avram: (Default)

I noticed, rereading Samuel Delany’s Nova a couple of weeks ago, that Delany doesn’t spend as many words as most male writers do talking about how hawt his female characters are, but he does quite often point out when his male characters have broad fingers, bitten nails, or work-roughened hands. The reasons are obvious if you know anything about Delany.

Just today I realized: He does do some of the usual excited description about one of the women — Ruby Red, when describing her in the part of the book that focuses on Lorq Von Ray. Tyÿ, the other major female character, doesn’t get nearly the same level of attention, but she’s only in the parts of the book that focus on Mouse’s point of view.

If all of the male rough-hand descriptions occur in the Mouse sections, that could be saying something about Mouse’s sexuality.

avram: (Default)

You’ve all heard about Tim Ted Haggard, the powerful Christian evangelist who has frequent discussion with GW Bush, and how Mike Jones, a gay bodybuilder and masseuse, said a few days ago that Haggard had frequently had sex with him and that he’d seen Haggard use methamphetamine.

Haggard denied the accusations, claiming that Jones was lying, but stepped down temporarily from his position as senior pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs so the charges could be investigated.

Then Haggard admitted that some of the charges were true — he had purchased meth using Jones to get him in touch with the dealer, but he had done so just for curiosity’s sake, and thrown the drugs away unused.

Oh, and he’d also gotten massages from Jones.

So at this point, I’ve got one burning question on my mind: Is Haggard the “200 Percent Straight” guy from the funniest Dan Savage column ever?

Actually, a second question: Why do American media straight-facedly report on the results of polygraph tests as if these tests actually had some meaning? They might as well tell us about news figures’ tarot readings or horoscopes.

avram: (Default)
Target has a policy of allowing its pharmacists to refuse, on religious grounds, to fill prescriptions for “Plan B” contraceptives. Sorry about that link; the blog entry seems to have been written by somebody angered beyond the point of thinking clearly. (The pharmacists aren’t refusing because they think the customer is a sinner, but because they think the product is sinful. Get angry, sure, but don’t take it so personally.)

Anyway, for some reason this is the only such refusal Target allows. If you’re a pharmacist at Target and your religion forbids you from dispensing any other products, you’re out of luck. The legal implications of that could get interesting. And it’s yet more evidence that our culture’s seeming religious arguments are really about sex.

Planned Parenthood has a calmer press release, but it lacks the detail that Target has a special policy just for one drug.

Angel sex!

Jun. 13th, 2005 11:30 pm
avram: (Default)
Still reading Paradise Lost, which is far more interesting than I’d thought it would be. Here’s Adam and Raphael, talking about sex:
...Bear with me then, if lawful what I ask:
Love not the heavenly Spirits, and how their love
Express they? by looks only? or do they mix
Irradiance, virtual or immediate touch?

To whom the Angel, with a smile that glowed
Celestial rosy red, Love's proper hue,
Answered. Let it suffice thee that thou knowest
Us happy, and without love no happiness.
Whatever pure thou in the body enjoyest,
(And pure thou wert created) we enjoy
In eminence; and obstacle find none
Of membrane, joint, or limb, exclusive bars;
Easier than air with air, if Spirits embrace,
Total they mix, union of pure with pure
Desiring, nor restrained conveyance need,
As flesh to mix with flesh, or soul with soul....

And the best part is that so far in the text all angels have been described as male. The only female other than Eve is Sin, who erupts from Lucifer’s forehead when he first thinks of defying God. And Sin and Lucifer get it on too; she gives birth to Death, who rapes her, producing Guilt. If all this sounds a bit like Greek mythology, it’s no accident; Milton draws deliberate parallels.

Hat trick

Jun. 22nd, 2004 10:49 pm
avram: (Default)
From Tapped, a story about Illinois GOP Senate candidate Jack Ryan. His wife’s suing for divorce. Why? Because — she says — he three times took her on “surprise trips” to sex clubs and she didn’t wanna:
Respondent asked me to perform a sexual activity upon him and he specifically asked other people to watch. I was very upset. [...] People were having sex everywhere. I cried. I was physically ill. Respondent became very upset with me and said it was not a ‘turn-on’ for me to cry.

His unlucky wife’s name? Jeri Ryan. Yes, that Jeri Ryan.

Sex, politics, and a sci-fi angle; it’s the ultimate weblog post!
avram: (Default)
Ack. I think I need to stop reading the Marriage Debate weblog, which is devoted to discussion of marriage rights. It’s run by Maggie Gallagher and Eve Tushnet, who both oppose the freedom to marry, though they claim to have a balance of pro- and anti- opinions on the blog. Anyway, so many of the anti-freedom arguments are just so incoherent and wrong that they drive me to distraction. Here’s an example, by Mark Tardiff:

There is no longer any subject to posit actions since 'I' cannot be identified with either my body or my consciousness. In genital sex between a husband and wife, on the other hand, we see not one person decomposed into two but two who become one flesh. Husband and wife separately can perform the bodily functions of eating and digestion. But the reproductive act can only be performed by the two of them acting as a single reproductive principle.


Tardiff has clearly confused genital sex with organ donation. I’ve had sex. I wasn‘t closely related to my partner, so though I’m not actually certain, I’m pretty damn sure that if we had become one flesh, there would have been some serious immune system issues and rejection symptoms. Or maybe this one-flesh thing only happens with married couples; I’m pretty sure my parents didn’t have any problems along these lines.

And did you notice that Tardiff also seems to be unaware that people can reproduce without being married or having genital sex?
avram: (Default)
OK, here’s something to be annoyed about. (We could all use more of that, right?) Thanks to [livejournal.com profile] kathrynt, I looked up this MSNBC story about a recent poll on American attitudes towards gays and the freedom to marry, and then looked up the poll report itself. (This is always a good idea, if you can manage it. Newspapers often leave out important details; television always does.) On page two I found the following information:

Why are people homosexual?19852003
Something born with20%30%
Way people are brought up22%14%
Way some prefer to live42%42%
Don’t know16%14%


Only 14% knew the right answer, and that’s down from 16% in 1985!
avram: (Default)
I’ve seen on two people’s journals today that the Vatican is telling people that condoms don’t cut down on the spread of AIDS.

I hunted around a bit for details, and found the Straight Dope: They’re just passing around a bit of false information that the anti-sex people have been spouting for at least a decade, since 1992, when Mike Roland (editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology) wrote to The Washington Times claiming that the latex used in condoms has intrinsic pores around 5 microns in size, which would let the HIV virus (0.1 micron) float right through.

Thing is, Roland didn’t examine condoms, he examined latex gloves, which are made to much looser standards. (And even those standards have been tightened up since then.)

This would explain why lab tests have shown that no known STD can penetrate an intact condom.

And you folks in the Vatican, remember: False witness and fraudulent council both get you the Eighth Circle, so better get yourself to confession!

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags