Max Power has published a series about photographic “firsts.” Here’s the first image of a planet other than Earth:
A Timeline of Imagery Firsts at MaxPower
Timeline of Imagery Firsts at MaxPower.
{ 0 comments }
Gallery of assorted Alice in Wonderland-inspired images.
[singlepic=2,320,240,,]
Via Strange Ink.
{ 0 comments }
We just discovered that Sunnydale Recycling has made it onto Strange Ink’s blogroll. Which is very flattering. I was going to post about some of the newer cool stuff at Strange Ink, and thenhappened on their FAQ. Which is hilarious. Since I think I’m going to plagiarize it one phrase at a time – and also because I haven’t mastered the WordPress pull-quote technique -I’m not going to quote it here.
{ 0 comments }
We’re excited to learn of Joe.My.God . The man can write – and we particulary commend to your atten attention a four-part series called Blogdaddy. You can read all four pieces here
He’s also got some outgoing links that held our attention:
Dog Poet this man’s dog is so cute that it beggars description
The Ninth Circle of Helen (“Helen Damnation,’ which seems to be based in Brooklyn.
{ 0 comments }
Jockohomo DataPanik on an installation in the lobby of my homewtown paper:
Moveable Type, a new permanent art installation in the lobby of the New York Times is the ultimate in real and virtual news. Created by artist Ben Rubin and UCLA professor/statistician Mark Hansen, 560 vacuum-fluorescent display screens mounted on 2 walls use statistical methods and natural-language processing algorithms to parse the daily output of the paper (news, features, editorials) and the archives, as well as the activity of visitors to the paper’s website, browsing, searching, commenting etc. Watch a Video of the installation, read more from Flowing Data, check out a few more shots of the installation.
{ 0 comments }
[singlepic=1,320,240,,left] Tony Comstock has an interesting piece about, among other things, Oklahoma anti-pornography statutes:
Many of the people who I spoke with were professors who taught sexually or researched aspects of sexuality in a university setting, and several of them were interested in our films, either for use in their classrooms, or in their experiments. This included a professor from an Oklahoma university, who himself was at the conference to present a paper on BDSM. “I’d really love to use your films in my class, but penetration is illegal in Oklahoma.” This is the second time in a month that I’ve heard this. The first time was last month at a trade-show in Las Vegas. A woman who owns a lingerie shop was at our booth, delighted by what she saw. “Do your films have penetration?” she asked. “Of course they do. Our films are about sex.” “Oh, then I can’t carry them. Penetration is illegal in Oklahoma. If you stick your tongue in someone’s ear and it’s sexual, it’s illegal in Oklahoma.” Of course this is nonsense. Legislators in Oklahoma can no more outlaw the photographic depiction of sexual penetration than they can outlaw the photographic depiction of blue shirts. Yet apparently they have. There is variety of expression not seen as worthy of First Amendment protection – obscenity. Throughout the Twentieth Century, what is and is not obscenity has been the subject of a number of Supreme Court decisions, the last being the 1973 case of Miller v. California. With regard to what sort of sexually explicit expression is not protected by the First Amendment, Miller v. California1 is the law of the land, and defines obscenity by a three-pronged test. A work is considered obscene, and therefore may be suppressed by the government if: The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest And The work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law. And The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value. What that means is that if a jury decides the answer to any one of these three questions is “no”, then the work is not obscene, and if it’s not obscene than the state of Oklahoma has no power to suppress the distribution of the work. In theory. In practice, the threat of an obscenity prosecution is enough to prevent work from being seen, even films recently described as, “Perhaps the most cinematic and pro-social depictions of sexual behavior ever produced.” (You gotta love how sex scientists talk!) The simple fact is that the Oklahoma professor I talked to this weekend is afraid that if he uses our films in his classroom, he’ll go to jail. The Oklahoma shopkeeper we talked to is afraid that if she offers our films to her customers she’ll go to jail. And that fear is enough to keep people from seeing our films in the Sooner State.
