The Joys of Cottaging or…

Why Bathroom Sex is So Hot.
The Salon newsletter popped up in my gmail files within the past hour with the aforementioned article by James Hannaham. It’s a pretty interesting essay on the allure of public restroom schwinging and whether or not such acts make a guy Teh Gay or Not Teh Gay, as Senator Larry Craig would claim.
From the article:

Imagining that closeted gay men are the only ones involved in bathroom sex is naive, since it assumes that homosexual acts are synonymous with homosexual identity, which is silly. One hardly needs to be reminded of the many hyper-masculine settings with a reputation for fostering homosexual behavior: prisons, armies, the high seas, the Village People, etc. (Historian B.R. Burg has argued that the 17th century buccaneers of the Caribbean engaged exclusively in homosexual behavior. Take that, Johnny Depp!)

Of course, if one is to follow the rationale (har) of the Punch-Doug and Judy Show and its giddy Granite State Grokstering slapstick, fine straight men such as the hapless Larry Craig and Ted Haggard were undoubtedly infected with gay cooties at some point in their impressionable lives. Or perhaps these fellows were adversely affected by the vibes of college women engaging in anal sex.
Sexual repression is all very sad to me, a dedicated fan of Frans de Waal. If only we Homo sapiens, who, even if some would deny it, are a pansexual species, would fully and truly embrace our inner Pan paniscus (bonobo) and set our sexuality free, we might truly provide the lubrication that makes society run smoothly. Penis fencing at project review meetings would be so much more entertaining than unending PowerPointery, and “grabbing biscuits” (see article) might just replace a collegial handshake.
*I’m not sure what exactly falls under the relatively new tag, “Spanking the Crank,” but somehow this fits, I think.

The Joys of Cottaging or…

Why Bathroom Sex is So Hot.
The Salon newsletter popped up in my gmail files within the past hour with the aforementioned article by James Hannaham. It’s a pretty interesting essay on the allure of public restroom schwinging and whether or not such acts make a guy Teh Gay or Not Teh Gay, as Senator Larry Craig would claim.
From the article:

Imagining that closeted gay men are the only ones involved in bathroom sex is naive, since it assumes that homosexual acts are synonymous with homosexual identity, which is silly. One hardly needs to be reminded of the many hyper-masculine settings with a reputation for fostering homosexual behavior: prisons, armies, the high seas, the Village People, etc. (Historian B.R. Burg has argued that the 17th century buccaneers of the Caribbean engaged exclusively in homosexual behavior. Take that, Johnny Depp!)

Of course, if one is to follow the rationale (har) of the Punch-Doug and Judy Show and its giddy Granite State Grokstering slapstick, fine straight men such as the hapless Larry Craig and Ted Haggard were undoubtedly infected with gay cooties at some point in their impressionable lives. Or perhaps these fellows were adversely affected by the vibes of college women engaging in anal sex.
Sexual repression is all very sad to me, a dedicated fan of Frans de Waal. If only we Homo sapiens, who, even if some would deny it, are a pansexual species, would fully and truly embrace our inner Pan paniscus (bonobo) and set our sexuality free, we might truly provide the lubrication that makes society run smoothly. Penis fencing at project review meetings would be so much more entertaining than unending PowerPointery, and “grabbing biscuits” (see article) might just replace a collegial handshake.
*I’m not sure what exactly falls under the relatively new tag, “Spanking the Crank,” but somehow this fits, I think.

One-Link Friday: Wingnuts, irony and the Internet

When the best thing you can say about the president you love is that his approval ratings are up to just over one in three from an all-time low of 29% (margin of error: +/- 3%, 95% CI), shouldn’t that make you leery of accusing others of having defeatist attitudes? (The same poll showed a 37% approval rating for Dems in Congress, 29% for Repubs.)
This is also someone who austerely calls a well-known polling organization “Gallop” and argues against global warming on this basis: “As I write this, the air temperature in South West Ohio is 81 but the heat index is approaching 100 because of the humidity. Last I knew humidity was cause by the level of water vapor in the air NOT CO2.” Therefore, so the “thinking” goes, the comparatively tiny fraction of CO2 added to the water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere owing to human activities cannot be contributing to the small-scale (as measured in degrees) warming of the oceans that will indisputably quicken the swamping of coastal cities, possibly increase the strength and frequency of hurricanes worldwide, and so on.

Continue reading “One-Link Friday: Wingnuts, irony and the Internet”

If you would of wrote this differently than your wrong.

