Oh No She Di’nt. Oh Yes She Did

Tags

children, Entertainment, Individual Rights, Media, sex, violence

One thing you cannot call me is a prude. I grew up in the 60’s where it was sex, drugs and rock and roll for goodness sakes. We reveled in turning on and tuning out. We dabbled on the edges, at least most of us, and a few sadly jumped off the mountain and died young.

So, don’t say, oh go back to your knitting old woman, this is the new generation. We were all the new generation at one time, and the roaring twenties had nothing kiddies to do with lions.

But even I have to come up short once in a while, and ask. . . . “Really? Haven’t you gone just a bit too far here?”

And I’m not even talking about the occasional “over the top” display of boobs, vaginas, or exploding heads with sprays of blood in every direction. I can even buy that some of this is “necessary” to convey the true horror of the event, time, or business as usual attitude.

I’m talking about the constant one-up-man-ship that seems increasingly necessary in order to capture and keep the attention of the average person.

The danger is never that one single act of viewing will so warp the mind that it will forever impact the life of the viewer. It is so much more than that. It is numbing if the mind to the point that we are becoming more and more desensitized. What used to shock no longer does.

And it happens rapidly.

Just last evening I was bemoaning once again that we have started to watch Breaking Bad when it first started and then for some reason, bailed after a couple of episodes. The Contrarian gently reminded me that the reason was “the violence”. Wow. We had stopped watching Breaking Bad for the same reason we ceased watching the Sopranos?

Yet here we were watching Hell on Wheels and Copper, and The Following. We had avoided Dexter, but were watching  The Bridge which treated us to bodies sawed in half and side nudity and some good simulated sex to say nothing of the same in Copper.

We had, in a word, become desensitized.

And we are technically now “old people”. We have some ability, one would assume, to separate real from simulated, and reality from fantasy. How does one attribute such abilities to tweens?

When three young fellows decide to kill a person because “they are bored”, we have probably reached the point where reality is no longer recognized as much different from the latest edition of Grand Theft Auto.

I will be the first to admit that the jury seems still out on how much all this has to do with changing the minds of our youth. Reasonable psychologists do disagree, but it cannot be a good thing that we treat violence and the ugliness of exploding bodies a good thing. It cannot make us a kinder, gentler people. Certainly we can agree on that.

It seems to me one thing to blow up star ships even though we ignore that they are filled with hundreds of living beings, and quite another to blow off two-thirds of the face of a man as they recently did in an episode of The Bridge. The fact that it’s not “real” is hardly comforting to young minds. Hell it’s not comforting to me.

It’s now the norm in my household to avert one’s eyes, yelp in shock, and yell out, “they could have warned me!” at the gore that is de rigueur for most cable shows these days. Have you learned to turn away as the crazy person raises the gun to their own head yet? We sure have.

Now, you can argue that we are just watching lousy crap, and that may be true enough. Still, some of these shows are compelling in showing us a bad side of our own history. Hell on Wheels may be often too too graphic in its portrayal of blood and gore, but we do learn that how freed slaves were treated in the real world in the Old West, and how women used their bodies to make a living, and how everybody used and abused the Native people as needed. The were alternatively “saved” and massacred as time allowed.

Which all brings us to Miley Cyrus and her “act” at the MTV Awards the other night. First I did not watch it, but I have seen the video. Anybody who breathes has heard of it no doubt and the jury is split into “what a slut” and “who the hell cares?”

Women seem to care more than men, since it’s still true that women bear the major burden of raising children, and this shit scares them. Little girls, sadly, love these pop stars, want to dress like them and act like them.  Anybody who has seen Toddlers and Tiaras, knows only too well of what I speak.

One can speculate about Ms. Cyrus’s upbringing, her mental state,  and a host of other psychologically related issues regarding her and her idea of what is appropriate to do in front of cameras, but most of us would rather not have our children witness this behavior as something to emulate. Much as Ms. Cyrus may disagree, this is not the way you “prove you’ve grown up”. Rather it proves that you have a very very long way to go to reach that destination.

I’m the first to admit here that I have no answers to any of this. As you know by now, I don’t specialize in answers so much. I prefer to rant about what is wrong. You find the answer. I’m busy rooting out the problems. And this is a growing one it seems to me.

