Listen while you read:

AVRO Baroque around the Clock
Non-stop barokmuziek
Free 256k audio stream

9.29.2013

Safe "Pegging"


Ed Strong

Leave it to the French and the sexy Judy Minx to remind us that if you share penetrative sex toys with your partner(s), you should use condoms to prevent the spread of STIs (sexually transmitted infections) and bacteria. Next time you strap on, remember the rubber.
Use a new condom every time a sex toy is inserted into another person.
The public service message [above],starring two randy women, several sex toys, and a lot of condoms. There are subtitles, but you'll definitely get the message. And if you don't, here's a brief translation:
"It's charming... even among girls... Condoms don't just appear with the wave of a magic wand... Sex toys can transmit STIs. Use a new condom for each penetration."
For advice on the care and cleaning of your sex toys, see the recommendations of Good Vibrations.
"Wikipedia comes up with a source for the term 'pegging', but there is an earlier one:
Frontier America's male brothels, or "peg houses," which took their name from the Mediterranean brothel tradition of displaying available boys on a long rack.
The boys were anally impaled on pegs of various sizes abutting the rack, to help customers choose an appropriately capacious catamite.
Pegging describes a sexual practice in which a woman penetrates a man's anus with a strap-on dildo.
The origin of the neologism was a winning entry in a June 21, 2001, contest in Dan Savage's Savage Love sex advice column.
In the column, it was a specifically heterosexual term.
The competition was held after an observation was made that there was no common name for the practice of females penetrating heterosexual men with a dildo.
Because the term is quite new, many people use different terms for "pegging", such as "bend over boyfriend" (commonly shortened to BOB) from the popular video series of the same title.

Good Natural Porn






Before you set your purity torches a' light, this is not your typical porn. This is natural porn. These are not photoshopped girls; the kind that damage men's expectations of female beauty. Instead, this site features the human female form as the women themselves choose to present it. This is wonderfully liberating in comparison to what one sees in the mainstream porn industry. Photoshopped pictures of women and men reduce sex to the mere concept of an unattainable practice. Sex is not a mere concept, nor should it be an unattainable practice, rather it is inextricably linked to relationship; to the intimate space between persons. It is a language, with its own cadence, vocabulary, rules and etiquette; you could write a book.





At her first shoot for amateur-porn site AbbyWinters.com, 19-year-old Chloe B. stripped in front of a camera crew in her university dorm room, rubbed lotion all over her body, then sang her favorite Australian soccer team's anthem.

Dirty blond, curvy, and now 23, Chloe loved the experience so much she’s come back to do more than 20 shoots with Abby Winters—a site from Down Under that emphasizes happy, healthy female models who express their sexuality by expressing themselves.

Since her nude-singing session, for example, Chloe has done porn shoots while driving, cheerleading, even demonstrating how to tackle a soccer opponent, Aussie-style.

Chloe (like all models on Abby Winters, she doesn’t use her real name) first heard about the site from a “mate” who recommended its welcoming, laidback attitude. After an encouraging interview, she decided to give amateur porn a try.

“I’m SO glad I did!” she e-mails. “Abby Winters treats me, along with all the other models, with a great respect… I’ve never felt so comfortable getting naked before.”

Of course, as a regular Abby Winters spokesperson, Chloe gets paid to say how much of a blast she’s having earning extra cash—but the site is packed with testimonials from other models.

They all agree that shooting with Abby Winters is “fantastic” and “mind-opening”—so fun, one woman suggests, it could even make a unique “porno-cation” vacation for American girls visiting Australia.

According to the site’s founder and namesake, Abby Winters, what makes her models so enthusiastic—and her porn so sexy—is her emphasis on “naturalness.”

Unlike most pornography, where even amateurs get dolled up with makeup and “six-inch plastic high heels,” Winters says her models have regular clothes, no fake boobs, and plenty of pubic hair. (“Shaving is so '90s,” declares the “Be a Model” section of the site.)

She only hires women between the ages of 18 and 25, and proportionate figures that promote “a positive body image” are a must.

“We’re basically subverting the porn paradigm,” Winters explains. “All our models are just normal women.” In fact, before working for the site, Winters says most have never been naked in front of anyone before besides their boyfriends.

Concurrently, the role men play behind the scenes is one major difference between a nontraditional site like SuicideGirls and Abby Winters.

“The shoots are all shot by young women, some of whom have been models themselves,” says Winters.