As commenter Lorri Talley reminds me in my first post from this morning, it’s impossible not to notice that those bloggers who most commonly evince especially radical pro-religious, anti-evolution, pro-gun, anti-gay, pro-war, anti-global-warming, anti-stem-cell-research opinions are very often terrible spellers with a shaky handle on grammar. This is one of those things that need not become a point of excessive focus when going back and forth with one of them, yet cannot be dismissed as an ancillary sign of likely ignorance secondary to laziness or the basic inability to analyze something before regurgitating it.

Continue reading “If you would of wrote this differently than your wrong.”

One-link Friday: Assembly-line criticism of Dawkins, Hitchens

Monday’s Orlando Sentinel ran an editorial by David C. Steinmetz, a professor of the history of Christianity at The Divinity School at Duke University. In attempting to take the sting out of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion and Chris Hitchens’ God Is Not Great, Steinmetz adheres to the same de facto template others upset by the recent mass-media “mistreatment” of religion appear to be using.
The key passages are these:

Continue reading “One-link Friday: Assembly-line criticism of Dawkins, Hitchens”

One-link Friday: Assembly-line criticism of Dawkins, Hitchens

Monday’s Orlando Sentinel ran an editorial by David C. Steinmetz, a professor of the history of Christianity at The Divinity School at Duke University. In attempting to take the sting out of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion and Chris Hitchens’ God Is Not Great, Steinmetz adheres to the same de facto template others upset by the recent mass-media “mistreatment” of religion appear to be using.
The key passages are these:

Continue reading “One-link Friday: Assembly-line criticism of Dawkins, Hitchens”

One-Link Friday: Just because you suck doesn’t mean you need fixing

To continue Wednesday’s rant concerning, I think, the fact that idealism regarding the collective mental state of a citizenry does not follow from a personal distaste for its crippling deficits:
I make no practice of avoiding religious people in general, and I often feel a twinge about lumping them all together, since, despite the irrationality shared by all of them, they come in many flavors. But if your “faith” comes out of a book, is characterized by harsh judgments and compulsions that (unlike mine) have no basis in reason or reality, and is a huge, active part of your personality, I will likely have no truck — or golf cart, unicycle, or roller skate — with you.
Speculate about who or what, if anything, preceded the Big Bang all you like, and I’ll share your sense of wonder, if not the idea there’s any purpose behind “all this.” We could even smoke a joint the size of a bowling pin while we discuss these things, although, alas, I actually haven’t been known to indulge lately. But rave about how God doesn’t like gay homosexers or fornication or giant paper tubes filled with marijuana and I’ll retort that this is probably because he’s a closeted cross-dressing faggot in a baby bonnet who likes anal beads and facials and cheap whiskey, not because I believe as much but strictly because I know it will upset you and you probably won’t want to discuss your goshdarned faith with me anymore.
I’m guessing that this — not “religion has never done a lick of good” (trivial) or “we must remedy the many craptastic elements of religion” (both futile and poorly aimed) — is the general theme Christopher Hitchens’ new book develops, although I’ll have to wait until I get it in a few days to see.
I know that you, dear Christian fundamentalist, didn’t ask to be a chancre on the shaft of enlightenment. Too bad. Acquired stupidity is still stupidity. You’re as free to avoid or malign me for mocking the Bible and calling you deluded as I am to laugh at your silliness, although I already know that I can ignore what you say because you’ll be bringing nothing of substance to the bitch session.
I think that the following wordsplotch, disgorged by one “SnarlyOldFart,” is my all-time favorite comment (and we get some great ones) to a Chimp Refuge post:

Continue reading “One-Link Friday: Just because you suck doesn’t mean you need fixing”

One-link Friday: The sactimonious animal

Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At very least it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control
pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that, was it OK for them to make love?

Continue reading “One-link Friday: The sactimonious animal”

One-Link Friday: Can everyone “do” relationships?

A question we’ve all seen bandied around in some form is “Are people are meant to be monogamous?” I’m not really interested in puzzling over this, because I don’t think there’s a unique answer. It’s like asking if people are “meant to be” nice, violent, or religious and then sorting through the usual evolutionary and psychosocial dribble on the subject. Simply put, there’s too much human variation rooted in all of these contributing factors to generalize.
A related inquiry that interests me more — one I see as eminently more answerable because it deals with individual cases — is this: “Is everyone fundamentally equipped to maintain steady relationships?” As much as many of us (especially but not only women) see falling permanently in love with someone who loves us back an ideal wholly worth pursuing, I think it’s beyond the reach of a good many of us, and I’m not just talking about obvious outliers like undisguised sociopaths and the mentally challenged.

Continue reading “One-Link Friday: Can everyone “do” relationships?”

