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

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

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. :\