No fucking freedom under Democratic rule, either.

Somehow, I expected a different outcome. But I suppose I failed to be cynical enough. However, rather than having a tantrum about the betrayal of principles - provoking loud horselaughs from across the political spectrum and the population in general, let me point ot that "abstinence only education" is the most stupid sort of public policy imaginable, and far from the only example of this particular sort of stupidity.

It may well be argued that abstinence is something people "ought" to do. However, that is a judgment call and a moralistic opinion - which varies widely from place to place and culture to culture. Government policy should address what people actually DO do, and address the issues arising from that, while providing information relevant to managing "that" in the best way possible.

But from personal debt management to sex education to social policy - we are fraught with "ought" based policy. And this is a very expensive way to avoid dealing with the real issues.

Beyond Shame: Democrats Sell Out Youth | RHRealityCheck.org

Today, the House Democrats will waltz into the mark-up of the Labor HHS Subcommittee and proudly present a bill that puts their stamp of approval on domestic abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—an ideological boondoggle that threatens the health and well-being of America's youth.

The most appalling aspect of this sell-out is that that the Democrats will not only fully fund the worst of the failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—they'll give them a $27 million increase—the first in three years!

Shame on Congressman David Obey for brokering this "deal;" shame on Congresswoman Nita Lowey for agreeing to it; and shame on those other Democrats on the Appropriations Committee who have already promised not to offer any amendment that would cut funding for abstinence-only programs and thus "upset" the deal.

I'm sorry, but 27 million dollars to convince people of that which is intuitively obvious to the casual observer; that if you don't have sex you will avoid all the risks associated with sex? Is this the price we pay to spare our representatives the embarrassment and inevitable hostility resulting from actually discussing Reproductive Health policy? Are they afraid it will show up on You Tube; that people will be gathered around C-Span with popcorn, doing shots when the word "condom" is mentioned?

I am so embarrassed! WHAT were Harry and Nancy THINKING?

Well, for those of you that do not know where to get decent sexual education - I always refer people to ScarletTeen, a resource put together by adult industry professionals. If you want to avoid risks and practice safer sex, I always say go to the professionals. I mean, who do you trust on the issue of home repairs - Bob Villa, or some guy with a leaky roof and a cracked foundation? You see, here's the sort of conclusion you come to if you actually do some fact-related thinking.

...[T]ied up into all of this is also access to reliable, accurate and unbiased information about birth control, reproduction and sexuality as a whole. That's not just a women's issue, by any means, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that while lack of that information does everyone harm, men and women alike, it ultimately harms women the most. Everyone is harmed by sexual shame, by a lack of understanding of their own bodies and health -- and that of sexual partners -- by purposeful misinformation about sexuality and sexual and reproductive health. NOT everyone will become pregnant because of it, get cervical cancer because of it, wind up in rape or coercion scenarios because they don't know the warning signs or are told to disregard them, or be unable to make a sound reproductive choice when pregnancy occurs that is best for them. (And that's not even touching on issues of intercourse or other sex under obligation, sound counsel, prevention and address of sexual abuse, understanding of how women's sexuality even works, the whole bag.) These things will happen to women, who even just by sheer biology, whether we're talking about pregnancy or cervical cells, bear the greatest burdens when it comes to sex and the opposite sex.

In a culture/community/relationship or under a system which does not support an equality of full reproductive autonomy and agency, it is a given that sexuality and reproductive information will follow suit, and either protest that full autonomy or undermine it, and often quite intentionally.

Tag: reproductive choice, sex education, sexuality, public policy, abstinence-only education, personal responsiblity

When Morality Becomes Idiocy - the prosecution of sexually exploited children.

blog.myspace.com/duckydoolittle

I'd have more to say about this - but I'll defer to an expert. Besides, if you need an explanation as to why this is fundamentally unethical, immoral and operationally stupid, you probably wouldn't read my blogs anyhow...

Change the System!

A child can not legally consent to sex, so why does our system prosecute child prostitutes as criminals? Once locked up they receive virtually no counseling, psychological care, or help finding a safe place to live. Sadly, when young people get out of lock up, they usually return to the streets. Experts agree that prosecuting sexually exploited young people further traumatizes them and makes it more difficult for them to create any kind of stability in their lives. Sign up for the National Juvenile Justice Network email list and raise your awareness. Learn about how you can support valuable legislation and care for children who need your voice, awareness and light.

(As with all of my posts of this nature ~ please re-post and share freely.)

[EDIT: Just to clarify, I am speaking of American girls. If these girls were not American citizens they would be protected under immigrant sex trafficking laws. But because they are American citizens they do not qualify for the benefits and services given to non-citizens. We just need to recognize valid need for our protection. They have slipped through a very large crack.]

tag: child sex trafficing, child prostitution, morality, law, ethics, church-state, moralism

It's better tor be obscene than absurd.

Gateway Pundit: "Seven words you can never say on television"... but which are said on the Internet. A lot.

Talk about potty-mouths.

The Net's not always a kid-friendly place; there is plenty of foul language out there. And of course, the blogosphere is no different.

But how different are the Rightosphere and Leftosphere when it comes to "dirty" language? Which side produces the most profanity-laced diatribes? Via Instapundit, I happened upon this interesting challenge from InstaPunk:

I propose an exercise to be performed by those who have the software and expertise to carry it out. The exercise is this: Search six months' worth of content, posts and comments, of the 20 most popular blogs on the right and the left. The search criteria are George Carlin's infamous '7 Dirty Words.' [Click this link for the list of expletives.]