Tony Comstock’s Blog: When Penetration is Illegal in Oklahoma, Oklahomans Get Fucked
I’ve been looking through Oklahoma statutes – and haven’t found the relevant “penetration” provision. But here are provisions which are a bit disturbing:
Oklahoma Statutes, Title 21, Crimes and Punishments, §21-1024.1. Definitions
[(A) defines child pornography (B) essentially recites the Miller test, with a few details to make it even easier for prosecutors]
B. As used in Sections 1021 through 1024.4 and Sections 1040.8 through 1040.24 of this title:
1. “Obscene material” means and includes any representation, performance, depiction or description of sexual conduct, whether in any form or medium including still photographs, undeveloped photographs, motion pictures, undeveloped film, videotape, CD-ROM, magnetic disk memory, magnetic tape memory or a purely photographic product or a reproduction of such product in any book, pamphlet, magazine, or other publication, if said items contain the following elements:
a. depictions or descriptions of sexual conduct which are patently offensive as found by the average person applying contemporary community standards,
b. taken as a whole, have as the dominant theme an appeal to prurient interest in sex as found by the average person applying contemporary community standards, and
c. a reasonable person would find the material or performance taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value.
The standard for obscenity applied in this section shall not apply to child pornography;
2. “Performance” means and includes any display, live or recorded, in any form or medium;
3. “Sexual conduct” means and includes any of the following:
a. acts of sexual intercourse including any intercourse which is normal or perverted, actual or simulated,
b. acts of deviate sexual conduct, including oral and anal sodomy,
c. acts of masturbation,
d. acts of sadomasochistic abuse including but not limited to:
(1) flagellation or torture by or upon any person who is nude or clad in undergarments or in a costume which is of a revealing nature, or
(2) the condition of being fettered, bound, or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one who is nude or so clothed,
e. acts of excretion in a sexual context, or
f. acts of exhibiting human genitals or pubic areas ….
Particularly disturbing is (B) (4), which essentially makes defines child pornography as that which a police officers reacts to as child pornography: From Oklahoma Statutes, Article 21, §1024.1 (B)(4):
“Explicit child pornography” means material which a law enforcement officer can immediately identify upon first viewing without hesitation as child pornography.
In other words – if the government says it’s bad -it’s bad.
The notion of “penetration” as the test – which two reasonable people described to Tony Comstock – sounds like a layperson’s distillation of cautious legal advice in this sort of environment: don’t.
An obvious constitutional problem with Miller is this: by definition, a “community standard” allows a majority to decide what’s acceptable for minorities – this sort of system lets majorities – or powerful minorities – make cultural choices for the rest of the population – with liberty and rights of citizenship at risk.
Oklahoma lyrics (Rodgers & Hammerstein) here.
- http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_73/; Wikipedia entry here [↩]
{ 0 comments }
(No – I’m not sure how to pronounce the “x’s” in their names.
I was recently reminded that while I’d heard about Comstock Films, I’d never seen any of their work. So I took a look at samples of two of their films – they’ve got a short list, but the heat-to-mass ratio, based on my sample, is quite high. And ordered “Xana & Dax: When Opposites Attract“What started this was my reading an essay on Tony Comstock’s blog. Since my taste in women runs to the smartest ones – stands to reason I’d like pornography made by smart people.
In the meantime – we’ll be watching the mail – please watch this space for a review.
{ 0 comments }
Noli Irritare Leones is, of course, very good advice. But it’s also the name of a really wonderful blog by a woman whose username is Sappho; conversations on this blog tend to be very interesting, with an exceptionally gentle tone. From her “About” page:
Some of the topics on this blog don’t require too much explanation; as I’m a Quaker it’s not surprising that I should talk about Quaker practice, the Peace Testimony, the Bible, and the like, and then everyone does memes, talks about movies, and discusses the latest items in the news. I blog about feminism because I’m a feminist. I also have an interest in blogging about sexuality, in particular how people relate their faith to their sexuality, and in particular how people who are attracted to their own sex relate their faith to their sexuality. Beyond that, here are some of the topics that show up on my sidebar where the connection may not be obvious, and why I’ve blogged about them.Why Africa? My sister-in-law is African, from Chad, and she’s the mother of about half of my nieces and nephews. Also, when I started looking for news from Chad, I found out that there are a whole lot of really cool blogs from Africa, and that the Internet provides an opportunity to get African perspectives that you’d never find otherwise.
