Monday, November 23, 2009

Woman loses sick leave for having fun

Now here's one for the "news of the weird." A woman in Canada is diagnosed with major depression. Her doctor says take some time off, relax, get your head on straight, have some fun. So she does, and like anyone nowadays, she posts some pictures on her Facebook page.

Woops! Now her insurance company says she can't receive benefits any more, because the fact that she's smiling in her photos means she isn't depressed any more.

They could be right, of course. But it seems to me that getting a doctor's opinion would be a better route than assuming she's cured because she's smiling in a few photos.

Should she stop posting pictures to her Facebook page because she's depressed? Should she stop smiling--ever--just in case someone sees it and thinks she's cured? Should she post only the photos that show her scowling?

People post photos, and they tend to post the ones that are flattering. Besides, you don't advertise to the world how miserable you are, because it's unpleasant and no one gives a shit.

Seems to me she was following her doctor's advice pretty well, and making some progress toward resocializing. She even went to see the Chippendales. That sounds like one of her girlfriends' ideas: you're depressed? Let's take you to see some buff guys get their clothes off! Heck, if possible, let's get you laid! (No pictures of that, apparently.) She was probably starting to relax a bit.

Till her asshole insurance agent decided to play amateur psychiatrist.

Friday, November 20, 2009

The right to bare laundry

Hard to believe, but America's body-phobic society has now devolved to the point where it's indecent to hang one's... unmentionables on a public clothes line.

To be fair, it's also about making sure the neighborhood doesn't "look like trailer trash." But that's a pretty egocentric point of view, don't you think? Assuming that using a clothesline is indicative of "trailer trash" status is, frankly, ignorant. There are so many reasons for keeping the dryer turned off. Many poor people who don't have clothes dryers hang their clothes out of poverty, not backwardness. I know many people who hang their clothes because they prefer the fresh feel of an air-dried shirt over the static-y cling and lint-ish smell of one dried in the dryer. Many of my rural friends do so out of long tradition. And many people nowadays choose a clothes line because it's more economical and environmentally friendly.

But it's the resistance to viewing underwear under that there clothes line that tickles my funny bone. (It's especially ironic that the story has such international import that it's reported in the Tehran Times.) What kind of prudes are we when we're scandalized not only by the exposure of skin but by the layer of clothing next to the skin! Pretty soon they'll be talking about people being "naked" when they're only in their underwear.

Oops... too late.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Jane Fonda says sex is better than ever at 71

Jane Fonda says sex is better than ever at 71... despite her new knee and metal hip

You go, girl!

As for me, I hope to be having sex when I'm 100. Banging sweet young things like Jane Fonda at 71!

Friday, November 13, 2009

Monday, November 9, 2009

Faint praise for nude recreation

There's an article on MSNBC today that is a classic example of the conflicted attitudes we have about nudity in western culture and mass media. "5 reasons to bare it all on your next vacation," says the headline, with the subtitle "Nakation anyone? The skinny on clothing-optional vacations."

Once we get past the cringe-inducing word "nakation," the article presents a straightforward and fairly accurate summary of why clothing-optional recreation can be fun, relaxing, horizon-broadening, and no big deal. Columnist Christopher Elliott of National Geographic Traveler says that no, he has not, himself, taken a "nakation," but he's "open to it." Of course, if you watch the video at the top of the page, he says otherwise: "it's not for me," but you might want to give it a try. And no, there's nothing shameful or offensive about it, but bowing to his readers, he removed the "not safe for work" clip including naked derierres from his blog. (Hasn't he ever heard of a disclaimer? There are prudes, and then there are those those who enable prudery. It took a long time to even find that original blog post, by the way, and only with the help of an advanced Google search. In the process I also found this similar article from 2005.)

"We’re fed a lot of titillating nonsense [by mainstream media]," says Elliott, "lists like the 'Top 5 naked events' and 'Top 5 nude beaches' that leave many of us firmly convinced that all nudists are hedonists." This point is reinforced a mere screen scroll further down the page, with a side bar featuring a photo of three hunky bare-chested guys and a link to the "world's sexiest beaches 2009... our annual round-up of the sultriest stretches of sand." I'm sure Elliott wasn't responsible for this unfortunate juxtaposition, but it illustrates nicely the dilemma. Ads are chosen based on the expected demographic of the reader, and in this case, MSNBC assumes that those who choose to read about "nakations" might next be interested in learning about where to get sultry in the sand.

