Child-Internet-Safety-Software and other false comforts.

"Do you have child internet safety software on your computer? If you do, just what are you thinking?"

Back in the day, when I ran what many would call a "porn site," I refused on principle to put up links to net-nanny, cyber-sitter and other such spyware. Why? I checked them out. Net-nanny was set up to censor "Liberal" links, such as the National Organization of Women, not just "adult material." My notice was "protected by the human brain" and instead of "Adult Material," I labeled it as being "for grownups." I'm going to check these folks out. I smell a far more substantial story.

(Later)... no. Simply a variation of the old "Internet, Threat or Menace" idea, with some good ideas that are essentially aimed at making parental panic responses more effective and to suggest (accurately) that if one is paranoid about one's kid's safety, reliance on such tools is a foolish delusion.

Our resources will help you to stop the criminals. We’ll show you how to thwart sexual predators cold in their tracks. We can also help you stay in front of the problem. And, the problem cannot be overstated. According to a study released in 2002 by the National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrown-away Children (NISMART II), an estimated 6 children per hour are abducted by a non-family member. In approximately 50% of these cases, the children are sexually assaulted. By the time children are 18, the surveys indicate that as many as one in eight boys and one in five girls will have been sexually abused.

This makes every child a potential target for sexual predators. This could make your child an unwitting target, too. Don’t let that happen!

Sexual predators are on our streets, in our neighborhoods and at our schools. Not only are they there, they are an ever growing danger on the Internet.

Be prepared and take charge of you child’s safety. Take ACTION!

Ok, like all the best "call to action" types of appeals, these assertions are at least somewhat true - although the data of surveys about sexual abuse percentages have been called into question.

You see, it really helps the statistics if you count all sexual encounters before the age of 18 regardless of consent and regardless of who initiated what. I'm not saying that this added pile is not a problem - but it's quite a different problem. Actually, it's several different issues, each one requiring it's own specific response. It's distinctly useless to treat them all as the same "crime," inasmuch as that any reasonable assessment causes one to put the quotes around the term, for clearly, in many particular cases, that is an arbitrary distinction.

And that's damn dangerous, because there are other things in the same pile that are treated as being the exact same crime that are inarguably criminal. Expanding the pile to include things that are criminal only because they offend taboos rather than cause provable harm trivializes the actual harm done by real criminals and gains them apologists.

Years and years ago, as I was trying to make sense of that pile of festering crap I laughingly refer to as my "childhood," I took a side trip into trying to comprehend pedophelia and sexual predation. I read both sides of the issue. I have to say, honestly, that it's hard to tell exactly which perspective is more delusional, but one statistic - presented by the "hang 'em high" crowd - struck me hard enough to leave a permanent mark.

I found a citation that restated it with higher numbers and in even more alarming terms:

The second classification of sexual offender is defined as a preferential child molester. These offenders have a sexual preference for children and usually maintain these desires throughout their lives. Preferential child molesters can have an astounding number of victims and these crimes can remain undiscovered for many years. In 1995, a child molestation case in Texas caused a national uproar when the suspect was due to be released from prison after serving a six-year sentence for the rape of a 6year-old boy. He told the police that he got away with abusing over 240 children before getting caught for molesting a single child and if released, would do it again⁽⁴⁾. One long-term study of hundreds of sex offenders found that the pedophile child molester committed an average of 281 acts with 150 partners.

For the moment, let us take the sexual aspect out of it. Indeed, let us take the underage aspect out of it, and remember that in order to have a sexual encounter, first there must be a relationship and trust, because that is how this particular sort of person operates - by non-violent seduction.

You might think that would be easier with someone underage - and if we are speaking of those under the age of, oh, say, six, that may well be true. Nonetheless, that is a relative statement.

I've been involved in the raising of children, and it would be foolish indeed for anyone to think that a trusting relationship with a child is something that can be assumed.

So, let us look at it from the perspective of sheer numbers. 150 partners. On average. In the particular case cited, 240, before a misstep or mistake that caused discovery. Let us assume that this was in fact due to the "victim" feeling they had been factually abused.

I wonder just how many ordinary heterosexuals who are sexually attracted to persons within their own age cohort could manage a statistic better than one out of three.

So, let us put aside for the moment what the pedophile is doing wrong. Take that as a given - especially since the particular person was self-aware enough to inform society that he could not be trusted and would offend again. A person, obviously, of genuine conscience and who obviously must care for children, a trait that is obviously key to their better-than-average statistics and who is aware that their nature is absolute conflict with an outcome they must strongly believe in. Consider that genuine criminals tend to lie to the parole board about such matters.

In order to achieve a sexual goal, he had to do a tremendous lot of right in order to even get into talking distance of "wrong." I don't want him running around loose - but I do damn well want him available as a resource. I want him to be able to expiate his sins, if you will, by telling us what he did to make children feel cared for and loved. Because, folks, that is what it takes, not just to exploit a child, but to raise a child so that they become solid and sane members of society. And in that regard, a child is harder to delude than many adults.