Why Anarchism? Just because Emma Goldman is cool.
Why Catholic Worker? Dorothy Day is even more cool. And I’ve done things with the local Catholic Worker house on an intermittent basis.
Why so much about the Catholic and Episcopal churches? I was raised Episcopalian and married into a Catholic family.
Why Gnosticism? Well, I blog about orthodox Church Fathers, too. I’m interested in church history from all sides, including understanding the heresies that got rejected.
And, in fact, all of those topics, and more, on Noli Irritare Leones. Being Jewish, I’m not so sure of this, but I suspect it’s a reference to some sort of Christian gallows humor. (Groucho Marx used to tell a joke about a man who, when brought to the gallows, was asked if he had any last words. He replied: “I don ‘t think this damned this is safe.”)
(Update: plus, she reads Zuzu, my friend and neighbor, probably the best-known feminist blogger – well, at least in Brookyn).
{ 0 comments }
Check out Driveway – not what NPR refers to as a “driveway moment,” but an account of AAGbeing a great parent in a tough situation. Her soon-to-be-ex: not so much.
Always Aroused Girl (AAG) – shredding the space-time continuum like nobody’s business.
{ 0 comments }
Either that or an incredible act of faith – in skepticism. She watched several hours of what may be the worst television “reporting” ever – so you didn’t have to. Don’t take my word for it – read her accounts Blogging the Ghost Hunters: Hour One and Blogging the Ghost Hunters: Hour Two – if you dare.
{ 0 comments }
It’s sort of a relief, actually, now that we know what happened. You can read the explanation here on the James Hartline Report:
They shook their fists at God and said, “We don’t care what God says, we will issue our legal brief to support gay marriage in San Diego!” Then Mayor Jerry Sanders mocked the Christian vote and signed off on this rebellious legal document to support same-sex marriage.
And then the streets of La Jolla under the Mt. Soledad Cross began to cave in.
We learned of this news from Lee of the Stone, a new blog inspired, in turn, by Greta Christina.
{ 0 comments }
Always Aroused Girl, noting
must confess that a whole lot of porn does a whole lot of nothing for me.Not all porn, but some porn shows actors who seem either bored beyond tears or who are overacting to the point that I cannot hope to suspend my disbelief.
[After the jump, AAG gives as examples of what she likes - Comstock Films and Tristan Taormino's's Chemistry Vol. 3 - a porn film in which - after selecting the first few performers - the film was cast by cast members with the criteria being to engage those performers who must turned them on].
{ 0 comments }
Ms. M. Manhattan of Sexegesis has written a post about an ex – someone who, while they were together, made a point of tormenting her about her mediocre skills as a lover. In particular, as a fellatrix.
In truth, there’s no way I can plausibly claim not to be a member of the same group as this lout. Manhattan plausibly suggests that he’s a sociopath. Let’s look at the evidence:
- gratuitous humiliation, in which he apparently took pleasure;
- based upon a falsehood (“you don’t give good head”). It’s a falsehood because he wasn’t in a position to know anything except whether or not it was good for him. (For argument’s sake – and because we can’t refute it – we’ll assume that, when he was complaining, he was, in fact, not delighted). The only cock I’ve ever had sucked is my own; but I’ve sucked a couple of dozen, with and without assistance from others, and it’s a skill I’ve tried to get down (no pun intended).
[I like Dan Savage a lot - but apparently he's been saying there aren't any bisexuals. The editorial staff here at Sunnydale Recycling have secret evidence that bisexuals actually exist; it's true that we're all really, really bad people, but that's another matter entirely]
My current assessment is this: there’s a lot of variation between men and cocks and how they like to be blown; giving “good” head can involve lots of things – but always some feedback – usually just via observation – from the recipient.
Women vary much, much more – in my view – much more complexity and heterogeneity in female sexual response. Sounds like Marcelle’s ex didn’t figure that out either.