And don't ask Chris Elliott to refute it. He's never been skinny-dipping on vacation; he's sitting in his cubicle writing safe and unoffensive blog posts about experiences he's heard good things about from other people.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Watching the election returns

I'm watching the election returns tonight, with a particular eye toward the ballot measures addressing gay and lesbian equality. This isn't the #1 issue for most of the major news networks, so I did a Google search and came up with a site called Autostraddle.com: "news, entertainment, and girl-on-girl culture." They're "live-blogging" the election results and have the figures I'm interested in sooner than anyone else. Plus, they seem to have lots of great resources for people interested in gay and lesbian issues, from current news to links, events, and gay-themed art. Worth checking out further at another time.

Meanwhile, at the moment the two main ballot issues are running as follows:

Washington (where a "yes" vote affirms the new law, passed by the legislature, giving domestic partnership but not marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples): Yes 52.42%, No 47.58%. Good news so far!

Maine (where a "no" vote affirms the new law, passed by the legislature, allowing gay marriage): Yes 51.86%, No 48.15%, with 73% reporting. Not good news so far.

Both measures are close, which just baffles me to no end. For me, marriage equality is a no-brainer. How can it be a good thing for people with interlocking sex organs to marry but somehow it's not for an equally-committed same sex partnership? I could go into the logic in more depth, but I'm too tired tonight, and I suspect that you, dear reader, either agree with me already or never will no matter how much reason and logic is applied.

What a sad world we live in where the bedrock necessity of equal rights still isn't obvious to everyone, even in America! I just hope Washington holds on and Maine pulls it off.

The best "live blog" entry tonight:

"Rachel Maddow has a cute graphic for Referendum 71. But since I can’t take a screenshot of my TV, I’ll just show you this photo instead (I made it small, you will have to click.)"

Carmen and Shane

Bats for oral sex

Classify this one under "weird and interesting."

Researchers in China have discovered that humans are not the only species that commonly engage in oral sex. Certain primates do so occasionally, but it's apparently unusual enough in the animal kingdom that scientists were surprised when they observed it to be a common practice among bats.

Specifically, they discovered that female Chinese fruit bats lick the penis of male bats as they're having sex--and that this prolongs the sex, "with each second of licking adding roughly six extra seconds of copulation. The bats spent almost twice as long copulating when oral sex was involved than when not." If you substituted "humans" for "bats" in that last sentence, you'd say, well, duh. But who knew it would be the case for bats?

The scientists theorize that there's an evolutionary advantage to longer copulation--perhaps a greater likelihood of conception, for instance--or perhaps the female bat's saliva aids conception or reduces disease transmission. Or, maybe the bats just like gettin' it on.

I'm sure there's a study out there that demonstrates the same result in humans. Women who suck their partner's cock get fucked better than women who don't; and men who eat their partner's pussy find her more receptive to getting fucked. Duh. But don't take my word for it--feel free to test this in the lab, so to speak. Here's a bit of bat porn to get you in the mood.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Touch of Life is a breath of fresh air

Nudity is such a taboo in the United States, you'd think we were all walking around in invisible burkas. Nude or even topless beaches are scarce to non-existent; women feel the need to contort themselves into pretzels to conceal the fact that they're breastfeeding a child the way nature intended; and the whole country goes into paroxysms when they see a bit of nipple on national television. (It's no surprise that that incident was the most Tivo'd event in history. Shocking! Scandalous! Let's rewind and watch it again in slow motion!)

Now, a breath of fresh air: an ABC news affiliate in Washington D.C., WJLA, has broadcast on a non-cable channel an extended story about the importance of women conducting regular doctor and self breast exams. And the footage includes a real woman demonstrating a real self-exam, with no coy blurring or masking.

The web version of the story begins with a bright red screen saying "WARNING: THE FOLLOWING VIDEO CONTAINS ADULT MATERIAL. Viewer discretion advised" -- which is a bit disappointing, because it suggests that what you're about to see is red-band pornography rather than a story affecting roughly half of all humanity that might very well save thousands of lives. Still, it's a major milestone.

It will be interesting to watch the response. So far, WJLA's own online poll and comments summary are running six to one in favor of the broadcast. (Interestingly, the news story on ABC.com about the controversy actually censors its own image. How quaintly meta.) The most interesting thing to come out of this is that attention is being generated not about the nudity but about the underlying justification: are self-exams actually helpful in combatting breast cancer?

Some will say--with some justification--that showing a woman's breasts is in no small part a ploy to boost viewer ratings. "Dr. Nancy" on MSNBC does a good job of weighing the pros and cons in a rational, non-tabloid way. But the fact that it was broadcast at all is unprecedented for American television. If it opens the door to the idea that there are legitimate reasons for non-sexual, non-pixelated nudity on television, or to the idea that nudity isn't that big of a deal after all, then this is a good thing. It's a step in the right direction, toward the more relaxed attitudes demonstrated this year by British television, and the even more relaxed attitudes demonstrated daily on European TV. It's just bodies, people; we all have them; get over the embarassment already.

Could a PSA on testicular cancer be next?