Skip to content →

Category: Sex

On Golden Showers: Perception Is Everything

Donald Trump may or may not have hired Russian prostitutes to pee on him in a bed the Obamas once slept in. Vladimir Putin may or may not have video evidence of Russian prostitutes peeing on Donald Trump in a bed the Obamas once slept in. Trump and/or members of his team may or may not be compromised by knowledge that Putin has video evidence of Donald Trump being peed on by Russian prostitutes in a bed the Obamas once slept in.

Also, the Russians may or may not have other “compromising personal and financial information” about Trump.

Here’s the thing: it does not matter whether any of this is true or not. All that matters is that it seems entirely plausible that it might be.

There is not a single aspect of today’s bombshell revelation that is not COMPLETELY consistent with all of the available evidence we have about Trump, his character, his campaign, and/or his motives. I’m not even passing moral judgment on the alleged act, necessarily; I’m merely saying that Donald Trump could conceivably be compromised in any and/or every way, by anyone and/or everyone imaginable because he has never displayed a shred of evidence a) that he conforms to or even marginally respects any social norms, b) that he is motivated by anything other than pure self interest, or c) that he is not a puppet of Vladimir Putin.

The financial aspect is, of course, far more disturbing and potentially damaging to American interests—and if we could see Trump’s taxes perhaps we could at least set those concerns aside. But we can’t, apparently—and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a Trump presidency will always be tainted by a completely fair concern that he is acting not in America’s best interests, but out of base self-interest and/or desperate self-preservation.

Leave a Comment

On Slut Shaming Melania Trump

There is a curious response to the sharing of nude photos of Melania Trump via social media wherein a certain type of liberal commenter immediately jumps to the conclusion that she is being slut shamed. I understand and appreciate the underlying impulse, but it is wrong.

Take this meme, for example…

14089301_1220772851349100_2797868944920415187_n

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with this photo in terms of provenance or content. It was not hacked nor was it shared by an angry ex-lover; it was the product of a photo shoot for a French men’s magazine, clearly intended for public consumption. There was no expectation of privacy surrounding her participation in this photo shoot, which she was paid for. Indeed, as far as I am aware, none of the racy photos of the soon-to-be First Lady currently in circulation come from sources that could be characterized as illegitimate.

As far as content…well, again, I just have no problem with anything I’m seeing here. I see two beautiful women locked in a sensual embrace. I have no problem with people displaying their nude bodies. I have no problem with people engaging in sexual acts between consenting adults. I have no problem with homosexuality. In other words, there is nothing to be ashamed of here. If I share it, as a person who has no moral objection to its content, I am not shaming anyone involved in the photo.

So what about the sort of person who thinks a photo like this is something to be ashamed of? What of the people who buy into and perpetuate the idea of sluttiness as a construct? It is only from their perspective that sharing this photo might be called slut shaming. The goal of sharing it is to make them confront it from their sexually repressed little corner of the universe…the corner from which they so often like to judge some people but not others.

I celebrate this photo, just as I would celebrate a similar photo involving Michelle Obama if such a photo existed, which it does not. My position is 100% consistent in all real and imagined versions of reality. The same cannot be said for those on the other side of the political spectrum.

It is important to note here that the reverse situation would very much be slut shaming. A hypothetical conservative citizen who views such things as morally repugnant who shared, as the above meme imagines, a similar photo of Michelle Obama would clearly be motivated by a desire to debase her in the eyes of likeminded fellow citizens.

Both beauty and shame are in the eye of the beholder. As liberals, we are not responsible for the shame that conservatives attach to the naked human form, to homosexuality, to guilt-free participation in sexual activity of various kinds with various partners of various genders. If they are ashamed of what they see here, perhaps they should have objected to it with the same vociferousness with which they happily attack the LGBTQ community with words, actions and pieces of legislation.

405 melania_-_copie_2 melania-knauss-nude-photos-www-ohfree-net-018

Leave a Comment

Funbags & Firearms

Guns don’t kill people, boobies kill people.

Right? I mean, otherwise why would there by countless ordinances, zoning regulations and laws banning or regulating the showing of luscious love melons in adult establishments all over America? What else would justify any attempt to interfere with the ability of small business owners to pursue the American Dream by building, operating and profiting from a product that is in demand—namely, the opportunity to sit in a comfortable chair and look at a smorgasbord of hum dinging howitzers in peace?

tempest-storm-guns_pas_un_autre Politicians, local officials and citizens have given serious thought to this matter, so one must assume that it is real problem that results in dozens, if not thousands of injuries and/or deaths per year, right? At the very least, chi-chi bars must produce effects that are far more deleterious than those created by, say, businesses that make, sell or otherwise facilitate the procurement and use of guns, right?