And this is what I found, using what I deemed -- through a mix of TTLB and 2006's Weblog Award lists -- to be the 18 biggest Lefty blogs, and 22 biggest Righty blogs. (Not counting this one. :)) I couldn't account for the 6-month time period, and I even gave the Lefty blogs a 4 blog advantage. But it didn't make much of a difference.

So how much more does the Left use Carlin's "seven words" versus the Right? According to my calculations, try somewhere in the range of 18-to-1.

Yowsers.

Ok, let me get this straight: while THIS was happening, rather than chasing the story down and doing something to really support the troops, you were constructing methodology to count naughty words?

Words fail me. And aside from that, what's your point, fuckwit?

All this very precious pearl-clutching is utterly pointless in a quest for "civil discourse" if you do not also consider the impact on civil discourse of statements such as these: (via Instaputz)

Ohhh-kay. Let's do a trial run.

Putz: What we really should be doing is killing Iranian civilians. Heh.
Malkin: Exactly. And the NY Times publishers should be locked up for treason.
Denny K: Yeah! Let's hunt them down and find out where their kids go to school.
Coulter: My only regret is that Tim McVeigh didn't blow up the NY Times.
Misha: Forget the Times, I want the Supremes. Five robes, five ropes, five trees.
Lefty Blogger: You're all fucking crazy.

InstaPunk: See? The lefty bloggers are more hateful.

…[W]hy not run a few chapters of Mein Kampf or The Turner Diaries through your little Shrill Detector, and then compare those results with a Richard Pryor set from the '70s.

Idiots.

Now, I'm not a leftie - I'm just an uppity libertarian with not much respect for foolishness and a decent regard for semantics.

Therefore, I have something in common with Shakespeare's Sister The Rude Pundit and indeed The Ace of Spades.

A man-portable un-powered entrenching tool is a fucking spade.



More Vicious Left-Wing Mockery

tag: potty mouths, Hate Speech, pearlclutching, unintentional irony, , culture, morality, ethics

From the Japanese Interest Desk of the Department of the State of Confusion

And the mystery ingredient is:

BURI!

Words: Japan Probe
Uncensored Pictures: Banana Hole
Censored Pictures and commentary from Lost in Ube

Interesting factoids: NHK is government owned. The occasion was a widely popular New Years Live TV event, the performance the doing of some person called DJ something-or-another (Doesn't seem to be lacking for free traffic already), who reminds me irresistibly of The Chairman from Iron Chef. Clearly the mystery ingredient is BURI!

Turns out that the fully-dressed performers were wearing body suits airbrushed to appear as if they were naked. (Note, a stunt that would not work with Vegas dancers).

It turns out that a large cross-section of the audience (pro and con on the issue, I might add) who saw these images in lower resolutions were convinced the girls were actually mostly nekkid, but a casual examination of a section of the still from the performance (featured above) clearly reveals how fake the nudity was.



Now here's a question for ya; which is actually more offensive: a pretty and fully naked Japanese girl, or a Japanese girl who is covered in an airbrushed body suit with a fully erect mushroom as a sop to "modesty?"

You know, I've been known to create erotic and even consciously pornographic works. Not only do I like playing with social taboos, I enjoy sucker-punching them, kicking them in the groin when they are down and then symbolically peeing on the whimpering metaphorical remains of my wrath. I am definitely down with consciously messing with misplaced and objectionable social taboos.

But, much to my surprise and vast amusement at my own expense, I personally found it objectionable. I was actually offended! Why the hell should it be offensive to ME, of all people- instead of just compellingly silly? Dear Lord, there is little in the world that could be sillier looking than a cheerleader apparently dressed in nothing but gold lame' gloves and a turgid "Hello Kitty" mushroom!

Where's Mario when you need him?

Anyway, I came to the conclusion that the concept I was searching for was "Tawdry." It includes the idea that nudity is so inherently dirty that the only way to depict it is to fake it - and then fake it as much, as broadly and as compulsively as possible in order to profit from those who want to participate in something that is dirty because it IS dirty.

It's seeing nudity and sexuality as being sinful - and deliberately rolling in the dirt to the wildly masturbating throngs. It's an appeal to the lowest expressions of the worst manifestations of the most basic of urges. It's taking advantage, in other words, of the moral and ethical failures of other folks.

In that, it's no different than equally offensive appeals to racism with the the goal of getting elected. A lot of folks see this as being comparable to the Janet Jackson nipple "slip," but in fact it's much closer to being DJ whatsisname's Macaca Moment.

Ok, now that was a pretty damn rude observation, so I'll soften it with a more general observation of human nature.

In my vastly cynical opinion, it boils down to this; prohibitions against nudity are not to protect us from the attractive naked flesh of pretty Asian cheerleaders. It's to preserve the male illusion (and indeed, a variety of female self delusion) that we would all be so attractive, if only we were permitted to shed the coverings that protect you, the viewer from an Occasion of Sin.

I've seen enough nekked people to know that the un-enhanced and unsorted human body when scratching it's butt and otherwise going about it's affairs is about as inspirational to lust as, well, your average damp and slightly smelly bath sponge.

This leads us to a genuine backstage truth. There ain't nobody LESS naked than a nude woman lookin' for to be An Occasion of Sin. And there's another, too. The fact that a significant array of males were perfectly happy with being deluded by a crudely airbrushed body-stocking clearly shows that most women are spending way too much on their hunting camouflage.

tag: ethics, sexual taboos, DJ Ozma, NHK, Japanese Culture, Japan TV, pornography, prudery, prudes, foreign press, moralism, ethical realism, morality