The implication that certain pedophiles may well be making a net contribution to society is not to be taken as approval. The fact that parasites infect the body politic, and that more successful parasites are to a degree benign or somewhat commensal is immaterial.

The parasite is not the problem. Indeed, it's pointless to even BLAME the parasite. The problem is that there is a niche that a parasite can adapt themselves to fit. To the extent that they fill that niche by doing something that the family or culture cannot or will not do, than the net ethical equation is that the parasite is being permitted to exist as an alternate to society or family dealing with it's issues. You see, if you blame the parasite for exploiting a niche that actually needs to be filled in order for family or society to function - the net result will simply be a succession of successfully better adapted tapeworms who are more successful at controlling the family or the social matrix toward the end of maintaining their comfortable existence.

As would you, I might add.

Now, let me refer to a few things that I learned along the way, both from offenders and survivors. And let me underline something - this sort of person is the sort that many survivors refer to as "their favorite perp.¹"



Indeed, and this is a wildly conditional statement, made up of a number of different inputs, but, that particular "perp" was the one that definitely made a difference toward the positive in their survival.

Tragically, many children and indeed, many adults these days, are so conditioned that they cannot actually trust a relationship unless they are exploited to a degree that permits them to believe they are of a minimum absolute value to another person. That is to see, they see themselves as being primarily sexual objects as the foundation of their entire self-worth.

In this context, a "good perp" is one who made contributions to a level of self-worth beyond sexual availability.

But it could be worse. At least they have the minimum self-worth required in order to survive and perhaps grow. Those who's self-worth is crushed usually find some awkward and messy way to die, often taking others with them.

There are many personal profiles on Yahoo and other services that would underline this with used brainfloss, but aside from being NSFW, I feel it's my job to floss my brain so you don't have to. :P

Let me put this as bluntly as I can. I'm afraid that in a certain dark and tragic way, those survivors who were victimized in this particular way by the sort of person we are speaking of were lucky.

Which leads me back to the selection criteria of such pedophiles. Getting into the head of a pedophile requires that you read their verbal dribblings, and I did just enough of it to feel a genuine sad caring for the poor bastards - while simultaneously wishing to scrub myself with bleach. But at some level, I had to admit that there was an extent to which that reaction was the result of considering and listening to soemething that violated one of the strongest social taboos we have. Well, actually, it's several, but let us not overly complexity this.

The bottom line is that the majority of molesters were molested themselves in ways that arrested their own personal development, and there is very likely a further required inherent sexual orientation required to overcome common-sense aversion to risking everything for satisfactions that could be had safely and cheaply in other ways, if those were in any way at all acceptable.

They cannot be cured, any more than you can "cure" a homosexual. But as I said, it's obviously a complex of predisposition and experience. The experience itself is something that IS within our ability to control, to preclude if possible, and if not entirely possible, it's certainly possible to create an ethical context in which the child will grow into a person who will not damage other persons regardless of their own missteps.

Sexual predators are no different than any other sort of predator. Ultimately, successful predators exploit weakness, opportunity and the ignorance of their victims. Ask any rabbit that reaches adulthood how that works.

The fact that so much predation exists and the consequences so widespread among the population should of course alarm and concern us, but not in the ways we are told we should be concerned and alarmed by the ramshackle taboo system we laughingly refer to as "western morality."

You see, a moral system - in order to work at all - is first ethical, and based on real information about real persons, not dogmatic presumptions about human sexuality that are not just presumably, but provably untrue.

It should fairly easy and reasonable to follow a well-designed moral code and the benefits for doing so should be obvious to both the practitioner and all who see. It should definitely NOT be in conflict with the existing social matrix or require certain false-to-fact assumptions in order for it to function, since if it's advice is otherwise worth following, it can be completely disrupted by a follower learning that a basic foundation of it is provably untrue.

Trust me, this can lead to the Uncharted Swamps of Suck. The pun is intended - but not as the primary message. That is to say, not only does the result suck - but as the joke goes, not particularly WELL, either.

Most importantly, in order to be effectively protected from a predator, one must know what a predator looks like, what they smell like, their likely strategies and tactics and what techniques one can use to avoid being prey. There is absolutely no way to achieve this end while at the same time requiring that the "prey" be kept ignorant of the very existence of wolves.

Indeed, it's rather obvious to me that our current assumptions about the appropriateness of speaking about, much less teaching appropriate sexuality is so much to the advantage of sexual predators that it's wise to assume that any advice that relies upon conventional morality and assumptions of the workability of "Traditional Family Values" is questionable at best, almost certainly dangerously irrelevant to actual situations, and - frankly - designed and spread with exactly that in mind. It will work for some; perhaps many - but it will predictably create, isolate and make vulnerable enough victims to keep the predators fed, while keeping the vast majority ignorant of the true nature of the problem.