The business of simulated sex is just not necessary it seem to me. I find it impossible to almost ever conclude that it is “necessary” to a faithful honest portrayal of the character of incident. We can all figure it out without all the grunts and groans and the “yeah baby, now” crap.

The violence? That has a better argument in some cases. I do think it’s important to see the ugliness of our history. Saying that people owned slaves didn’t have much effect until Roots showed us (graphically for its time) what it was to be a slave. The same for things like Amistad. As I have said, Hell on Wheels insofar as it shows the misery of life in the West while building a railroad, gives us a new appreciation for those that built this country. Not the Rockefellers and Carnegies, but the average people who lived out short mean lives doing the business of building.

But where to draw the line? Oh gosh, I don’t know where to begin to set the standards. And perhaps that is the reason we have so little in the way of standards. Where is free speech, art, and individual freedom in all this? All I know is that we have gone too far it seems to me.

Related articles

• Not Just a Whorehouse: Female Representation in Hell On Wheels (rookerville.com)
• Miley Cyrus: White Trash Never Looked This Bad (thoughtcatalog.com)
• Breaking Bad is brilliant (catherinecrilly.wordpress.com)
• Breaking Bad Contest: The First Three to Die? (thomaspluck.com)
• Top 10 most bad ass TV characters (angelomedici.com)

 

Advertisements

Just a Little Off the Top?

Tags

DADT, foreign policy, GOP, John McCain, North Korea, religious right, Sarah Palin, sex, STD's, wikileaks, Women's issues

I stopped after church yesterday to get my hair cut. It’s a fancy place, La Cost Cutters. French I think. They are intent on bringing high coiffure to the average jane, so they locate in Wal-Mart.

Now let me explain that my hair grows like the worst weed you’ve ever encountered. I imagine zillions of little guys on bicycles pedaling away, spinning out my hair.

For years I solved this problem by not getting it cut and wearing it loooooong. This finally grew tiresome and I started whacking it off around the shoulders and then just twisting it up and clipping it. I am tres chic.

Finally I grew tired of this, so I decided to get ‘er done in a short style, something most old women (which I’m now approaching) finally do. I wanted it short. The first stylist did a great job. That was several months ago. Since then, I’ve had a line of stylists who seem to have difficulty with the word “cut.” They nibble around at the edges.

“Go ahead and cut it. It grows so fast that no ‘to short’ will last more than two weeks,” I encourage.

But they don’t get it. They are afraid. Or, it’s a conspiracy to get more money out of me by getting me there more often.

But what gets me is the strange questions. “Cut it about one inch,” I order, while showing them with my fingers.

They cut the crown, and then ask, “Do you want any taken off the sides?”

“I dunno,” I want to say, “does it not all grow at the same time?”

I mean if it needs an inch cut off, wouldn’t that mean all over? Or from their perch above me, are they seeing something up there that I don’t? Am I a genetic abnormal?

I probably could solve all this by requesting the same stylist. But I go on Sunday after all, and they rotate those schedules. And further more, I really don’t give a flying floozy much about my hair, just want it presentable. I like the convenience of “walking in” and have no desire to make stupid appointments.

Perhaps I have the wrong insider language. You know, hair lingo. Help me here. Am I somehow saying things wrong?

Anyway, mostly I like my hair. A quick wash, a little “do” and let it dry, and brush it. And, well, it’s good to go. All this because the Contrarian assured me that he never was with a group of men who saw a great looking woman go by where anyone exclaimed, “look at that hair-do! wow, isn’t it great?” They seemed, he noted, to be more enamored of certain other features, mostly on the front end above the waist, if ya get my drift.

My hair thanks them for this.

***

I don’t have links to this but I read it over the weekend. Someone reported that John McCain is talking about “regime change” in North Korea. Now that sends a major chill down the spine doesn’t it? Thank God he is not the CIC.  And on the DADT front, John, who cannot get anyone in the military to agree with him, came out with this nasty mean remark:

There was never anything wrong with DADT. It was working fine, until an inexperienced” candidate for President decided to mess with it. (paraphrased)

John is just the worst sort of sore loser I’ve come across.

