Figleaf's Real Adult Sex - Confessions of a libertine prude / grumblings of a prudish libertine

Tao of Geek Tackles Rule of Desire #1

figleaf — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:12:51 +0000

You’re probably all familiar with the inverse law of fantasy armour for women: the less the armour covers, the more it somehow miraculously protects. Liz Walsh writes and draws the entertaining web comic Tao of Geek and I quite enjoyed her story about Naomi campaigning not for sensible armour for women, but in equal cheesecake for her male barbarian character.

The story starts here and if you don’t have a whole lot of time, you should at least check out the final punchline here.

Read the quote in context here.

Two good ones from the middle of the series (click to see them full-size at Tao of Geek.)

Further on in the series Walsh makes not one but two points in dialogue. A couple of passers by say “We don’t want female characters covered up” and “We like looking at pretty women” and Walsh’s character Naomi replies “No one’s saying you don’t! I don’t want to cover up women, I want to have sexy armor for all.” To which the uncomprehending passers-by repeat “We like looking at pretty women.”

Oh, and extra credit for the slash-fic reference here. (Note: Hmm… I wonder if slash fiction, which can be barkingly pornographic, continually flies under the bogus Rules of Desire is because even though both authors and readers are overwhelmingly female nearly all the the sex in slash fiction is between male characters.)

Duh! Why It's Not a Slippery-Slope From "Man-On-Man" Marriage to "Man-on-Dog" Marriage

figleaf — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:17:47 +0000

Jeffe Fecke of Alas, a blog is as weirded out by J.D. Hayworth’s haste to leap into man-horse sex as I was earlier today.

So here’s something I don’t get: why is it that whenever people start talking about same-sex relations, members of the right instantly leap to bestiality? We all remember former Sen. Rick “Man On Dog” Santorum, R-Penn. Then there was Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and his box turtle lovin’.

He said it here.

I can’t find a link at the moment but I’m pretty sure conservatives have also brought up the creepy prospect of NAMBLA members marrying juvenile boys variation as well. I can’t possibly, on the planet, be the only person to see it this way but…

The really, giant, big, distinguishing difference between grown men or women marrying each other, vs. Arizona Senate aspirants marrying their horses, is that the law already allows men and women to marry. Whereas, at least as far as I know, there are no provisions in law for horses to marry each other. Same with dogs. Same with box turtles. And for good reason. In civic if not celestial terms marriage is an establishment of fairly complex set of legal, contractual, tax, and property rights, including the establishment of legal inheritance and even powers of attorney. None of which, again to the best of my knowledge, are recognized in the case of animals.

Note: As for the NAMBLA scenario, Hayworth’s native Arizona already wisely prohibits marriage of children under the age of 18 without parental consent. Even with parental consent children can’t marry under age 16. Although, disturbingly, Arizona does permit children under age 16 to be married with the consent of the parents and approval of a superior court judge. (That last bit may be a nod to the state’s large child-marrying FLDS population.) To the extent a state wished to forestall the NAMBLA scenario they could simply update their child-marriage laws to ~~21st~~ 20th Century standards. But I digress…

Point being that whereas legal marriage can (and should!) be easily extended to adults of the same sex with very trivial modifications of civic laws governing marriage adults who currently are allowed to marry each other, before people could marry animals it would first be necessary to establish all the other legal rights and responsibilities for animals that are now the domain only of humans.

Update: Although via Neatorama.com see also Injured Dog Checks Himself into Hospital. :-)

T.R. Reid's Case for an Authentically Pro-Life Case for Healthcare Reform

figleaf — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:06:05 +0000

Ezra Klein correctly channels T.R. Reid.

“To oppose expanded coverage in the name of restricting abortion gets things exactly backward,” writes T.R. Reid. “It’s like saying you won’t fix the broken furnace in a schoolhouse because you’re against pneumonia.” Here’s his argument:

Read the quote in context here.

In a nutshell Reid says part A would be…

In Britain, only 8 percent of the population is Catholic (compared with 25 percent in the United States). Abortion there is legal. Abortion is free. And yet British women have fewer abortions than Americans do. I asked Cardinal Hume why that is.

The cardinal said that there were several reasons but that one important explanation was Britain’s universal health-care system. “If that frightened, unemployed 19-year-old knows that she and her child will have access to medical care whenever it’s needed,” Hume explained, “she’s more likely to carry the baby to term. Isn’t it obvious?”

A legitimately life-affirmative position that, for instance, the Nebraska Right to Life PAC appears to also endorse. (If one was actually “pro-life” as opposed to merely anti-sex or anti-women’s-autonomy, supporting women who choose to keep an unplanned pregnancy… as opposed to, say, relishing pregnancy in particular and children in general as women’s ordained punishment for “original sin.”)

Reid’s Part B goes like this

A young woman I knew in Britain added another explanation. “If you’re [sexually] active,” she said, “the way to avoid abortion is to avoid pregnancy. Most of us do that with an IUD or a diaphragm. It means going to the doctor. But that’s easy here, because anybody can go to the doctor free.”

Another excellent point, obviously.

