Figleaf's Real Adult Sex

The problem isn’t that waterboarding and similarly torturing suspected terrorists about their activities, organizations, and supporters doesn’t work.

The problem is that if you waterboarded or similarly tortured 1024 randomly selected “pro-life” activists they’d all confess to the terrorist attack on a church in the heart of Kansas that ended in the murder of Dr. George Tiller.

When in fact the chances are probably close to zero that any of them would have had anything to do about it.

That doesn’t mean that anti-terrorist groups shouldn’t investigate and prosecute the kind of terrorist organizations that endorse, sponsor, commit, and celebrate murderous attacks in Kansas churches. Just that such investigations and prosecutions should happen within the law.

Update: Hoo boy, did I ever put this wrong.

I was trying to propose that just as we wouldn’t torture domestic suspects we shouldn’t have tortured anybody. That evidently didn’t come across very well.

I was secondarily trying to propose that our relationship to domestic terrorists is the same as those of populations in other countries in hopes of creating understanding about why, say, collectively punishing a general population through bombing or blockades of goods (including food and medicine) doesn’t work because “sympathy with objectives” generally has no correlation to “complicit in extreme acts.” But I didn’t get that over very well either.

The pro-same-sex-marriage video by Garfunkle and Oates has already made the rounds at Huffington Post and Alternet and the like, but Ann Bartow of Feminist Law Professors introduces it using an irresistable pun.

Will Gay Marriage Lead To Sex With Ducks?

Pat Robertson thinks so.

And these two “chicks” are pretty stoked about the idea:

Read the quote in context here.

Note #1: The Robertson video takes you to MediaMatters.com which unfortunately presents an annoying “want to register” popup.

Note #2: If you squint your eyes, ignore the lyrics, ignore the background scenes in the video, and just concentrated on how they criticize Pat Robertson and don’t smile you’ll realize that Garfunkle and Oates, like all their radical lesbian separatist female lesbian extremist radical radical socialist feminist ilk, have no sense of humor and probably don’t even pluck their legs.

Note #3: Comforting thought for right-wing straw-clutchers. “Garfunkle and Oates” are actually named Riki Lindhome and Kate Micucci. Which raises an important Pat-Robertson-comforting, institutional-women-erasing point. When gay marriage happens to lesbians they both have to give up their maiden names, right?

Note #4: And of course point #3 explains why homophobes seem to be so much less tolerant of gay men than gay women. Because when gay men get married they’re both men so there’s no way to resolve who’s last name to use which, like time travel anywhere except the Star Trek mulitverse, would cause irreconcilable paradoxes in the time-space continuum. Which is the real reason misunderstood advanced particle physicists like Pat Robertson differentially oppose gay marriage over lesbian marriage and not, despite that one unfortunate video clip where he’d obviously been into the cooking sherry and a stray mike was left on, because “girl-girl scenes in wedding dresses are HAWT.”

Adam B of Daily Kos has a good rundown of why Ted Olson and David Boies could win the Federal-level challenge to California’s odious Proposition 8 I mentioned the other day.

So you’ve no doubt read by now that Ted Olson — former Solicitor General of the United States, lead attorney for Governor Bush in Bush v Gore and [something] in the Arkansas Project — is now involved in trying to strike down Prop 8.  And many of you, I know, are assuming he’s somehow trying to shipwreck the cause of gay rights.  

I don’t think so.  First of all, his co-counsel in the matter is David Boies, who represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore and whose liberal credentials are impeccable.  This is a bipartisan effort, and while I think it’s certainly an extension of existing law, it’s not an unreasonable one to seek from the Supreme Court as presently constituted.  Here’s why.

Read all about it here.

The rest is good reading. He explains why the seemingly narrow, minimal, seemingly “harmless” language of Prop 8 might make it easier to beat under Federal Equal Protection Clause standards. There are at least three major prior Supreme Court decisions that make it very clear that animosity towards stigmatized groups is absolutely unconstitutional.

...consider the Prop. 8 question this way: is there a rational basis for the citizens of a state to withdraw the term “marriage” from its legal description of same-sex unions — and only from same-sex unions — when such a move seems solely to be motivated by the desire to stigmatize such couples compared to straight couples? In a way, Prop. 8 would have been more constitutional had it withdrawn more than the name “marriage” from same-sex unions and withdrawn concrete rights as well — because then the state could argue for some cause-and-effect linkage in the amendment in demonstrating its preference for opposite-sex unions. Now, it’s only about stigma and animus.

And in a not-entirely-heartening conclusion he lists a number of reasons why, no matter how the Court eventually rules, they can make things quite a bit better but no matter how much animosity certain Justices might feel they can’t make it any worse.

Good reading.

