Speaking of Sex....

Star Wars Episode Four, A New Hope provides many important life-lessons:

"See, son, the pee-nee shaped x-wing fighter?" I mean, seriously, what's the head on that thing for? Armor? Feh.

"Well, it goes barreling into this dark narrow cavern-like tunnel. The pee-nee ship's job is to shoot a little thingy so that it will penetrate the large spherical Death Star. Watch Luke grunt a little sigh when he shoots his little thingy successfully." Really folks, you need to watch the scene in this context. I am not making this up.

"Then a 'chain reaction' occurs. The big sphere ultimately bursts into a thousand points of light, and all the good guys jump for joy!"

And that is where babies come from.



*****hatched***** recycled from a 2006 post.  

Add it all together you've got Teabircher!

Dick Armey plus The Flying Nun equals Christine O'Donnell.

And yeah, NIXON is rolling over in his grave.

Update.  There is something so very wrong here. 

No.  I'm not going to photoshop it.  But I saved it!  You betcha!  

Why NSFW is BS

Quote of the day from Susie Bright, in a post on writing and money that every blogger should read:

Nancy Pelosi quips that health insurers consider "being a woman" as a disqualifying pre-existing condition.

The same is true for women bloggers. If we discuss the normal life cycle of female existence, our content is labeled "NSFW."

We can't menstruate, have babies, get pregnant, have an abortion, nurse, go through menopause, or have a single sexual opinion without being labeled “NSFW.” It's a bogus, unmandated censorship nanny-wall and I, for one, HAVE HAD IT.

Nothing in my blog is more revealing than what you could see in Vanity Fair. The New York Times can write about pedophilia scares, publish nude artwork, and cover the abortion debate without having their site banned. I want the same respect.

I think she's really on to something here. Sexism and prudery and Republican-ism so often go together. See for instance, John Boehner's War on Women at Crooks and Liars.

Of course, there is something to be said for NSFW, in that if you are being paid to sit in a cubicle and enter numbers into a database, you probably should not be spending that time surfing the web for porn on the office computer. As I describe the blog The Aristocrats, "Safe for work? Sure, because you're fired."

My ex had a fascinating web experience at the law school of the Baptist institution at which he taught. They had a net-nanny attached to their entire server, so anyone using the campus internet would be prohibited from examining 'colorful' websites. When it became clear that due to the content of certain articles pertaining to the Monica Lewinsky incident, the main page of The Washington Post was being banned on campus (words like "oral sex" were strictly filtered) my ex hit the roof and sent an email to the campus-wide faculty list that this was an outrage.

One professor in the science department (Baptist school science department, yeah.) replied to all.faculty that he didn't see how reading the Washington Post could be "work-related."

At an academic institution. Really.

Hilarity, at least at the Law School, ensued.

Also law students and professors researching legal rulings on "medical marijuana" were nannied off the internet as well. I wonder if someone in the "science" department could Google "weed." You know, for agricultural purposes.

Language is so deliciously vague. Filters based on word usage can't possibly work, ever.



Our topic this weekend on the podcast, not to take anything away from Susie Bright***, is going to be "Republicans and Sex, or all the news I've heard about bondage in the past year has come from Michael Steele." Until then.

***Susie's Audible.com show on Palin and Sanford is one of the best political shows I've heard, ever.

Sex Sells but not vicee versee

So much 'sex in advertising' crap has come across my computer screen in the past 48 hours (not to mention a certain Nevada Senator and his defense of marriage/affair with staffer, don't get me started) that I really have to respond.

First up is the W Magazine supposed S&M spread modeled by a very buff Bruce Willis and his new bride Emma Heming. Shocking and graphic and daring oh my! The fact that Bruce models gloves from an actual medical sex toy website is supposed to make this photo spread authenticly kinky? And what exactly is authentic about an Alexander McQueen fox fur jacket and leather harness, which are only available to order from the designer? If this was sex porn instead of sales porn, we wouldn't be distracted from the sex by the stated fact that "Mrs. Willis shakes up the city with Chanel Long-Lasting Soft Matte Makeup in Soft Bisque." Not that you can see it under the fur helmet:


Dear Mister Willis: You dressed Chris Tucker in your vehicle 'The Fifth Element' in sexier clothes (via Jean Paul Gautier) than you do your new wife in W. Here's proof:


Love that dress--always have--always will.

But this whole bs "shocking" sexual images in advertising thing has got to stop. Because whenever sex is used to sell something, even sex, it's not shocking, it's boring. Terribly terribly boring. That's why the coral suited lady newscasters on CBS Morning can cover it, do "on the street interviews," re the "shocking" Threesome Calvin Klein ad in Soho.

It's boring because it's commerce rather than carnality, which means it is expressly designed for the public space and public sphere, something that is the opposite of illicit sex. If someone gets sexually excited by doing something illicit, shocking, and unacceptable to polite society, they will NOT do that thing on a five foot high billboard. That ruins the fun. We are not seeing Bruce and Emma's private honeymoon photos in W. That's perhaps the fantasy they were going for, but really. Who packs Fox fur? (Don't answer that. Furries can go with God and all that, but sex with animals is not what He in His Divine Wisdom had in mind. Nevermind Nevada Senators, don't get me started about those poor horses.)

But if Bruce and Emma are actually exhibitionists, this would still not be the result. Face it, to slake their thirst for real exhibitionism, they would have 'leaked' actual honeymoon sex video to some sleazy celebrity scandal website (no link but you know the one, dahlink) and the lighting would have been terrible and Alexander McQueen would have asked for his made-to-order harness back. Instead we have a "spread" designed to create [blog] buzz for a printed magazine, and look, it succeeded.

All of this reminds me of a wonderful New York Times review, entitled "The Empress has No Clothes," (good writing and germane to my argument; go read the whole thing) for that "Sex" book Madonna came out with several years ago. I never forgot the tagline Caryn James came up with for the book:

"No sex please, we're posing."

Good morning, girls!

Today is "anti-procrastination" day, so I plan to get that crack in my windshield looked at, finally.

In the meantime, I'd like to dedicate this video to my gal pals at Evil Slutopia, the sex-positive feminism Facebook group, and the divine Susie Bright.

And yeah, this video is a real WTF moment.

Teh sexy, it is often teh funny.

So I get this really good blog tip (ha) from a reader. And I write him back and say what's your url so I can hat tip you, and he says,

No Blue Gal you probably don't want to do that even though it's punny because my company makes "hat tips" that are sex toys that are chocolate. The best selling item involves chocolate viking hats for boy's private parts. And they're funny, but I totally understand you wouldn't want to expose your readers to something like that or blogroll it. I totally understand.

No, he doesn't. He really doesn't.

By the way, some links on my blogroll they are not teh safe for teh work. But as Mark Hoback pointed out to me, who's at work?