If one really wanted to reduce abortion, as opposed to, say, using the threat of pregnancy to hammer women into submission, one would enthusiastically embrace both parts A and B, and one would tend to view extending coverage to the most economically vulnerable population as an excellent step in the right direction. If one actually didn’t give a flying fig about abortion except as a way to enforce, say, Rule of Desire #1 you’d expect them to oppose healthcare reform.

It's Not News When Conservatives Do It: J.D. Hayworth Edition

figleaf — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:25:22 +0000

Paul Waldman of TAPPED wrote such a wonderful indictment of the IJNNWACDI tendency towards conservative perversion that I’m reproducing the whole thing here.

Via Steve Benen, we see that former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, who is challenging John McCain in the Republican Senate primary in Arizona, has some interesting ideas about what gay marriage will lead to:

“You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage — now get this — it defined marriage as simply, ‘the establishment of intimacy,’” Hayworth said. “Now how dangerous is that? I mean, I don’t mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point — I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse. It’s just the wrong way to go, and the only way to protect the institution of marriage is with that federal marriage amendment that I support.”

This kind of thing comes up with alarming frequency from Christian conservatives. For some of them, any issue of gay rights is about sex – — hot, steamy sex, so hot they can’t stop thinking about it. I’ve always said that James Dobson thinks about gay sex more than any five gay people I know put together. And apparently, people like Hayworth think that there is a tide of perversion lapping at our levees, and if we allow a crack in the edifice of heterosexual marriage, it will come down upon us like a tidal wave, drowning us with its forbidden temptations. I wonder what kind of thoughts led them there?

He said it here.

That sounds about right about James Dobson, and one suspects Fred Phelps thinks about it more than every other gay man in Kansas. Any time folks start going into lurid details or taking their proposed prohibitions to extreme lengths there’s gotta be at least a little fire behind all that smoke. Another example, one with almost universally horrific consequences are the white slave-owning men who, while regularly justifying violence against African American men for their “lust” for white women, also happened to have unrestricted and coercive access to African American women. Another example? I always wonder what’s really up when I hear of another regressive state legislator proposing one of those no-exceptions-for-rape-or-incest abortion restrictions. For instance one wonders how long it’ll be before a weeping Glenn Beck upbraids the likes of me for being all nonconsanguino-centerically privileged and just not understanding that, say, Louisiana state legislators deserve grandchildren just like people do. Now I’m forced to wonder whether J.D. Hayworth would support this petition drive... or if he’d change the subject and fulminate about government having no business interfering with private property rights. $%!#%~%

(Quick note, plus attempted guilt expiation for quoting his entire post: I don’t quote Paul Waldman often in this blog but if you’re into politics and social issues TAPPED is a great group blog and you can find a bunch of his other posts here. I particularly appreciated his post Pro-Lifers For More Abortions from yesterday.)

More Evidence That It's Just Not News When Conservatives Do It

figleaf — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:38:59 +0000

In a news-roundup item BarbinMD of Daily Kos says

Republicans are “quietly asking” if John Ensign (R-NV) can serve effectively in the wake of his sex scandal. You’d think the “family values” crowd would be shouting it from the rooftops … which of course they would be if Ensign was a Democrat.

She said it here.

Remember it’s not so much that it’s ok if you are a Republican (IOKIYAR), it’s that it’s just not news when a Republican does it (IJNNWACDU.) Might as well write stories about dogs biting humans. Pretty much by definition nobody expects morality from conservatives so journalists mostly don’t bother making a big deal out of it when they do.

XKCD on "Porn For Women"

figleaf — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:59:44 +0000

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

XKCD tackles the gender-stereotype ~~driven~~ driving “Porn for Women“ book series.

Virginia "Support Choice" License Plate Funds to Support Actual Choice

figleaf — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:44:44 +0000

Rachel Larris of RHRealityCheck.org says

Virginia may be on the verge of offering drivers a pro-choice specialty license plate with proceeds from the sale of the plates going to Planned Parenthood. Last month a bill to create the Virginia license plate “Trust Women, Respect Choice” was passed by the House of Delegates with an amendment redirecting the funds from the sale of the plates away from the plate’s sponsor, Planned Parenthood, to a dormant state fund created in 2008 to assist women with unplanned pregnancies.

However in a conference committee on Saturday, the General Assembly restored the funding back to Planned Parenthood.

The Virginian-Pilot reports...

Read the quote in context here.

Good for them!

Unlike the adoption industry “crisis pregnancy” centers most anti-choice license-plate programs channel funds to (their real motto? “Choose adoption”), Planned Parenthood offers precisely what the “Trust Women, Trust Choice” motto promises: they’re not only the biggest providers of birth control and termination services for those who choose not to be pregnant, they’re also the biggest provider of prenatal and pregnancy support for those who do.

Virginia’s stealth-teabagger Governor is likely to veto the bill.