As James Fallows, writing about the designer of the soaring I-10 / I-405 interchange in west Los Angeles, says, you learn something new everyday.

Here, from the linked CalTrans website, is Marilyn Reese as she looked during construction; below, a clearer sense of the design she had in mind.

The designer:

Her work:

He said it here.

Say what you will about car culture (and I’ve got a few choice words) the architects and engineers of that era had an incredible, consistent aesthetic in California. Including, evidently, Marylin Reese, first female civil engineer licensed in California. The interchange is now named after her.

Cartoon by XKCD. Used under a Creative Commons license. Click to see full-size at xkcd’s site.

Jay Dyckman, writing as the single gay guy in Em & Lo’s “Wise Guys” feature Love. And Everything in Between. takes the question “How much younger than them do you think most guys are comfortable dating before it becomes embarrassing?” and knocks it out of the park.

Yes, there is an age too young for anyone to date. But I think it happens only after you hit 35. Any dating combo of two people both under 35 (provided both are over 21…yes, 21, not 18) is probably not a big deal. No one really considers themselves that old before hitting 35.

After 35, all bets are off.  If you’re over 35 and you date someone more than 10 years your junior, you will — and rightly so — be mocked (and silently envied) by your friends and enemies for such dating hubris. It will put you squarely in the “oh please” zone. And this goes for both men and women: Dating much younger than yourself connotes a power dynamic that is creepy yet totally gender non-specific.  Both sexes look entirely ridiculous parading their toy around, be it male or female. But if you’re over 35, you can date anyone  — of any age disparity — who is also over 35.  A 65-year-old and 37-year-old?  Sure, why not.

This might seem arbitrary but age designations exist for a reason. The good people of corporate America have decided that once we’re older than 35, we are no longer a desirable marketing demographic.  That’s real science, people. After 35, big age differences are obviously apparent, but both parties have fully exited the nubile stage so no one really cares. You are no longer hip, cool, or capable of dating someone who had an “American Idol”-themed Bar Mitzvah.

Read the quote in context here.

I actually like XKCD’s formula, which one of Em & Lo’s commenters linked to. I’m more impressed with Jay Dyckman’s answer, though. Not least about the way society writes you off past age 35.

For the record it’s not that people aren’t still sexy, let alone(!!!) sexual after 35. It’s just that nobody’s really trying to police you. (Well, there was that bill introduced in Massachusetts to extend child-sex and child-pornography laws to “protect” everyone over 60. 60!!! But in committee it seems to have died the humiliating death it deserved.)

Anyway, Dyckman’s also right that after 35 pretty much everyone agrees you’re an adult and thus capable of making your own decisions. Also, more importantly, of not really caring so much what other people think.

I’ve been forgetting to post about this for so long. Holly of The Pervocracy takes on the clothed female, naked male porn/fetish thingie, with her predictably insightful twist.

CFNM is a fetish interest in “clothed female, naked male.” It’s a femdom thing, not an exhibitionist thing—the idea isn’t “hey ladies lookit my wiener” so much as “hey slave get out your wiener.” Here’s a very NWS site that illustrates. (“CMNF” doesn’t seem to be as much of a distinct fetish, although it certainly happens in maledom. And in society, grumble grumble…) I’d heard of CFNM before but I got really thinking about it today.

I can’t decide whether to love it or hate it. On the one hand, I love the idea of good-looking men submitting to objectification and ogling. CFNM porn, although aimed mostly at straight men, seems to break the mold of the ass-ugly or invisible male pornstar—all the CFNM models I’ve seen have been cute as hell, which is awesome. Somehow this seems more like real submission than femdom porn where the women are wearing crotchless nippleless leather fishnet getup things—the male submissives are the only ones sacrificing their dignity for once.

And it’s acknowledging that women actually enjoy looking at cute naked men! From the men’s perspective even! This is awesome!

On the other hand… the thought I have looking at a lot of these pictures is “gosh, if he was naked in front of me I wouldn’t be leaving my clothes on.”

She said it here.

I want to just keep quoting her post because she keeps picking at that “women would really rather be sexualized by men than have sex with them” theme men in Western Civilization keep telling everybody we can’t do without. But I’ll stop here so you can go read the rest yourself.

Matthew Yglesias says

Looking over this table, I can certainly see why Sonia Sotomayor might remind you of someone nominated for the Supreme Court by George W. Bush:

	Sonia Sotomayor	Samuel Alito	Harriet Meiers
College	Princeton	Princeton	Southern Methodist
Law School	Yale	Yale	Southern Methodist
Previous Job	Second Circuit	Third Circuit	White House Councel

And then there’s Ramesh Ponnuru who dubs her Obama’s Miers. Because, I guess, the qualifications Sotomayor holds only count as qualifications if you’re a white dude.

He said it here.