I believe that to be a problem that must be addressed. I'd underline this with strong language, but frankly, I cannot think of language strong enough. Suffice it to say that when "moral" conduct leads directly and predictably to the lifelong harm and misery of a large segment of the population, the word for it is not "Morality." "Evil" is a much more appropriate word... though again, not nearly strong enough from the perspective of myself and others who have been considered to be the disposable price of a proper sense of vigilant propriety.

That morality has an underlying foundation of fear and hatred and in order to function at all, requires it's adherents to become numb to the consequences on actual persons of applying and enforcing broad, rigid, authoritarian principles. All persons who are unable to function within it's narrow strictures are defined as disposable, while those capable of adhering to it's appearances while exploiting those within or without are not even identified as problematic. Morality, in these United States, has become almost entirely an exercise in visible propriety that need have no genuine meaning beyond "not getting caught."

One should not ask, "how did Ted Haggard get away with it so long?" The question is, how could such a person, who's very taste in church art, rhetoric, teachings and mannerisms should have been ringing alarm bells among the discerning have actually passed the first interview, or even graduated from divinity school, should he actually have any such training.

My personal opinion is that there is no longer any place for persons of discernment and conscious, deliberate ethical concern in either church or politics anywhere east of Center, and has not been for some long time.

The fact that the powerful among church and state have clearly ordered things to allow them to indulge the vile habits in private that they condemn in public to be more than enough reason to personally implement a change. Alas, the usual reaction is to deny in the face of manifold and obvious horrors that any such thing could possibly be true.

Yes, I do mean you. Stop expecting other people to live up to standards you expect on your behalf. Set high standards for yourself, live up to them, and set a good example - or, frankly, you are damned.

To quote Christopher Marlowe's "Dr. Faustus," "Why, this IS hell, nor am I out of it."

1 - I'm choosing to be a complete and utter bastard and make you search through Ghostwolf's story to find the precise reference. Frankly, the reference won't make a whole hell of a lot of sense until you get a sense of the alternatives.

You will be tempted to say "that couldn't happen today." Yes it does. Check Google News "Child Sexual Abuse" and note the dates.

You will be tempted to say "It couldn't happen in my town." If your town has more than ten thousand, it certainly does - and there are probably several instances on record. Ask a social worker. Be prepared to buy them a drink, though and offer a shoulder. NOBODY gets paid enough to deal with this crap.

Justice Department anti-porn regulations empower exploitation of women.

I've found over the years that keeping an eye on the porn business keeps me ahead of the game in many ways - I note social trends, I find out cutting edge web techniques - and there are stories to be had in the Naked City.

This one could be titled What Part of "World Wide Web" did you not understand, John Ashcroft?

It's now official. We have managed to outsource our porn. And in doing so - for all the "right" reasons - we have managed to return to the bad old days, when porn's ulterior motive was, amoung other things, the reinforcement of certain rather toxic social ideals we Americans seem to cherish. Or rather, the sort of cynical elites who see these social stereotypes as being very useful indeed.

The text below is a signifier of a great pile of compliance issues - the greatest of which is the legal requirement to maintain very explicit records on all models for as long as the images exist on your servers - or are leased to others. It's not difficult to imagine that many potential models might not wish to provide such explicit information - which includes a requirement for photo ID, and a requirement that there be an actual live person "on site" to provide access for inspection, which may occur at any time with no notice.

Perhaps a more benevolent government might be trusted with such information, but our current lords and masters never seem to use the process of law save to abuse it. Odd, don't you think, that this has the effect of making all amateur, not-for profit productions illegal? It's not an issue for industrial-scale porn-producers, though renting and staffing a separate compliance office is an annoyance, it's not crippling.

But then, large producers can be relied on to donate money to conservative political causes, put conservative politicians in contact with people they don't want their constituents - or spouses - to learn of. Meanwhile, domestic mainstream porn can be relied upon to uphold (by contrasting, negative example) stereotypical "family values" perceptions of sexuality and women.

That is to say, that they are all potential sluts and whores who must be carefully conditioned from birth to repress all sexual desire or expectation of any non-reproductively oriented satisfaction. And in porn oriented to that perspective - whores are no different. They just don't say "no" to men who DO want some non-reproductively oriented satisfaction.
Now, I'm not a feminist and I don't do feminist critiques of "mainstream" via "empowered" porn. A lot of feminists would chase me with torches made of vintage boned undergarments soaked in nail-polish remover for such arrogance.

Nonetheless, there was a tremendous renance in the exploration of sexuality, ethics and consequences - and it was disproportionately led by powerful women with powerful ideas about their "proper place." That "proper place" was not exclusively the missionary position - and they made it clear that they were throwing the catholic guilt and prodestant shame away with all male-designed undergarments and feminine hygene products. Furthermore they established the idea that women had the right to some basic consideration within the sexual dynamic. And orgasms. They made the word "orgasm" respectable - and expectable.

Now, this is a perfectly ordinary "webcam" site, and the nature of the technology is such that "coercing" people to play for pay is quite unnecessary; By the nature of the mechanism, it takes a lot more co-operation than your ordinary photo shoot with a lot less opportunity for coercion.

Oh, coercion may exist, but that's not within the power of the site, nor is it something record-keeping provisions will either prevent or allow anyone to easily detect.

LiveGirlBabe.com - Welcome to the World of Babes - Live Nude Video Chat:

18 U.S.C. Compliance

All persons who appear in any visual depiction contained in LiveGirlBabe web properties, including but not limited to LiveGirlBabe.com were/are eighteen years of age or older at the time of the creation of such depictions. The records required by Section 2257 of Title 18 of the United States Code and associated regulations with respect to visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct are kept by the custodian of records listed below. LiveGirlBabe hereby certifies to all subscribers, webmasters, distributors and other related commercial entities that the aforesaid materials are in full compliance with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257 and associated regulations.

Producer Name: LiveGirlBabe.com
Custodian of Records Information: LiveGirlBabe

Drobnera #8

Wroclaw, Poland, 50-950

Now, you might well be tempted to shrug and question why this is significant. Well, there are many reasons why it's very significant, but of course, the most important one from a domestic perspective is this; it's a matter of serious concern when ANY multi-billion dollar industry pulls up stakes and goes offshore. All that lovely tax revenue goes with it.

As for compliance - well, it's hard to say what you would find at Drobnera #8. I imagine there would be very sincere seeming records, with photocopies of very sincere-looking identification cards. I doubt very, very much if local authorities would be willing to back up the FBI in verifying them, since validating the manifest insanity of a declining world power is not high on any cop's agenda, especially when they have real crimes to investigate.

And besides, there is an even darker and uglier truth. Eastern Europe is now a hotbed of human trafficing. So, again, on a least harm basis, to the extent that the police are trying to control the trade at all, they could probably care less about those who have legal businesses with voluntary models. And if they are NOT voluntary, there's not much reason to believe the records will lead anywhere useful. But watching the streams themselves might well lead investigators right to where real victims are.

Forensic video techniques can be quite impressive, and a photo or video stream is what is referred to in the law-enforcement industry as "evidence."

Anyway, like most Bush Administration initiatives, the "anti-porn" crusade made sense from a certain, narrow, privlidged and moralistic perspective - if you were completely ignorant of the realities of the industry, the people in it and the social implications of pornography, with the additional requirement that one very carefully not even think about the ethical and social implications of trying to crush an entire industry and destroy the livlihood of hundreds of thousands of people who are not heavily invested in the status quo ante the effort is intended to reinforce.

But the real reason - just like the earlier efforts against child porn - is not what is said on television or written in Reader's Digest. It's nice that some tragedies are prevented and some children rescued, but if that were the goal it would make sense for the penalties for the crimes involving human beings to be greater than those involving pixils and film - but in both cases, the target is not those who may be committing the crimes, but those publishing and exchanging the evidence of the crime.

Odd, that. Unless it's not an act, but an idea that is being targeted.

The idea that sexuality is innate to humanity, that it is not the manifestation of that most pernicious doctrine of "original sin" and that ignorance of one's own sexual nature and needs is a blessing of some sort is the idea under attack. Bluntly, it's the idea that human beings have many sexual identities and an even wider range of choices to make regarding them, and that there is more than one responsible choice; moreover, that for many people, heterosexual marriage is possibly the most irresponsible and injurious choice they could make.

Some people are not heterosexual, some are not monogamous, some are unfit for much human company at all. Some folks have overpowering sex drives, others have little to none; in all cases, trying to be what you are not in order to comply with "appearances" and social expectations can lead to great harm to oneself and to others. Indeed, sexual morality in the west is one of the most conspicuous examples of how a system of morality can evolve away from any consideration of ethical behavior, creating double binds and harmful situations by definition if it's rigidly followed and enforced.

This is especially true in cases where "moral" behavior is imposed on other people by force. Personally, I see no difference between being forced to be forced to be good and being forced to be bad. Either way, it's the force that is the evil, not what one is forced to do.

And if you are "being good" in public because that's what's expected and you fear the consequences of an especially "wide stance," - that's of no great spiritual benefit. Since you are only "being good" for the sake of appearences, it's not much of a guide for you when nobody is looking.

Just do an engine search for "Republican Pedophiles" and "Republican Sex Crimes" if you doubt me on that one.

Put on your clenched acceptance face, we're going to Sorrytown!"

Ah, John Stewart, the master of the throwaway one-liner:

"I'm not a fan of personal vendetta gotcha-style politics," said Jon Stewart on Tuesday's Daily Show. "But there can be exceptions. Take Louisiana Senator David Vitter ... who came to prominence in the 90's demanding President Clinton's impeachment for the Monica Lewinsky affair. Well, it seems the condom is on the other foot."

"Last week, Vitter became the highest profile john implicated in the DC Madam scandal-gate," Stewart explained. "Kind of reminds you of the old saying, 'The only thing I trust less than a Louisiana senator sleeping with a hooker is one that isn't.'"

The video can also be found here.

Now, I of course would never stoop to mere "gotcha" blog entries either. (What, Never? Well, Hardly Ever..).

In this particular case, I think this is a remarkably apt insight into what Republican values actually are. That is to say, you can pretty much assume that whatever public stance they take will be taken purely for personal political advantage and will have little or nothing to do with personal values or conviction. It's kinda like the Catholic Church in that way. How many folks out there still think it's a good idea to leave their child alone with the parish Priest?

Well, folks, that goes for anyone who seeks a position of unquestionable moral authority and access to either your children, your vote or your wallet.

While that observation may well be true of political figures in general, Republicans in particular have been particularly active in trying to demonize, regulate and restrict YOUR libido, YOUR sexual practices, Your definition of family, and indeed, your reproductive choices, while undermining your right to privacy and your right to access information without trace or record. I don't see very many examples of Republicans living by the values they espouse - so to speak. On the contrary.

So perhaps all these protestation of high moral standing are mere pretexts and postures, not just in exceptional cases, but in general.

Any large group of people will have a few bad apples, a few "isolated incidents." But these are NOT "just a few" and they all share something similar; the overwhelming majority of these sexual crimes involve practicing the opposite of what they preached. That is to say, they violated the law purposefully and deliberately, and in the way that was most vile on the basis of their own public standards to demonstrate to themselves and to one another that they were above that law and could get away with violating it. Indeed, there seems to be the perverse drive to enact laws for the purpose of violating them!

Another disturbing theme of near equal weight is a consistent pattern of abuse - sexual abuse, domestic abuse, and the abuse of power in general - toward those who cannot fight back.

Here's a particularly odious example of such an authoritarian circle-jerk.

Don Haidl, Assistant Sheriff of Orange Country, in violation of California's rape shield law, led a smear campaign against the child his son poisoned and then violently gang-raped on videotape, adding up to 24 felony counts. He said that his son "acted accordingly" because the child was a "slut". The full gruesome story, with many newspaper articles.

And here's one that just reeks of depraved irony:

Earl Kimmerling, from Indiana, sentenced to 40 years in prison after he confessed to molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her. Anderson, IN, Mayor Mark Lawler and Republican State Reps. Jack Lutz of Anderson, IN, and Woody Burton of Greenwood, IN, supported him. Source

Then there's the largest and highest reaching sex abuse scandal ever, probably in any nation, since roman times - and you have probably never heard of it. Read it and be amazed by The Franklin Credit Union Child-Sex Ring Scandal.

This sort of thing isn't anything new, in other words; it's actually part of long established Republican political culture. The blackmail operations detailed in the link above may well partially explain the spineless behavior of our current Congress's Democratic majority, and I'm SURE it explains the "dead-ender" behavior of a great many Republicans who can't be so politically tone-deaf as to think the President's lame-duck agendas in any way serve the cause of their own re-election to orifice office. Blackmail is about the only thing that could explain such a sudden and inexplicable altruism on the part of those who's focus has been squarely upon th main chance up to now.

What we need to do is to purge all levels of government of corruption, and we also need to send - as a nation of outraged and unforgiving Citizen-activists - a resounding message. Remember that the Republican majority came out of the so called "Republican Revolution" pledged to END corruption and cronyism - and has turned out to be more than willing to wallow in a system as corrupt and lawless as any Byzantine court and indulging in graft on a level that would embarrass Tammany Hall.

So, if you are a Republican - repent! Register as an Independent, or a Constitution party member. Get your name off their sucker list. This is especially true if you have ever been a "values voter." These are the values your votes supported. So either repudiate the party for it's lack of interest in values when it might affect a Republican in power, or consider yourself complicit in all the crimes that have been committed in the name of pure, unchecked and unaccountable power. Because that's the way ethics works - you are accountable for the choices you make and the messes you contribute to.

As for myself, I'm a registered Libertarian. I have no illusions that it's a party composed of inherently better people - but it is a party of strong essential principles that may work against the accumulation of personal power for a time. It's not a party that attracts as many authoritarians and opportunists, and it will take those folks some time to figure out how to subvert it to their own ends.

Likewise, I'm going to make a choice about where my money goes. My money is going, in terms of consumer goods, toward companies that do not support the Republican cause. Likewise, I will not enter any place of business that has a fish by the door - a device almost exclusively used by Religious Conservatives, unless I see something in the window that indicates they are opposed to the moral choices this government and this party have made.

What can you do?

You can spread this around. You can digg it up, stumble it, email it to your fundy family members. You can blog about it, create fliers to stick in your church's brochure box, you can wear a t-shirt or put a poster in your store window. You can talk to strangers at bus-stops. You can call in to talk radio. Hell, you can slip Air America a few bucks. Grab your video camera and vlog it onto YouTube and Google Video.

I'll tart this post up later with links to the most vicious and apt t-shirts, bumper stickers and any particularly useful and usable photos and graphics I can find.

Together, we can change the world. As long as enough good people refuse to stand by as evil is done, we cannot help but do so.

Beware the Jelllyfish of Doom!

Following up What if they grew teeth: I created this gallery at Zazzle so I could have an image to go with the post. I mean, face it, it needs illustration!

You're in Today's Best!

Hi rapexsa,

view product promote online share by email

Congratulations! Your product, Beware the Jellyfish of Doom!, has been selected as one of Today's Best on Zazzle! This means it will appear on the Zazzle homepage for the rest of today and it will also be added to the Todays Best Awards Showcase. Keep up the great work! Bask. Glow. The honor is yours to enjoy. -Zazzle

Well, this morning I was inspired by the schaudenfreud of it all, thinking about the excuses men willl make to explain their new "track marks" to loved ones after returning from the ER in Joberg. And I'd already been struck by it's appearance - frankly, it looks a lot like a jellyfish. So I started playing, and I got a today's best!

I don't know if you can read the tentacles, but here's what they say:

Really, darling, It's true! I was bitten by a jellyfish! Why don't you believe I was bitten by a jellyfish?

tag: zazzle, bob king, rapex, jellyfish of doom

What If They Grew Teeth?

"If only I had teeth down there"
- the words of a rape victim which inspired this device.

The First Post : Rapex: the internal anti-rape device

The words of a rape victim - "If only I had teeth down there" - have inspired the design of a new anti-rape device.

Rapex - dubbed the 'rape trap' - is a product worn internally by women. The hollow inside is lined with rows of razor-sharp hooks, which are designed to latch on to a rapist's penis during penetration. They can only be removed by a doctor.

The product will be on the shelves of South African chemists and supermarkets later this month. South African mother-of-two Sonette Ehlers developed the original prototype in 2005 but has struggled to get it patented and approved for sale, not least because of staunch opposition from feminist groups.

I don't know what is so "anti-feminist" about this little latex jellyfish of doom. It's certainly "unfeminine" from a dead white male perspective - anything or any action that squarely prevents or forestalls sexual intercourse and which is at the discretion of the female is "unfeminine" in a classical European sense. Women are supposed to depend upon the discretion and good will of Gentlemen who will protect them, their reputations and their genetic legacy.

I consider myself a gentleman - and I consider the above to be insulting; not just to women, but damned presumptuous in general. I'm a gentleman, but wasn't put on the earth to waste my time protecting the unprotected against their own urges and desires.

The presumption that a woman cannot or should not take her own personal steps to control her own sexuality, or even prevent a rape is a pretty stunningly patriarchal view. For anyone to suggest that a woman should not have the choice to "bite back" strikes me as absurd. Yes, men should be gentlemen, and for those that are, such a defense need never be an issue of offense - it is, after all, not intended as a defense against gentlemen.

As a gentleman - and gentle person - I have a view toward those who presume the right to casually violate the boundaries and persons of others that can be summed up in two words: "Potential Compost."

Please notice that aside from painfully interrupting the rape, it's a rape-kit in itself. It must be removed by a doctor, it will have DNA from both persons - in the form of an entire penis and body in the perps case, and epithelial cells from the female.

And the only way to get bitten is to stick your shlong where it don't belong!

One great problem with the current views of sexuality is that nobody seems to respect the idea that individuals have the right to make choices, and that those choices are based on individual needs and desires. "The good of society" has certainly never crossed MY mind at the time!

But the idea that I advocate; the right of individuals to say yes to sexual encounters - is meaningless without the right to say "NO" and make it stick.

Current religious morality states that all sexual activity of any sort, with anyone is wrong, unless "permission" is obtained in the form of a marriage contract, and then it's wrong to refuse to have sex. Note that in socially conservative, religious families it's still not unheard of to arrange marriages or pressure children into marriage. In my mind, this is non-consensual sex; rape by proxy.

Rape is a crime of power that happens to be sexual in expression. This little device is a way of responding to that abuse of power in a way that is symbolically and directly significant.

While it would be nice if all men were civilized and ethical in the use of power, that's not a reasonable expectation. Hell, it's not reasonable to expect such perfection of women, either. So a feminism that depends on people behaving as they "should" isn't very useful. Hell, any 'ism' that has no useful answers for individuals under non-ideal social circumstances is useless - no, worse than that; it's directly dangerous to those who rely upon it.

There are risks to a woman who chooses to live outside of patriarchal definitions of her role, there will be both men and women who will oppose that choice, up to and beyond violence in some cases. Nobody should ever think that the excercise of individual liberty is a "safe" choice; they should consider each choice mindfully, with the understanding that there is no mommy or daddy figure to protect one from the consequences of one's own actions.

There are a lot of ways of describing that state, from various perspectives. Me, I refer to it as "being a grown-up." And I see patriarchal societies as being a means of either preventing or at least allowing most people to avoid that dreaded state of individual responsibility for the consequences of one's own actions and choices.

Now, one consequence of being a woman who does not choose to live under the protection of a man is the possibility that some sick fuck will see you as being "legitimate prey," possibly even seeing you as "a whore" because you choose who to have sex with. Oddly, some men will see you this way even if your choice of sexual activity is "no, thank you." I don't presume to understand that, any more than I presume to understand women who get all squishy at being seen and treated as a whore, whether or not they really are.

But I do recognize them as being real people with real desires. that I am aware of to the extent that they may affect me and my own interests. For me, at my age, my main risk is having some dear young thing try to hump my leg. For men, unwanted sexual advances are pretty much just awkward, unless they are accosted by another, stronger male. For women, it's a much more visceral threat and has to be considered in that light.

So to sum this up - not only do I approve of this idea, but I approve enough to help get it kickstarted. RapeX and Rapestop.net appear to have a budget of three stale cheese sandwiches and a box of bent staples. It's the only apparently commercial site I've ever seen that asks for donations!

But remember, this is a product that was inspired by the conditions for poor women in South Africa, designed and brought to market by a South African. Now, that's not to say, "well, gee, that's amazing" - but it is a recognition that they need some help marketing this so that the price can be low enough for all women who feel the need to use them can afford them. Maybe some first world hard currency can serve as enough to help - or maybe the exposure of the idea will invite venture capital.

And, just incidentally - I'd kinda like to see these available in MY corner drug store - if for no other reason than to see Focus on the Family scramble to figure out what the hell their official position should be!

Anyhoo, I've created a bunch of products to help promote the idea. Money will go to the firm, with a split for me, as soon as I have a way of getting it there. Until then, it piles up. Please use this as a way of creating blog graphics for your site, for creating products for events, or in other ways that rapestop.net may suggest.


create & buy custom products at Zazzle

Graphic Credits : RapeX Condom graphic courtesy Rapestop.net
YES means YES and No Means CHOMP! by rapexsa, the RapeX Promotional Gallery

tag: rapex, anti-rape condom, South Africa, rape, patriarchy, feminism, individual freedom, crime of power, Sonette Ehlers

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

This will come as no surprise to anyone who ever lived in the Tenderloin...

elephant,
by
Gay_Art

Get this custom shirt at Zazzle

BARBARA'S TCHATZKAHS : Bizarre Sex Habits of The Extreme Right-Wing

It's pretty much a truism that folks project upon others the behaviors and "sins" they are most guilty of.

In 2005, anti-abortion extremist Neal Horsley was a guest on The Alan Colmes Show, a FOX News radio program. The topic was an interesting one - whether or not an internet service provider should allow Horsley to post the names of abortion doctors on his website. Horsley does that as a way of targeting them and one doctor has been killed. In the course of the interview, however, Colmes asked Horsley about his background, including a statement that he had admitted to engaging in homosexual and bestiality.

At first, Horsley laughed and said,

"Just because it's printed in the media, people jump to believe it."

"Is it true?" Colmes asked.

"Hey, Alan, if you want to accuse me of having sex when I was a fool, I did everything that crossed my mind that looked like I..."

AC: "You had sex with animals?"

NH: "Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule."

AC: "I'm not so sure that that is so."

NH: "You didn't grow up on a farm in Georgia, did you?"

AC: "Are you suggesting that everybody who grows up on a farm in Georgia has a mule as a girlfriend?"

NH: It has historically been the case. You people are so far removed from the reality... Welcome to domestic life on the farm..."

Colmes said he thought there were a lot of people in the audience who grew up on farms, are living on farms now, raising kids on farms and "and I don't think they are dating Elsie right now. You know what I'm saying?"

Horsley said, "You experiment with anything that moves when you are growing up sexually. You're naive. You know better than that... If it's warm and it's damp and it vibrates you might in fact have sex with it."

Um. No, not actually. I speak from experience, having grown up on a farm, though not in Georgia. Fact is, some of us actually think that the being possessing the warm damp parts has some say in the matter. Furthermore, there are actually penis bearing organisms - such as myself - that find anything less than enthusiastic co-operation to be rather revolting and repellent. Even at a "foolish" age.

And come to think of it, I didn't know of or even have reason to suspect such a thing of any of my neighbors, who, if not inherently morally superior, considered masturbation to be far more sensible from a risk-benefit perspective. 1200 pounds of hooves and teeth take a lot of convincing. I suspect he had some help from his Daddy or big brother. I mean, where do you even get such an idea in the first place?

Of course, nothing has actually changed for Horsely. He is still fucking people non-consensually. He's just abstracted and sublimated the essential disrespect for the will and consent of others and made it seem respectable. That way, metaphorically, but obviously significantly, he gets laid more often. Oh, and as he gets paid for it...

For extra credit - two google searches:

Republican Sex Offenders (Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 1,200,000 for Republican Sex Offenders.)

Republican Pedophiles (Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 406,000 for Republican Pedophiles.)

My dear wingers; we have met your enemy and it was you. Furthermore, you look ridiculous in drag.

tag: Neal Horsley, Bizarre Sex Habits, Republicans, Anti-Abortion Activists, Sexual Sins, Christianism, Moralality, Sublimation, Right-Wing Hypocrites

How stupid do you have to be...

...to be a paid conservative columnist at Townhall.com?

THIS stupid.

Tim Hardaway (and most of his former NBA teammates) wouldn’t welcome openly gay players into the locker room any more than they’d welcome profoundly unattractive, morbidly obese women. I specify unattractive females because if a young lady is attractive (or, even better, downright “hot”) most guys, very much including the notorious love machines of the National Basketball Association, would probably welcome her joining their showers. The ill-favored, grossly overweight female is the right counterpart to a gay male because, like the homosexual, she causes discomfort due to the fact that attraction can only operate in one direction. She might well feel drawn to the straight guys with whom she’s grouped, while they feel downright repulsed at the very idea of sex with her.

There are, of course, NO "ill-favored, grossly overweight" Republican women. At least, not after the DMV opens again on Monday.

All your fat chicks belong to US, Medved!

What sort of amazing, delusional universe do you have to belong to in which this explaination of homophobia would make everyone shrug and say, "oh, well, that's ok then."

Lest I be accused of using "fair use" to distort his overall point - such as it is - I challenge you to read the whole thing without squicking on some level.

The following material is satire. It's sad that it has to be said, but we are occasionally read by those who honestly believe they ARE right because they are Right.

Medved reveals that a certain sort of "social conservatism" is more pathology than policy by, essentially, opening up his personal skull to show us the maggots infesting the necrotic tissue that used to be his brain.

He's proud of their manly tumescence, you see. And he just can't imagine what sort of irrational Scoleciphobic could object to him crooning to the few strays lounging on his pillow in the morning.

Shudder! Liberals allege that some people are born with maggots for brains, but this sort of disgusting behavior is a choice! To choose to celebrate such an unfortunate pathology as a lifestyle, to pick one's nose and hand wiggly examples proudly to horrified friends and colleagues - that is a violation of All Normal Family Behaviors. For the Sake of the Children, this cannot be permitted.

I say we worm him. Worm him NOW! And I'm not afraid to be accused of being "politically incorrect," or even "indulging in hate speech" for saying it, because I know people like Medved hate all those who tell the truth about their deviant maggoty nose-picking fetish.


Hat tip to Spocko via Echidne.

tag: Clash of Cultures, homophobia, Michael Medved, Tim Hardaway

The Law's fixation upon Ass.

Erotic Truth: From the mentality that gave us "don't ask, don't tell."

Teacher arrested under peeping-tom law - Yahoo! News

Ware was charged under a 2001 law meant to protect people from ultra-small cameras that can be used to peek into dressing rooms or up women's skirts. Under the law, filming a person without consent for sexual arousal is a felony.

...but merely watching teenagers wrestle and perform gymnastics in skintight Lycra fetish gear is perfectly OK - as long as you refrain from obviously masturbating.

Yep, when you think about it, it's not only possible to show that the Law is an Ass, it's pretty easy to illustrate that it's FIXATED upon ass.

Ask ANY Congressional page or White-House intern.

tag: sexual ethics, pornography laws, covert pornography, patriarchy, prudery, Republican Pedophiles, Pederast

Purity balls are really, really creepy.

Update: Another take on this from Bark/Bike, seeing that people keep googling this topic. No, I can't spoil the punchline with a quote.

Hullabaloo and Huffpost

reporting on the creepy "purity ball movement." The comment threads are especially fertile and unprotected.

Caution - reading these posts and following links to examples may cause retching and the uncontrollable need to floss your brain.

from digby, the words of the pledge:

..this is what that little girl is reading to her father from that card:

I pledge to remain sexually pure...until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband. ... I know that God requires this of me.. that he loves me. and that he will reward me for my faithfulness.

And this is what Daddy says in turn:

I, (daughter’s name)’s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come.

He's the "high priest" in his home. Are we getting the picture?

Yeah. And one of his Staff of Office. Ewww.

tag: dominionism, propaganda, social engineering, domination, submission, religous cults, purity ball,