***

I’m not sure how I feel about the “wikileaks” thing. I guess my government is more incompetent than I thought. Generally I’m not in favor of secrets. But I recognize that sometimes very sensitive negotiations require it. In the end, I guess openness all the way around works best. But I’m persuadable on this issue. What say you?

***
Another thing I noted in reading over the weekend. STD’s are way up in Southern Alaska, home of “just say no” abstinence. HIV infection is up in the South where states embrace abstinence only and other tactics to make it difficult for people to get HIV inhibitor drugs. Doncha just love the compassion of the religious right? How’s that abstinency thing workin’ for ya Sarah, as someone noted.

***

A new Palinism:

I want to help clean up the state that is so sorry today of journalism. And I have a communications degree.”—To Sean Hannity, in a Fox News interview, Nov. 22, 2010.

***

Palin continues to demonstrate her complete lack of comprehension about much of anything. She apparently recently tweeted that since she was able to stop publication of parts of her latest ghostly written book, the government should be able to stop the wikileaks. To equate her silly book and government secrets in the same breath is breathtakingly stupid. The laws and court cases governing are NOT remotely the same. But of course, she doesn’t read so we can’t expect her to know that.

Okay, so my fascination with this train wreck continues. I find her laughable, but I also find her dangerous should she continue to manipulate the public for her own personal aggrandizement. AlterNet provides you with some provocative reactions to Sarah’s testing of the waters.

***

If it comes as a surprise that the GOP has so many women in the mix these days, think again. This doesn’t mean that women are finding their voice in the GOP. They are there because they assist in the Repucklian plan to reduce women to the stay at home little non-entities they think they really are. Read the Republican War Against Women.

Related Articles

• Conservatives comment on WikiLeaks release (riehlworldview.com)
• John McCain Compares Sarah Palin To Ronald Reagan (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• GOP Senator Graham Asserts Not Enough DADT VOTES; (lezgetreal.com)

Untangling Threads

Tags

airport security, Benedict XVI, Catholicism, condoms, economics, Entertainment, foreign policy, GOP, Iowa, Justin Bieber, Kyl, life in the meadow, Russia, sex, social class, START treaty, teabaggers, terrorism, TSA, wealth

Whenever your darling asks you to sup with him “on the town” and the restaurant is named “La GGG”, all I can say is beware.

GGG, in case you were unaware, stands for Gas, Groceries and Good Eats. I can assure you, they are lying about two.

Recently the Contrarian invited me to Chez Troy Store Restaurante for lunch. Ahh, we went in and sat down, finding the seating ample, (no one else was there) and took a seat overlooking the corn field.

Out rushed a cook, (I should say, the cook) and announced: “Oh we don’t serve until 3 now, economy and all. But I can get you pizza or fried chicken or a sub?” Two of those come from those display cases that keep the food warm with lightbulbs. We demurred and walked across to the Dam Bar (yes that’s what it’s called) and ordered the usual saloon fare: something fried or deeply so.

So, it should come as no surprise when last night in the middle of Nature, I cried, “oh damn!”

“Whaaaa?” the Contrarian started from his dozing, muttering, “I am not sleeping, just resting my eyes!”

“I forgot the pearl onions for Thanksgiving!”

“Can I get them at the Troy Store?” he queried.

Yes, he actually said that, asked it, I mean.

With a look of utter disgust, I pouted, “NO, you can barely get an onion there.”

“How ’bout at Sherbon’s? I could run over there,” he offered.

“No, no, she won’t have any either.”

Sherbon’s is a step above Troy, having no gas station and not purporting to offer dining pleasure, but it’s a long way off from being a GROCERY store too.

“How ’bout Center Point Store?” he whimpered.

“No,” I sighed, “they won’t have them either. It’s hopeless.

There was no offer to drive all the way to Cedar Rapids of course.

Such is life in the meadow. You either remember or you do without. I will sure miss my carmelized pearl onions though. Send me some if you can ship it FedEx overnight, okay?

***

I guess I’m doing an about-face on the whole patty down at the airport thing. I  still think it’s mostly silly whining perpetrated by testosterone-laden young men and old ladies whose junk is so old that nobody would want to if they didn’t have to, touch it.

But I heard an argument that made some sense. He (unknown speaker on MSNBC) suggested that it’s good we are questioning just what we are willing to give up in the name of “terrorism.” This is a good conversation, proving we are not so insanely scared that we are hiding in our holes, only coming out with full military protection.