One-Link Friday: World’s oldest female male chauvanist boogies on

You have to hand it to Phyllis Schlafly: Her staying power is almost as impressive as her psychopathogy.
Schlafly, a contemporary of the newly late Kurt Vonnegut, has been singing the same querulous note since the Alley Oop administration and her form hasn’t taken a dent. She’s still raving uncontrollably about the Equal Rights Amendment (a recent revival of the proposal was cagily dubbed the Women’s Equality Amendment, but Schlafly wasn’t fooled); she’s been kicking this one around since at least the period in which she penned the bulk of the Book of Judges. Her style makes P.Z. Myers’ record of commentary about creationists read like a love sonnet, wrapped in a tribute, inside mad props.

Continue reading “One-Link Friday: World’s oldest female male chauvanist boogies on”

One-Link Friday: The royal WHEEEEEE!

In my various online set-tos with woo-woos, ignorant attention sluts, resentful shitbirds, the Redneck Right, the zanily begodded, and the otherwise merrily insane, I’ve noticed something consistent from twit to twit that tends to emerge during the course of an argument. This is a sometimes-subtle appeal to the silent masses, which takes the form of pronoun use that is either strategic or the incidental by-product of desperation.
It’s as though the beleaguered and beaten, aware at some foggy level that their every position has been dismantled and pulverized, see no choice but to envision an army of allies out there, unwilling to take up arms on behalf of the lost cause but wholly and righteously supporting it all the same.
You can see evidence of this here, in the physiology and stats-related “discussion” I linked to yesterday. This fella Richard Gibbens periodically emerges from the fetid swamp of his own domain to try to seed his banal ideas about training on other running sites, and invariably watches in what I imagine is mortification as people who actually have a background in the areas Gibbens sullies with bullshit scamper out of the woodwork and incinerate every goofball proposition, errant claim, and vacuous hypothesis he has worked so hard to transmogrify from fanstasy to fact in the crenellated recessses of his own misfiring brain.

Continue reading “One-Link Friday: The royal WHEEEEEE!

One-Link Friday: The royal WHEEEEEE!

In my various online set-tos with woo-woos, ignorant attention sluts, resentful shitbirds, the Redneck Right, the zanily begodded, and the otherwise merrily insane, I’ve noticed something consistent from twit to twit that tends to emerge during the course of an argument. This is a sometimes-subtle appeal to the silent masses, which takes the form of pronoun use that is either strategic or the incidental by-product of desperation.
It’s as though the beleaguered and beaten, aware at some foggy level that their every position has been dismantled and pulverized, see no choice but to envision an army of allies out there, unwilling to take up arms on behalf of the lost cause but wholly and righteously supporting it all the same.
You can see evidence of this here, in the physiology and stats-related “discussion” I linked to yesterday. This fella Richard Gibbens periodically emerges from the fetid swamp of his own domain to try to seed his banal ideas about training on other running sites, and invariably watches in what I imagine is mortification as people who actually have a background in the areas Gibbens sullies with bullshit scamper out of the woodwork and incinerate every goofball proposition, errant claim, and vacuous hypothesis he has worked so hard to transmogrify from fanstasy to fact in the crenellated recessses of his own misfiring brain.

Continue reading “One-Link Friday: The royal WHEEEEEE!

One-Link Friday: A call to aerospace engineers

Suppose, in an effort to accommodate America’s dietary proclivities and the inevitable results thereof, you wanted to significantly widen the seats on a commercial aircraft. Assuming you wanted to keep the number of seats the same, this would seem to require significant manufacturing compromises: the elimination of already-miniscule aisles, the widening of the entire fuselage, and possibly a significant redistribution of a number of the airplane’s critical load-bearing and force-generating components.
Thing is, I hear it’s not such a daunting problem, and that if Boeing, for example, wanted to make air travel more comfortable, it could “easily change the seat width.”

Continue reading “One-Link Friday: A call to aerospace engineers”

One-link Friday: The unity of delusional politics

There’s a blogger out there named Meatbrain who maintains a blog called ThinkingMeat. If I am not mistaken, the name was inspired by a science-fiction short story by Terry Bisson. This is apt, for the topics and creatures Meatbrain deals with are otherworldly.
Meatbrain, you see, regularly roots out some of the most pungent blogtrash in all of political cyberspace for the express purpose of exposing their lies, and does this with matter-of-fact panache. He (I believe) and I have crossed paths before, as I know he is familiar with Gribbit and a few other luminaries who travel in the same wobbly circles, throwing punches at shadows and running afoul of reality at every drunken turn.
From what I’ve seen, responses to these challenges in Meatbrain’s comments field take one of two general forms: “Have fun with your five readers” or “Get a life, you obsessed %%$^.” That a representative of this breed of righty would malign someone for being overly fixated is the height of gurgling irony, but hypocrisy is such an ingrained element in the wingball ethos that about the only remaining irony is for one of them to not exhibit self-contradiction.

Continue reading “One-link Friday: The unity of delusional politics”