Allegedly "Pro-Life" Nebraska Governor to Veto Prenatal Care Bill That's... Endorsed By Nebraska's Right-to-Life Committee

figleaf — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:30:01 +0000

Sharon Johnson of WE.News says (bold and italics mine)

A bill under contention in Nebraska proposes joining 14 states and the District of Columbia in providing prenatal care for all pregnant, low-income women regardless of immigrant status under CHIP, the children’s health insurance program.

It is authored by Republican Sen. Kathy Campbell, a long-time advocate for women and children, who says the bill is “morally right because all children deserve to be born healthy.” Republican Gov. Dave Heineman opposes it, saying taxpayer-funded benefits should not reach people without legal citizenship.

Read the quote in context here.

Oddly, in 2006 the Nebraska Right to Life Political Action Committee aggressively endorsed Gov. Heineman’s reelection, saying abortion-rights opponents “got more action in 15 months from Heineman than we did out of [previous governor] Johanns in six years.”

And by “oddly,” in this case, I mean that the Nebraska Right to Life PAC steadfastedly supports the bill Heineman’s threatening to veto. In direct violation of blogger protocol (we’re supposed to just sit in our pajamas in our mom’s basements) I called them to ask. The woman who answered said NRTL believes strongly in prenatal care for everyone regardless of status.

Whatever else one might say about any organization opposed to reproductive rights one can say that at least on this issue NRTL has a consistent position. Whatever else one can say about Heineman, he clearly doesn’t.

And it’s not just about the choice issue that he’s being inconsistent by the way. He can’t claim this is about his nominal conservative principle of “States Rights.” The bill is a Nebraska initiative to restore a program that was cut from this year’s Medicare legislation. He can’t claim this is about his nominal conservative principle of “fiscal responsibility” either. By replacing Medicare funds with CHIP, which has more generous reimbursement rates, the bill would save Nebraska taxpayers almost $4 million a year.

Instead, like Congressman Bart Stupak, Heineman’s position is pure, gratuitous Teabagging.

Via Matthew Yglesias,

Paragraph of the Day: Stupak Notwithstanding Even Most Anti-Choice Catholics Support Healthcare Reform

figleaf — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:04:28 +0000

Matthew Yglesias notes a really big problem with the common narrative about Congressman Bart Stupak’s anti-abortion “principles.”

One of the real oddities of Bart Stupak’s refusal to get back on board the health reform train is that virtually everyone who looks at the current language thinks it’s close to Stupak’s own language, and basically achieves what Stupak says is his goal—avoiding taxpayer subsidies of abortion. The people who agree with Stupak are overwhelmingly conservative reform opponents, who are casting about for things to object to. People who want to see health coverage expanded, including anti-abortion Catholics, generally don’t see things Stupak’s way.

Read the quote in context here.

He’s done enough damage. At this point, like his similarly intractable colleague Dennis Kucinich on the left, or his erstwhile colleague Eric Massa, Stupak’s grandstanded himself into post-irrelevancy. They all are, or were, steadfast “no” votes on HCR. It’s past time to ignore them.

Humor, Humorlessness, and the Subtleties of Culture: Sometimes Dried Fruit is Just Dried Fruit

figleaf — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:30:21 +0000

My 5th-Grader thought the following joke was hilarious enough to repeat it to the rest of the household

Q: Why did I have to go to the dance with a prune?
A: Because I couldn’t find a date.

If you choose to unpack the joke at all it stops being as funny. And of course if you unpacked it far enough it could stop being funny at all, mostly because “prune” has all sorts of euphemistic social, relationships, sexual, age and even age-related alimentary-canal overtones.

At least in English. At least in Anglo-American English. And not just because other languages and cultures my not use the word “date” to mean “arranged encounter with existing or prospective romantic intent.”

Prunes are dried out. Prunes are wrinkly, stiff, even leathery. With that in mind saying “I couldn’t find a date so I went with a prune” implies you’re going way past anything as tepid as “settling:” in colloquial English prunes are literally “the pits!”

Of course except for maybe the leathery part pretty much everything you can say about a prune is equally true of dates. Dried? Check. Wrinkled? Check. Has pits? Check. And you could make a pretty good case that while a date isn’t leathery like a prune is their weird, almost brittle translucent husks don’t exactly evoke youth, health, beauty, or vigor.

In other languages and other cultures and even sub-cultures… even different contexts in primary North American culture, of course, the correspondence between prunes and dates is entirely superficial such that with any amount of unpacking the joke would still be just as funny, or agonizingly corny, if you substituted dried apricots, raisins, or (ahem!) figs for prunes.

Which is, of course, exactly how my 5th grader saw it.

If you’re a seriously desperate nerd social theorist you may already have read John Allen Paulos’ Mathematics and Humor: A Study of the Logic of Humor, which includes the excellent point that a great deal of humor is a product of unexpected disjoint sets. Especially puns and other non-sequitur punchlines were the implied axioms are different from the actual ones.

(My most favorite sex joke ever, which I love repeating, is an excellent example of unexpectedly-overlapping axiom humor: Q: What happened to the couple who couldn’t tell the difference between KY Jelly and window putty? A: Their windows fell out.)

Update: For at least some context see also Re-Branding the Prune at Sociological Images.