Perhaps, he asks, we might start questioning all that stuff about unauthorized wiretaps, waterboarding, and all those other dark and evil practices that we kinda figure are going on but about which we really would rather not know. There’s a point there I think. I later found the same argument here.

***

The Pope, Benedict XVI is very busy backstepping his way out of the “condom issue.” Some saw some slight movement in his latest remarks that in some cases, such as male prostitution, it might be allowed, as a step in “taking responsibility”. Today the Vatican is claiming that there is no change at all in the position of the Church as to condom use. I suspect that is true. If the fiasco over the pope’s comments about condom use while last in Africa, didn’t bring about a change, then I suspect nothing will.

Odd, how all those who have tons of advisors to, well, advise them, still cannot avoid the sticky wicket. Spiritual Politics has their own take here. If you want to know more, (and you probably don’t) go to Enlightened Catholicism.

***

The bad the worse and the ugly, i.e., the GOP continue to stonewall on the START treat ratification. Editorials across the land, the support of dozens of old line GOPers and revered State Department and Military leaders from of old, have failed to move, so far, one Sen Kyl from AIR-headZona.

One wonders how long the GOP is willing to take the heat to promote their only real goal: the downfall of Barack Obama. Crooks and Liars has a nice post, featuring a roundtable held by Christiane Amanpour.

***

Thomas, at Living Next Door to Alice sends us a must read post from 3quarksdaily. It’s about us, politics, and our doom. While we play at politics, the rich are taking this country for themselves and leaving us to be their servants. We are coming to be a permanent underclass. And that can only lead to one thing.

***

But if the above article is too long, well, this next says basically the same thing and in just a couple of sentences: Justin Bieber was the big winner at the AMA awards last night, beating out Usher. The world has ended, you just haven’t heard the explosion yet.

***

There be times I wish I had me one of them big balls that you do stretching on. But I’d sit on mine as I read Internets. ‘Specially when I read about da stoopid Rethuglians and their being pulled mightily in two directions at once. The FC’s (fiscal conservatives) vs the SC (social conservatives) are trying to direct the old party hacks who give a damn about neither.  Priority One-McConnell and Don’t you dare touch my junket Boehner, are being stretched over the fence and, well, personally instructed to do their respective biddings.  And I’d be bouncing on my ball, sippin’ my soda, and giggling.

Related Articles

• Pope Ignites Debate Over Condoms (deaconforlife.blogspot.com)
• Pope says some condom use can be justified (feministphilosophers.wordpress.com)
• Bishops say Pope still anti-condoms for HIV – The Australian (news.google.com)
• Obama Pushes for Showdown on START Treaty (littlegreenfootballs.com)
• Showdown Over START (politicalwire.com)
• Obama finds support for arms treaty at NATO meeting (thehill.com)

Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Tags

ballroom dancing, bonobo apes, Colbert Nation, dancing with the stars, Entertainment, female dominance, NASA, psychology, sex, society, sociology, space station, Steven Colbert

I’m not one inclined to make a big to do about the differences between men and women. I recognize that our brains are somewhat different, and therefore we respond to some stimuli in different manners on occasion.

Yet it must be noted, that among our distant ancestors the Bonobo Ape suggests an important aspect of that male-female difference.  Zoologists and others who study these creatures tell us that this creature is closely genetically aligned with chimpanzees, and of course chimps are closely related to humans. In fact we humans are equally genetically related to both.

I am told that the bonobo may in fact be a more primitive form of the chimp, remaining in the trees when the chimp wandered out onto the savannahs of Africa.  They, in fact, are a bit closer to our “common” ancestor.

The interesting thing about the bonobo, is that it is female dominated. Groups of bonobos thrive under female leadership, and things are so very peaceful that it can almost be described as if there were no dominance by either sex in actuality.

The other significant factor in this unique animal, is that it is the only animal other than humans who engage in sex for fun. In fact, bonobos engage in sex all the time, in every sort of manner, and between every possible combination of male and female arrangement.

It’s probably impossible to know which came first, the female leadership or the free for all sex. But we do know that they exhibit none of the aggressive violent tendencies that are found among chimpanzees.