And – check her out – look how incredibly sexy and smart this woman is. If he’d been nice to her – it would have been apparent sooner.
But some of these guys don’t get off on getting off. They get off on being cruel.
{ 0 comments }
Stand By Your Bowl
Sometimes it’s hard to be a kitty
Gettin’ all your food from just one bowl
You’ll have wet food, you’ll have dry food
With mealtimes that you can’t control.But if you’re hungry, you’ll keep howling
Trying to make those monkeys understand
And if you’re howling, and if you’re yowling
Maybe they’ll open up the can.Stand by your bowl, make sure it’s full of kibble
With tasty things to nibble
When there’s no lap to sit on
Stand by your bowl, and show the world you’re hungry
Keep eating all that you can hold
Stand by your bowl.
Copyright 2003 Greta Christina. From Greta Christina’s Song Parodies.
Which brings us to the original hit – and its opening lines: you don’t need numerology, cryptography or steganography to get the point: for a woman – one man isn’t quite enough.
The Original Lyrics
The first couplet of Tammy Wynette’s hit single, “Stand By Your Man”
Sometimes its hard to be a woman
Giving all your love to just one man (emphasis supplied)Complete lyrics here. Feel free – the rest is – in effect – since we’ve established that you can only have one, remember they’re insecure and need a lot of attention.
{ 0 comments }
Am admirable definition of “fun.” Check out this link, “Fun Today,” plus a yummy image. From Sharing Dee.
{ 0 comments }
Lawyers use the phrase “chilling effect” to describe an added perception of risk concerning, or actual deterrence, of legitimate behavior. In other words, you “deter” drug use, forbidden sexual acts, or robbery because those things are intrinsically wrong. But we use “chilling effect” as a cliche – generally in the context of “chilling” free expression. 1.
Here, “Anthony Comstock,” one of the founders of Comstock Films, discusses his entirely reasonable fears of prosecution in this post:
“Adult sexual conduct is not illegal and it is in fact constitutionally protected. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). The regulation of visual depictions of adult sexual activity is not based on its intrinsic relation to illegal conduct.”
That’s from the Sixth Circuit Court’s ruling 2257 regulations unconstitutional, and gets to the heart of why I am fascinated by, and passionate about making sexual imagery.
Some few years ago I directed a film about Hutu refugees in Eastern Zaire. The imagery from the camps themselves was appalling enough: emaciated men, women, and children dying as the camera rolled; bodies being stacked into the bed of trucks like cordwood. But also included was footage from the Hutu genocidal slaughter of their Tutsi countrymen (carried out largely by machete,) including footage of a man being murdered by decapitation and the desecration of corpses.
I thought long and hard about what shots I would and would not include this film. I wanted my audience to vividly understand the horrors that had played out, but I did not want to them to withdraw, to down emotionally. I wanted them to stay with the film, through to the end, and hoped that they would find meaning in what I chose to show them. I thought a lot about the line between enough and too much. But never, not even for a moment, did I think about whether or not the footage I chose to include was prosecutable.
By contrast, nothing I show in the films I make about sex is awful. In fact, it’s all quite wonderful! People who desire each other giving and receiving pleasure in the most intimate and delicious ways! Yet in choosing to document and then distributed these consensual, loving, pleasurable, and entirely legal acts, some how through the magical powers of the camera, I may be committing a crime. Depending on where my films are watched, and by whom, what I do may not be protected by the First Amendment, what I do may be considered obscene, what I do may be against the law.
“The regulation of visual depictions of adult sexual activity is not based on its intrinsic relation to illegal conduct.” That’s what the Sixth Circuit Court says. I don’t see how that squares with Miller v. California. I’d like to find out, but I don’t want to lose my house or go to jail.
I thought long and hard about what shots I would and would not include this film. I wanted my audience to vividly understand the horrors that had played out, but I did not want to them to withdraw, to down emotionally. I wanted them to stay with the film, through to the end, and hoped that they would find meaning in what I chose to show them. I thought a lot about the line between enough and too much. But never, not even for a moment, did I think about whether or not the footage I chose to include was prosecutable.