Unlike Suicide Girls, which often encourages models shoot sets with SG-approved, frequently male photographers, no men are allowed on set, and models are given a lot of freedom to explore their own ideas about what’s sexy.

“They like to let us be ourselves,” says Chloe, which makes the end result “so passionate and real, and . . . the orgasms so much more intense!”

Winters started the site back in 2000 with “a digital camera and some random women” in a “dodgy hotel room.”

Though she's never modeled herself, she says she’s learned a lot since then—like professionalism—but her goal is the same. “As a consumer, I was always disappointed by the quality of erotica.

"I had a thing for amateur models—real girls are accessible and much more appealing—but was disappointed how sites always tried to make amateurs look [like professionals].

They totally missed the appeal of an amateur model in the first place!” So Winters took matters into her own hands.

“Originally, I planned to sell my shoots to other sites,” she says, but mainstream porn buyers weren’t interested in her “natural” look. “Satisfyingly,” she says, “those other sites are out of business now.”

Keep it Covered!


By Alexander Cockburn

The control of sex and pornography is a major part of promulgating a prudish, puritanical political culture without ever imposing an overt political censorship regime.

Debates about so-called "political correctness", whether in the race, gender, or ethnicity conflicts can only be explained by the culture of prudery which prevails in American political discourse of all sorts. Like the 'sexual crimes' mania in the media.

It's useful and important this as part of maintaining this rigorously prudish, puritanical political culture the surface of which was barely scratched by the Sixties.

Sexual crimes stand for the violation of the established order based on supposed personal deviance and not on any actual material challenge.

They have the benefit of being immensely trivial and yet due to the absolutely poor to non-existent transmission of the ‘standards’ for acceptable sexual conduct, esp. occlusion from public instruction, remain ultimately "fantasy crimes".

People can imagine the most heinous punishments for this behavior because it is impossible for them to conceive of a sex crime in the same way as bribery of public officials or assassinations performed by agencies disguised as armies or cultural aid missions.

This impossibility goes back to the terror used by parents and teachers to threaten children for violations of their will by creating nonsensical consequences for trivial acts.

A perfect example of this is the story of the man in Fairfax County Virginia, who got up early on Monday morning, October 19, walked naked into his own kitchen to make himself a cup of coffee?

The next significant thing that happened to 29-year-old Eric Williamson is the local cops arriving to charge him with indecent exposure.

It turns out that while he was brewing the coffee, a mother was taking her 7-year-old son along a path beside Williamson’s house, espied the naked Williamson and called the local precinct, or more likely her husband, who turns out to be a cop.

“Yes, I wasn’t wearing any clothes,” Williamson said later, “but I was alone, in my own home and just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was outside looking in at me.”

The story ended up on TV, starting with Fox, and in the opening rounds the newscasters and network blogs had \ merciless sport with the Fairfax police for their absurd behavior.

Hasn’t a man the right to walk around his own home (or in this case rented accommodations) dressed according to his fancy? Answer, obvious to anyone familiar with relevant case law, absolutely not.

Peeved by public ridicule the Fairfax cops turned up the heat. The cop’s wife started to maintain that first she saw Williamson by a glass kitchen door, then through the kitchen window.

Mary Ann Jennings, a Fair-fax County Police spokesperson, stirred the pot of innuendo:” We’ve heard there may have been other people who had a similar incident.”

The cops are asking anyone who may have seen an unclothed Williamson through his windows to come forward, even if it was at a different time.

They’ve also been papering the neighborhood with fliers, asking for reports on any other questionable activities by anyone resembling Williamson—a white guy who’s a former diver, and who has a 5-year old daughter, not living with him.

I’d say that if the cops keep it up, and some prosecutor scents opportunity Williamson will be pretty lucky if they don’t throw some cobbled-up indictment at him.

Toss in a jailhouse snitch making his own plea deal, a faked police line-up, maybe an artist’s impression of the Fairfax Flasher, and Eric could end up losing his visitation rights and, worst comes to worst, getting ten years plus posted for life on some sex offender site.

You think we’re living in the twenty-first century, in the clinical fantasy world of CSI? Wrong. So far as forensic evidence is concerned, we remain planted in the seventeenth century with trial by ordeal such as when they killed women as witches if they floated when thrown into a pond.

Response to Schaeffer's Article on Orthodox Church's Silience in the face of Gay Persecution in Russia: OF COURSE!!!!!

Start with this article by Frank Schaeffer

Personally, I think the outrage should have started after Pussy Riot was jailed for their protest, under pressure from the Russian Orthodox Church. I actually remember hearing something about a Russian Orthodox youth leader being quoted as saying, "Feminism is motivated by a general hatred for all humanity" as a way of discrediting the protesters.