I guess I’m reminded of another Star Trek show where Captain Kirk’s personality was split between the “light” and “dark” sides. It turned out that he was not a functional human being without a melding of both sides. Perhaps the bonobo types don’t have the drive to learn and be creative, things humans have needed to progress beyond the cave. That of course remains to be seen.

But I just wonder, perhaps if we got over our strange preoccupation with what sex was okay, and when it was okay, and where it was okay, we might be a bit better off.

Similarly, we might think about nurturing the qualities of tenderness, care giving,  cooperation and empathy that seem a bit more natural for the female than the male.

It just might make the world a tiny bit better place to live.

***

This is a rant! We ‘re about ready to stop watching DWTS. This is plainly ridiculous.  Last night Denise Richards was eliminated. She was in the bottom two with another woman, whose name escapes me. Neither were at the top of the heap, but they were no where near the bottom from the judges standpoint either.

That seminal distinction went to Steve somebody from Jackass and Steve Wozniak, former Apple genius. Both had failed miserably over two dances in two weeks. They were simply awful, the way that Billy J. Cyrus was awful, the way Cloris Leachman was horrible. It seems that there is always at least one, and sometimes two real clinkers in the mix.

I’m not sure but that the show doesn’t require some audition before being asked, but I’ve read nothing to that  effect. I suspect some “contestants” turn out surprisingly good, and others the opposite, but given that, like I said, each show seems to have at least one, one might wonder that somehow they know.

In any event, the judging is fair, and the three actual experts in ballroom dancing seem to call ’em as they see  ’em .

The problem comes from the fact that the “fans” across the land can vote out anyone they choose, whether from high in the standings or low. They are not limited to the two lowest vote totals from the judges. And that is the problem.

What happens is that it all ends up being a popularity contest to some extent. I don’t know what the demographics are for the show, but I know that certain people don’t slot in well. Billy Ray Cyrus went far far beyond his talent, while other better dancers were eliminated. Cloris Leachman so overstayed her ability that it became such a joke that we quite watching in disgust. Now we seem on the road again to allowing the worst to keep staying for amusement purposes while better dances are kicked to the curb.

I object! Okay, you can say, shaddup, it’s a stupid show for goodness sakes. Yes it is, but I’m not into the Roman gladiatorial if you get my drift. I don’t see a reason to make fun of people for sport, or to watch them suffer as stooges for my enjoyment.

I frankly thought the judges were mean to Steve Wozniak this last go round. He was horrid, and all they had to say was that the man had done his very best, and applauded him for his tenacity and his joy in having fun. Instead they really made fun of him. Apparently they can have another go round with him next week, since he will be back, much to their surprise.

We have a horse in the race, with our Shawn Johnson, Olympian and fellow Iowan. We may continue to watch for her sake. Or, for mine at least with the oh so sexy Giles from France. Oh my goodness my goodness, what a sexy one he is! They are both at the top from the judges standpoint. If either falls out due to the fans, I’m outta here!

***

Well, Stephen and company has done it again!

His producers, writers, gofers and whomever, must comb the world for every situation where some government or entity is offering the public the opportunity to name something.

As soon as the Colbert team gets wind of it, Stephen announces it on his show and the Colbert Nation responds. The votes pour in, and Stephen wins. This in the end, causes some countries, cities and such to withdraw the offer. The poor sporting continues yet again.

NASA offered the public the opportunity to name the newest space module to be added to the International Space Station. They offered a few possibilities, but also allowed write-in choices. Well, Stephen has won with some thing like a quarter of a million votes.

Now NASA is backing away, suggesting they don’t have to actually go ahead and name the module after Colbert if they don’t want to. There is some suggestion they might name a “toilet” after him.

I cry foul. The man won fair and square. And it’s not like you NASA couldn’t have foreseen this. Colbert has pulled this again and again, and each and every time, he has won. It’s time to “man up” and take your Cobert Report medicine. Name the module after him and be a good sport, get some good press, enjoy the happy support of another quarter million folks, and learn your lesson. Don’t mess with the Cobert!