But… But… Bush hugged Meiers and Obama hugged Sotomayor, so they must be the same!

(p.s. Obama hugged Bush. Obama hugged Denzel Washington. Obama hugged soldiers. Obama hugged my former mayor, Norm Rice. Someone else who doesn’t like Obama says Obama hugged Ted Kennedy. Obama hugged Minneapolis Mayor RT Rybak. Obama hugged a supporter. Obama hugged other Obamas. Obama hugged Queen Elizabeth and Oprah... oh wait, wrong Obama but same principle. Actually the other Obama did hug Oprah. In fact, for cryin’ out loud, Obama hugged Ben Affleck! So they’re all like Harriet Meiers too.)

Tim Silverman, commenting on Language Log about Ross Douthat’s blackboard fingernailing, says (emphasis mine)

There really seems to be nothing serious one can say about this nonsense, so I shall instead confine myself to the following query: If feminism has made these men so happy, why are they complaining about it?

He said it here.

Bingo!

Sex worker and sex-worker activist Amanda Brooks, a.k.a. @amanda_brooks on Twitter asked

Just got a trim from a thai hair dresser. Wondered if she is “trafficked”. If so, who is trying to save her?

Read the quote in context here.

This is, of course, not a rhetorical question. Even if you accept that half of all people trafficked into the United States are trafficked for sex work you have to accept that the other half are trafficked for other reasons.

Advocates for sex worker rights and recognition tend to be vehemently opposed to both sex trafficking and non-sex trafficking. Sex-work opponents tend to be oddly silent about the latter.

Turns out Mark Liberman of Language Log, before whom (eek, or is it who?!?! :-)) I often non-literally bow, had a more quantitatively sophisticated take on Ross Douthat’s New York Times misogyny than I did in my post. Leiberman says (emphasis mine.)

This is exactly what happened the last time that the Stevenson-Wolfers work was touted in the NYT: many if not most readers took generic statements about “men” and “women” to characterize general properties of the groups, or at least of most members of the groups, whereas the effect under discussion is a shift of a few percentage points, mostly accomplished by shifting the opinions of around 5 women in a hundred from “very happy” to “pretty happy”.

He said it here.

A five percent difference is small enough that if you were to overlap the graphs the difference would be roughly the size of the free edge of a well-trimmed fingernail.

Not much at all with which to hang all of feminism on, but a lovely metaphor for anti-feminism’s frantic clawing against progress.

It gets worse, by the way. As Lieberman elegantly puts it

The best way to describe this, I think, would be to say something like:

In the early 70s, women self-reported their happiness at levels somewhat higher than men did. Specifically, 5.1% more of the women reported themselves “Very happy”, while 1.5% fewer reported themselves “Not too happy”.

30-odd years later, in the mid 00s, women’s self-reported happiness was closer to men’s, though it was still slightly higher. 1.4% more of the women reported themselves “Very happy”, while 0.1% fewer reported themselves “Not too happy”.

As a description of these facts, Douthat’s assertion that “In postfeminist America, men are happier than women” is, at best, bizarrely off base.

And it gets even more worse! From previous reports I’d gotten the impression the research covered the period from publication of Betty Friedan’s 1963 The Feminine Mystique and so in my previous post I listed only earlier conservative bugaboos that Douthat could have blamed for the general decline in reported happiness had he chosen to be merely conservative instead of fractiously anti-feminist (over fractional differences no less.) Leiberman says the reporting period goes to 1972 so to this list from the early 1960s

• introduction of The Pill
• Brown vs. Board of Education
• prohibition of (forced) prayer in school
• the British Invasion (Beatles, Stones, etc.)
• industrial competition from Japan and other Asian nations
• civil rights agitation
• voting rights
• discovery of LSD by the counterculture

• the Miranda Rights decision

add the following from the 1970s and 1980s

• “stagflation
• vegetarianism
• the emergence of A-rab oil
• A-rab oil embargoes and resulting gas-price increases
• Earth day
• Pollution controls on cars
• Banning DDT
• The movie Deep Throat
• The rise of Cosmopolitan magazine (maybe not, like Douthat Cosmo is deeply anti-feminist)
• Publication of The Joy of Sex, The Happy Hooker, The Sensuous Woman, Fear of Flying, and anything by Nancy Friday.
• The introduction of the vibrator
• The mainstreaming of pornography
• The cancellation of Gunsmoke
• The death of John Wayne
• Watergate

• etc.

But no, while lesser right-wingers would have contented themselves with any or all of those possible reasons, Douthat lasered in on feminism as the only possible cause of what he wants us to see as women’s decline in happiness since 1972.

And by the way he really must specifically dislike feminism because to make his point he had to specifically disregard the nearly equal (ooh, that word!) decline in men’s happiness to do so.

But we already knew that.