Clearly the very act of ogling jiggling jugs in windowless, adult-only establishments is a far greater danger to the nation’s children than, for example, giving a nine-year old the opportunity to shoot a fully automatic uzi at a burger joint. This is why many a state legislature has seen to it that huge hooter havens must adhere to a variety of rules, ranging from the “six foot rule,” which requires nude performers to maintain that distance from their audience, to prohibitions on “full nudity,” wherein strippers are compelled to wear pasties and/or something that covers their vulvas and the place where the poo comes out.

In many places, tough regulations have been used as a thinly veiled end-run designed to drive strip clubs out of business without running afoul of the First Amendment. Phillip Cosby (no relation to Bill Cosby), director of the American Family Association of Kansas and Missouri, said it best while promoting a bill to “heavily regulate” these plush pillow plants, or “sexually-oriented businesses,” as they are known in the world of zoning and regulation

“These are not engines of economic prosperity,” said Phillip Cosby, director of the American Family Association of Kansas and Missouri. “These businesses have a negative impact on communities.” 

The “Community Defense Act,” as supporters call it, opens with a long paragraph explaining that its purpose is to “regulate sexually oriented businesses in order to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Kansas,” and not to restrict adult materials or entertainment that are free expressions protected by the First Amendment. 

Cosby said some examples of negative effects from adult businesses are an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, crime and general blight. 

“That’s why you can regulate them,” Cosby said. “That’s why you can restrict them, and there’s no infringement.”

40854What he’s citing here is the secondary effects doctrine which “formally holds that a speech regulation will be treated as content-neutral if its purpose is to control the secondary effects of speech, even if it facially discriminates according to speech content.”

In other words, it’s okay to regulate something that the Constitution specifically says shouldn’t be regulated, as long as you’re just trying to stop some peripheral bad things that result from not regulating it.

Well that makes perfect sense to me. The health and well-being of our citizens should be first and foremost in the minds of legislators and others who consider the imposition of restrictions upon our daily activities, including the viewing of big brown eyes by eyes of any color. That’s probably why the zoning ordinance guide for Mojave County—the county where Bullets & Burgers gun range is located—contains the word “sexually” 41 times while making not a single mention of “gun,” “guns,” “weapon,” “weapons,” or “shooting.”

There are, among other things, sections governing each of the following:

  • Off Street Parking Standards
  • Manufactured Home Requirements
  • Establishment of Retail Plant Nurseries
  • Establishment of a Kennel or Veterinary Clinic
  • Child Care Facilities
  • Garage/Yard Sale – General Provisions
  • Sexually Oriented Businesses (emphasis addded)

Regarding that last category, the Mojave County Planning & Zoning Department seems to have two primary concerns. First, they seek to establish a safe distance from schools, churches and parks:

2ea6428334b5c314d1d695048fb32834No person shall cause or permit the establishment of any sexually oriented businesses, as defined above, within 1,000 feet of another such business or within 1,000 feet of any religious institution, school, boys’ club, girls’ club, or similar existing youth organization, or public park or public building, or within 1,000 feet of any property zoned for residential use or used for residential purposes…

Also, there is an issue so important that it has earned its own subheading: “Regulations Pertaining to Exhibition of Sexually Explicit Films or Videos in Video Booths.” This section covers business which exhibit “in a veiling room of less than 150 square feet of floor space, a film, video cassette or other video production which depicts specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas.” Just to further clarify, some definitions are contained in the same document:

26. “Specific anatomical areas” means any of the following: 

a. A human anus, genitals, pubic region or a female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola that is less than completely and opaquely covered.

b. Male genitals in a discernibly turgid state even if completely and opaquely covered.

27. “Specific sexual activities” means any of the following:

a. Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal. 

b. Sex acts, normal or perverted, actual or stimulated, including acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse, oral copulation or sodomy. 

c. Fondling or other erotic touching of the human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, anus or female breast. 

d. Excretory functions as a part of or in connection with any of the activities under subdivision a, b or c of this paragraph. 

Oh, also:

d. The premises shall be equipped with overhead lighting fixtures of sufficient intensity to illuminate every place to which patrons are permitted access and an illumination of not less than two foot candle as measured at the floor level. 

So, as you can see, some of the great minds in Mojave County (which has some of the most permissive gun laws in the nation) have really put quite a bit of thought into the question of where and how people should be allowed to look at totally titanic titties.

And they are not alone. Laws governing sexually oriented business are on the books all across the land because, you know…guns don’t kill people, glistening globular glands kill people. Where would we be, what kind of nation would we be living in if, at any time of the day or night, a grown man or woman could walk into an establishment where massive malleable mammaroonies are flying freely through manufactured smoke and strobe lighting?

The Constitution of the United States of America does not carve out a specific right to  display or view lovely jubbly wubblies because surely the Almighty Lord God of the Blood of the Lamb did not create mouthwatering milkshake meat muffins in his own image simply so that any Tom, Dick or Harry could see them any time he wants—whereas he clearly wants any Tom, Dick or Harry to have unfettered access to deadly pieces of steel that launch projectiles designed to tear apart the very same flesh and bone those pretty pink-nosed puppies are made of.

Leave a Comment