Our Sexual Schizophrenia

Tags

Catholicism, gay rights, religion, sex, Sunday Editorial

America is a nation obsessed with sex. Everyone agrees. What we don’t agree about is what the problem is. We tend to see it from two very different prospectives. Europe and most of the rest of the world has long taken note of our obsession. They scratch their heads and wonder why we are ALWAYS talking about it, legislating about it, decrying it, or promoting it. Most everyone else takes it for granted pretty much. We don’t and it causes us more trouble than can be imagined. Well, it got me to thinking.

You see, we, are both intent on defining most of sex as a bad thing, and conversely, spending our time promoting it. We are in a word schizophrenic. And that causes us horrific problems in the end.

How did this start? Arguably it began with the beginning of our country. Especially with that weird breed called Puritans. Now we are told of course that the Puritans came to this land for “religious freedom.” Well, not really. The fact is, their repressive take on religion and God was not much liked in most of Europe. It was divisive and problematical for countries attempting to keep the peace among diverse peoples. Puritans were rigid, and like early Christians in Rome, really didn’t fit in well. So they moved to this new land with every intent on forming a religious state of their liking, one in which everyone was expected to toe the line so to speak religiously and that definitely meant sexually as well. 

Indeed they did, and much of New England became the land of rigid puritanism, which we can synonymously equate with prudish beliefs regarding sex and the body itself. This was mirrored for a time in Catholicism and many of the early saints record efforts to beat the body into submission by starvation, actual physical torture self-inflicted, and denials af adequate sleep and so on. Anything that was pleasurable was to be denied as temptation from the devil.

Of course, when you demand that  kind of adherence to such abnormal rules, people tend to act out in rather spectacular ways. They don’t just sin, they sin hugely. Yet apparently we don’t learn the lessons we should from this, instead we make excuses. Fundamentalists by and large are not driven to question the doctrines taught by preachers who find themselves caught in flagrant acts of “immorality.” Instead they blindly tell themselves that satan attacks just those people making the greatest inroads on sin, so such falling from grace is to be expected, and in reality is nothing but confirmation that the doctrine is sound. Nice huh?

So we run to confession each week and confess our masturbatory actions, and race from Church to get back to internet porn. I suppose it wouldn’t be so bad if all we did was this to ourselves. The sane world could look upon us as sad, but no more. Alas, we don’t leave it at our own doorstep. We export it.

Because we are so repressed in our own minds, we try to repress and oppress everyone we meet. Everybody has to agree that this stuff is all bad. We obsess about what you are doing in your bedroom, we wag our fingers and cite self-interpreted pieces of scripture to back it up.

Take a trip to a religious forum. Any one more or less will do. They are chock filled with the ultra ultra orthodox, those more Catholic than the Pope as we would say in my Church. There you will find a variety of themes that will truly boggle the mind. Some might even argue that the intent is to release all that pent up sexual frustration by talking the subject to death. In fact, here and there, a thread is abruptly closed, I suspect because it’s gotten just a tad too racy and specific in exploring “what sex toys does God allow my wife and I to use?” (I kid you not)

A list of topics should explain my point.

• Can HIV/AIDS husband and wife use condoms so they can continue having sex? (NO)
• Can I attend the wedding of a gay couple, one of whom has been my lifelong friend? (NO)
• Is masturbation okay as long as I’m using it for a medical reason?
• Is it okay to sleep in the same bed with someone of the opposite sex without sex?
• Can I fantasize while having sex with my spouse about someone else, even imaginary? (NO)
• Do I need document every sexual thought for confession? Will I be in confession for hours?
• Is Contraception selfish in that one is not open to God in the act? (YES)
• Can I attend my fathers second marriage even though he is not Catholic and neither is his new fiance? (NO)

I’ve answered with the majority opinion those threads I actually read. The rest, I can assume, but can’t answer directly. You see what I mean? Go to any Christian forum and a full 50% of the discussions are about sex. Most all of it revolves around the sinfulness of some sexual behavior, whether it be pre-marital, divorce and remarriages that aren’t legal, homosexuality, contraception, and a host of other such things.

Now I admit, that these ultra orthodox obsessions are not by and large shared by most Americans. But they do represent the thinking of a growing cadre of fundamentalist opinion that sex is naughty. Yet, as we mentioned, it is they more often than not that get caught in the sex scandals we have come to love in both Washington and within the environs of the Religious Right.

The rest of us scratch our heads in disbelief. Europe seems to get this so much better and we wonder how did this puritan thing get so far out of hand. Why are we titillated daily with sex? It’s normal. It’s how we each came to be. There is nothing especial about it. Nor is there anything especial about our bodies. Nobody wears closes in the animal kingdom except humans. Clearly we didn’t start wearing skins and hides because of modesty. We did it for warmth and because we could attach convenient loops and pockets to hold things.

I don’t give a tinker’s damn what you do in your bedroom, and it’s none of your business what I do in mine. The only caveat is that no one gets physically or emotionally harmed. Nobody is forced to do that which they don’t wish to do. Studies actually show that those who voluntarily engage in what might be termed “alternative” sex roles (masochistic, slave-master, open marriage) are not to any greater degree unhappy or otherwise emotionally harmed. That is not some endorsement by me, but merely to point out that the “evils” these actions are claimed to cause are not born out by the studies.

I have said again and again, that I don’t see how gay marriage affects me at all. There are no valid studies as far as I know that say that children raised in homosexual unions or single parent homes, or any other grouping one might concoct are by nature harmful. It’s all about love and time and support it seems. Kids from gay parents aren’t more likely to be gay, sexually promiscuous or anything else. If it pleases you to believe that God creates gay folks and then expects them to be celibate for life, then what happened to free will huh?

I had an argument with NFP people. Natural Family Planning is basically a jazzed up rhythm method of contraception. They claim its okay for Catholics to use this because it allows God to cause its failure and pregnancy to occur. Somehow in their minds, God cannot penetrate condoms. Somehow that means you’ve shut God out. Some actually claim that sex is not for ANY other purpose than procreation, although the Church clearly doesn’t agree. Yet in the end, both are designed (rhythm and condoms) to avoid pregnancy.

God is great, He is. I believe He’s a good deal greater than these reactionary orthodox even guess. But he does have a whole universe to manage. And perhaps many such universes for all I know. Do you think he draws some distinction between the condom and the “I’m not fertile today by the calendar dear, we can do it tonight” dichotomy? Do you think he is tricked into thinking that one couple is sinful and the other not? Give me a break!

Worrying about what sex is okay and what is not is a good diversion however. You can avoid working out your responsibility for wars and poverty and how you are not really acting like your brother’s keeper much. You can lie to yourself and say you are doing God’s work by “admonishing the sinner” every chance you get, instead of marching against genocide in Darfur or raising hell that members of the Congress support regimes that engaged in the sex slavery of children in Indonesia.

Most laughable of all you can (and I swear I can prove it to you) advise poor black people that Planned Parenthood is some evil genocidal organization and they should stop using birth control. Blacks are notoriously unable to think for themselves you know. You can become enraged should anyone question your motives of course, while at the same time, you can claim that the Church still allows one to favor the death penalty (which of course falls most heavily on African Americans too). You can do that and not bat an eye at the hypocrisy of such dual positions.

A Catholic theologian some years ago, said that the worst thing that had befallen the Church in his opinion was its delving into sex. It has gotten itself caught in a logical and theological quagmire and seems unable to gracefully escape. It ends up demanding behavior that is arguably immoral from a health standpoint, and is incapable of being fulfilled by most of its members. Worse, it gives the small minority who psychologically need and desire such rigidity, the puffed up self-importance of the “true believer” over and against the world. So it’s so ultimately divisive as to be counterproductive.

So, when folks start in on the idea that we are a morally degenerate society, swirling faster and faster into the deep well of sexual perversion, causing the Impeding destruction of civilization, I just say, hey, look to religion if you want to know why. And I’d not be looking to religion to solve it. Religion serves a great purpose in so many ways, but it has ill served us in sexual matters.

Somehow, I think God thinks of all this with passing amusement, when not outright angry at the pain we cause each other over it. After all, he had no need to grant us ensouled creatures with pleasure in the act did he? I can see why he needed to use that as a ploy to entice the “lower” animals. But us? Not necessary, unless of course he meant for us to enjoy it.

 Obsess about it? I don’t think so. It’s time we take away the titillating exercise of “moral majority” admonitions. Time to tell them to stick it in their ear, and get a life. The entire subject is just boring. I’m not gonna be your porn fix for the day by indulging in your need to talk about sex. Have some with your partner and shaddup. It’s just what I got to thinking about today.