But at least we're paying attention to it now.

As for the silence of our Orthodox Leaders, of course they're silent, what else are out-of-touch elders supposed to be?

I guess it's kinda weird that many people in other faiths have someone they look up to in their faith for moral guidance... Meanwhile in the Orthodox Church, I don't think I've ever really looked up to anybody. I mean we have some good people like Met. Kallistos Ware, but I'd be flabbergasted if he were ever to say anything about gays being fully human; something that's non-controversial in other spheres.

Meanwhile we're just wondering if our clergy will ever get around to making basic claims about human rights.

Actually I once encountered an Orthodox Christian who didn't believe in 'human rights' because he said it was a man made euphemism, and that Orthodox Christianity starts with the knowledge that mankind has no rights, but only what God wills. Lots of people can be lured in by this thought ... but really it's just an excuse to deny dignity to other people.

Frightening to think the OC has become so right-wing that it's almost impossible to even get Orthodox Christians to agree that people deserve to be treated with respect.

Just another affect of the masochism of monasticism. People join the Church and get caught up in the ascetic tradition and they mix it up with their own masochistic desires without realizing it. Then the blanket virtue of humility because an excuse to deny other people basic necessities like food, water, love.

Amazing, how we in the Orthodox Church can't have a discussion on human rights because we can't even all agree that human beings should have 'rights'. The idea against it being that 'human rights' is an extension of pride, whereas all Christians are called to live in humility... which involves being whipped with a leather flogger, for being a naughty, naughty, nun. :\

6.29.2013

Why Orthodox Bishops Should Either Say Something Nice, Or Remain Silent on DOMA

In light of the recent Supreme Court ruling which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by former Pres. Bill Clinton in '96 (back when the definition of marriage was between a man, his wife, and his intern), many Orthodox Christians are wondering whether or not the Orthodox Church should make any kind of a statement regarding DOMA, or at least if American Orthodox Church hierarchy shouldn't make a big brew-ha-ha over it.


Allow me to explain why condemning the ruling, is a very, very, bad idea. Not only that, it would risk exposing the Orthodox Church as the sad, insecure, far too into making boys play football and girls bake cupcakes, bigoted institution it has become.




25% of the world's natural gas wells are leaking. If our Orthodox Bishops can find the time to tell people what they can't do in their own bedrooms but can't find the time to condemn relaxed regulations that allow gas to seep into people's drinking water...(http://youtu.be/4LBjSXWQRV8) that would be offensive.

If our Orthodox Bishops are more interested in standing with Rand Paul than they are with Edward Snowden, there's some chance they never really stood for freedom, even from sin.

If our Orthodox Bishops can find the time to condemn gay marriage, (or Same-Sex-Attraction as some of them call it) but can't find the time to condemn the banking system that's come to light through the emails that recently came out, written pre-'08 crash, by S&P employees saying, "Lord help our [expletive] scam . . . this has to be the stupidest place I have worked at," and “We rate every deal. It could be structured by cows and we would rate it.”

And again if Orthodox Bishops can find the time to tell individuals they can't take it up the rear while giving the ol' silent treatment when Morgan Chase tells homeowners' they're going to be taking it up the ass, that's offensive.

So I think it would be wise if our hierarchy took a hint from the God we worship, by responded to the issue of DOMA, with absolute silence.

Besides, most Orthodox Bishops don't even know what a homosexual is. This whole issue is literally happening at the same time they're taking basic sex-ed, and are still on chapter 1.

We can't expect our leadership to show either understanding or compassion yet, until after they've seen "My Mom's Having a Baby" and gone, "ohhhhhh, so that's where babies come from."

But really, as one of the few remaining, more enlightened Orthodox Bishops likes to say, "Moral outrage is a form of confession. We hate most in others, what we fear most in ourselves."

Which can only mean one thing. Right now, at conference of Orthodox leaders in Texas... the biggest Ortho-gay fuck fest the laity has ever seen is taking place, because Orthodox Clergy really, really, hate gay people. And they DEFINITELY DO NOT, approve of oral sex.


So remember, for all the homosexuals in our Church who've ever been made to feel ostracized and alone due to the intolerance of most of our Clergy, we the laity, near and far, who commune with you at the Eucharist, stand with you and wish you joy and happiness in your right to marry; to love and to be loved.


And for our Priests and Bishops who still think St. John Chrysostom had it right, here's a video of two gay dogs fucking (yes, it's relevant).
Gay Dogs gettin' at it

5.21.2013

The sad truth about "the Shoa" (Holocaust)

The term, Holocaust, means, sacrifice. Understandably many in the Jewish community would like to change this term.

The new term that many are using is called, "The Shoa". Shoa, means disaster. So when someone says, "The Shoa" they are saying, "The disaster". Understandably, for many Jews the Holocaust was a disaster.

But there is something disturbing about the new term and the eagerness about the American liberal class's willingness to adopt this new term.

When someone says, "The disaster" the implication given is that this disaster should be elevated above all others. It is the difference between, the disaster, and, this disaster, or, a disaster.

Of course because the word, shoa, is a Jewish word, when someone refers to, "The Shoa" or "The disaster" they obviously mean the holocaust.

The holocaust was, the disaster. It was a disaster above all other disasters.

This is why the term bothers me. It's not because the holocaust wasn't a disaster, it was, 6 million people died, but there has been a cocnerted effort, to take the holocaust, and to use it as a tool to crowd out all other disasters, here in the US.


So, the genocide of Native Americans & 1st People's; was not the disaster.

Apartheid in South Africa; not the disaster.

Genocide against the Palestinians; not the disaster.

40 million killed by Stalin in the Soviet Union; not the disaster.

Slavery of Africans in The New World & elsewhere; not the disaster.

Conflict in Bosnia in the early 90's; not the disaster

War between the English and the Scottish, or genocide of Scots; not the disaster

Civil war happening in Syria; not the disaster

Genocide in Rwanda; not the disaster

6 million Jews killed by Hitler; The disaster, the one disaster that is more important than all others



There is a reason for this.

Unlike many other disasters, the Holocaust makes America look good. We entered the war for other reasons, and once we discovered that the Holocaust was happening, we stopped it. We're the heroes. The anti-semitic heroes ironically (many people forget that prior to WWII America hated Jews too, and to this day many Americans still do). But we were the good and moral nation, Germany was the evil nation, the nation that was the quintessential nation, whose entire history could be narrowed down to a single event, prior conditions leading to fascism considered irrelevant.

Germany was a place that was so evil, the German people were a people who were just so bad, that what they did could never have happened anywhere else, and our victory over Germany shows America's moral superiority. It showed how America was a force for good. Of course, for obvious reasons, elements in America try to paint German fascists as communist-lovers, this is to create further distinction between us and to emphasize that what happened in Germany could never happen here because we're capitalists and we love corporations ("corporations are people my friend" - Rommney 2012 R presidential candidate).

More liberal classes in America are better informed about what fascism is and we haven't all forgotten that the Nazi's hated communists. In fact they turned against the Soviet Union in the middle of the war. Getting back to the Holocaust.

The Holocaust is an unusual narrative. Technically, Jews were not the only people persecuted. They were the majority of people persecuted, and so an emphasize on this is justified. However mention of other groups persecuted are sometimes omitted entirely. Homosexuals, political dissidents (like socialists & communists) and Polish people. But again, to get back onto the main topic of the Holocaust as, The Shoa.

How do Polish survivors, or gay survivors feel about the event as a whole being considered a, Jewish, disaster? When we refer to the Holocaust as a Jewish disaster, do we mean that if Hitler had only stuck to gays, communists, and Pols, that it would not be a disaster?

Focusing again on the terms themselves.

So, here in the US we have the genocide of Native Americans and 1st People's. This is not someting we can play ignorant towards. We can't pretend that it was an accident, or that we were only the best and most benevolent of guests in their land; we cleared them out, plain and simple. This wasn't just something American settlers did. The US government sent troops to do this kind of work. The US only ever negotiated with Native American tribes when it was within US self-interests (the US couldn't fight on all fronts at once).

It was a genocide. Even the Declaration of Independence refers to the Native Americans as, "savages" and decries King George for not doing enough to protect the good citizens of the New World colonies from them.


However, to this day, any kind of apology given to the Native Americans is not without controversy. Many people in the US feel that if you apologize to the Natives for the genocide, you are essentially apologizing for American Greatness. There is a believe among Evangelical Christians in something called, American Exceptionalism. Essentially this philosophy says that because the US is God's chosen nation, anything the US does, any war it fights, is a good war, fought for a just cause. You can see this moral outrage at work in Obama's recent interaction with the Native American people, apologizing to them for the genocide commited against them and arguing in favor of greater autonomy of Native American reservations.

To say the political right-wing of this country was upset would be an understatement. They were enraged. 'How dare he' - they said. 'He is apologizing for what makes America great! Killing Native Americans was our God-given right! How dare he apologize!'

This outrage, does not help America's image on the world stage. It's poor marketing, and a poor way of presenting ourselves to the rest of the world, to say that we're not all in agreement that the genocide of Native Americans was a bad thing, or even that it was really a genocide.

But, those terrible, horrible Germans, how could they? We gasp in awe, at the horrendousness of their evil, an evil which could never be found anywhere else. An evil that we Americans had nothing to do with!

The Nazi party received much funding from American banks. Wester powers backed Hitler because they feared that Germany's poor economic conditions would cause Germans to turn toward communism, which would be an opportunity for the Soviet Union. This fear was not unfounded, already in Germany many socialist parties were rising to replace the Weimar Republic. Hitler was popular, and he played, in his speeches, on the German people's attraction toward communism.

After the Nazi rise to power, and when the persecution of Jews began to grow in immensity, Nazi's needed a new way to keep track of who they were persecuting, and what for. The American corporation IBM, was hired by the Nazi's to create a new cataloging system for Nazi's to use, to keep track of who was a Jew, who was gay, who was a communist...etc. After the war, IBM collected all of the profit it had made; the Holocaust helped make a minor contribution in the relm of computer science (emphasis on minor). The war itself was a triumph for banks who'd funded both sides of the war, axis & allies.

But because we Americans won the war, we, the victors, were able to decide how the event would be recorded. Americans, and Allies - good, Germans and Japanese - bad.

Ironically Americans care very, very little for the Japanese genocide of the Chinese. In fact most Americans don't even like the Chinese (one word, jobs).

So to get back to the terms involved. The Shoa. It's interesting, to think of WWII as the time of a Jewish genocide. It's true, but it's not all encompassing. What about the genocide of Chinese? For whatever reason even though we defeated the Japanese, we forget to mention that genocide. We only seem to care that the Japanese bombed Pear Harbor.

The only reason I can imagine, of why Japanese atrocities have never really lingered on in th American consciousness, was because the Chinese made the grave mistake, after the war, of becoming Communist. After that, suddenly capitalist Japan doesn't seem so bad. There is outcry, from the international community regarding, Japanese Comfort Women, an evil euphemism for what was forced sexual slavery. But this isn't something that comes up very often in America, outside of small academic circles and activist groups.

When I look at the Holocaust, I see, what must be the single most talked about human atrocity in mainstream American discourse. When I look at the, who, of who is talked about as suffering during the Holocaust, I see Jews given precedence (and rightly so) but it's to the exclusion of many other groups. That is slowly changing. We're now more willing to admit that Hitler did persecute other groups, but we give the entire event a Jewish narrative.

Whether we call it the Holocaust, or the Shoa, those are Jewish words, and while it makes sense for the Jewish community to take this event from a Jewish perspective, it would seem the Jewish perspective has eclipsed the war as a whole. What does it mean, that we are fine with allowing the entire atrocity, the persecution of political dissidents and Polish and Jewish people, to be taken solely from a Jewish narrative and not from a human narrative? If we refer to the event as the Shoa, or the Holocaust, we are saying it was a Jewish tragedy. If we were to refer to the even as simply, Auschwitz, wouldn't we be saying that it was a human tragedy, that no single group of those persecuted gets to, "own" the victimization of this event.

During the Nazi regime's reign of terror, the Nazi's occupied Norway. During this Nazi occupation many Norwegians risked their lives participating in a group called, The Norwegian Underground. The Norwegian Underground played vital roles in sabotaging Nazi efforts into heavy-water research, as well as helping the Allies uncover the location of the Bismarck. During this occupation, many Norwegian Underground members would be taken away by Nazi soldiers. Exactly where they were sent or what happened to them is unknown, but it isn't entirely unreasonable to think some of these captured Norwegian Resistance fighters (whom the Nazi's probably would have seen as, terrorists) were sent to work/death camps.

Does it fit then, to refer to the struggles and sufferings of the Norwegians Resistance fighters who were captured, as being part of a solely Jewish catastrophe? Was the the execution of Norwegian prisoners a crime against the Jewish people?

I am not suggesting that persecution at the hands of the Nazi's needs to be told from a Norwegian narrative. I am saying that the suffering brought upon by the Nazi's needs to be told from a human narrative.

Why must Auschwitz be a solely Jewish tragedy? Why can't Auschwitz be a human tragedy?