The editors of Today's Christian Woman, an evangelical magazine, had heard anecdotes of churchgoing women getting hooked on pornography, so they conducted a survey asking readers of their online newsletter if they had intentionally visited porn sites. Thirty-four percent said they had."

[snort] I'm sure those good churchgoing women were just visiting those eeeeevil sites to pray for the poor sinners depicted thereupon who were obviously not enjoying themselves as they fornicated in all those horrid positions, because they knew that De Lawd's retribution was nigh.

Of course, since it's a "family newspaper" based in the Midwest, the Cleveland Plain Dealer must not only promulgate the utterly non-scientific notion that one can become "addicted" to sexual materials, but to end the story with an anti-pr0n quote.

And guess who it's from? Good ol' Donna Rice [now Rice Hughes], Gary Hart's affair with whom led to the destruction of his presidential campaign in '88. She now belongs to an organization "trying to make the Internet safer for families" — in other words, promoting censorship. Note, of course, the common and none-too-subtle implication that those of us who choose not to reproduce don't really belong to a "family." Oh, well, at least she doesn't drag out the old cliché about "for the sake of the chyldrun"...

Oh, wait. Yes, she does. Warning: serious cutesy-poo overkill at her site, as well as a rather rat-like cartoon mouse that hangs onto your cursor. Apparently even the technical people at this site are sadly deficient in clue.

(So, tell me, Miz Hughes...what exactly IS wrong with "sex without children"? Maybe I should send in that donation to Planned Parenthood after all, even though money is short these days...)

Gahhhh. If there's anything I hate more than men trying to control my sexuality, it's other women trying to do so, whether they're self-righteous feminists who know what's best for you (yeah, you know who you are), religiously zealous puritans, uptight "soccer moms," or just plain insecure. 
Comments- [ comments.]   (0) comments
Something to offend everyone. Flame me at reginleif[at]comcast[dot]net.

08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003 / 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 / 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003 / 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003 / 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 / 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 / 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 / 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 / 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 / 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 / 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 /

Powered by Blogger