By contrast, nothing I show in the films I make about sex is awful. In fact, it’s all quite wonderful! People who desire each other giving and receiving pleasure in the most intimate and delicious ways! Yet in choosing to document and then distributed these consensual, loving, pleasurable, and entirely legal acts, some how through the magical powers of the camera, I may be committing a crime. Depending on where my films are watched, and by whom, what I do may not be protected by the First Amendment, what I do may be considered obscene, what I do may be against the law.
“The regulation of visual depictions of adult sexual activity is not based on its intrinsic relation to illegal conduct.” That’s what the Sixth Circuit Court says. I don’t see how that squares with Miller v. California. I’d like to find out, but I don’t want to lose my house or go to jail.
Filmmakers should be worried about storyboards, budgets, and the cost of film stock. Not criminal charges for doing what they’re supposed to do – make films.
- The phrase’s use has been recorded in this way as early as 1950: Paul J. Freund. The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties, 4 Vanderbilt Law Review 533, at 539 (1950-1951). See also “Chilling Effect,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect (accessed 287 October 2007 [↩]
{ 1 comment }
This is, I believe, the beginning of the narrative of the blog of Thomas Paine and C at Polyamorously Perverse. This is the first time I’ve thought about a blog as a story you’d want to start at the beginning – rather than a stream you dip into – mostly focusing on what’s in the present.
I’m finding them increasingly fascinating.
After 30 years of thinking I was just another male who couldn’t settle peacefully into monogamy, I finally figured out I’m what’s called polyamorous: I prefer to have more than one lover in my life.
It’s not surprising, actually. My wife and I were both “poly” 20+ years ago without even knowing it. What’s that Country Western tune about “I Was Country Before Country Was Cool”? Well, we were poly before there was even a name for it. The term was coined by some Wiccan babe in the 80s or 90s (not important when). We were just young and frisky and taking advantage of an explosion in alternative lifestyles. Gays and Lesbians and Bisexuals were coming out of the closet, and the Women’s Movement was challenging the way I and almost every other man had been brought up.
My wife confessed one night in bed that she wanted to have sex with other women. I was shocked, but thought it kinda kinky, and said, “sure, you go explore.” For one thing, she was desperately unhappy with her job and her lack of challenge in her life, so maybe I figured “who am I to block her in yet another thing?” And like most guys, it seemed sorta appealing, for reasons I still can explain. It didn’t stop at other women, but included at least one man I know of. I confess I didn’t handle that part well, but partly because I caught her sneaking around with him. So much for an open marriage. [click to continue…]
{ 0 comments }
We’ve just discovered Anal Amy:
Friends with extra special benefits
Well, I thought it would be a while longer before my next sex fueled adventure. Before Thursday night, we still hadn’t gone past first base.I’m not sure how long it was, but it was a pretty long time for a blowjob, he finally came. I had been begging him the whole time to cum on my face. I didn’t think he was going to do it until at the last second, he pulled his cock out and aimed it right between my eyes. I closed my eyes and felt the hot cum hit my skin. It flowed into my eyes, it dripped off my face. I couldn’t open my eyes until he cleaned me up with a napkin.
But as soon as I could see again, I went back to work on his cock. I couldn’t even think about anything else right now. I had to get his cock hard again. His cock tasted like sperm now, and that definitely turned me on.
- snip -
Mr Next
Well, I may have met the next one. LOL. I swear I wasn’t even looking, just out with my friends at a party and there he was. I’m not even joking it was one of those moments where I was standing in one part of the room, I looked over to where he was and he looked at me and grinned.
His name is Luke. I kind of knew him already. He’s always in the gym (great body!) because works out all the time and he works there. He’s helped me out with a few of my techniques and “spots.” But this was the first time we’ve really said more than a couple of sentences to each other. It wasn’t the greatest conversation, we were both pretty drunk but he’s so cute, so hot and actually has a brain.
I remember most of our conversation except a part where I said I would start working out with him. He called me up Sunday afternoon and I was a little surprised because I didn’t remember anything about it.
I’ve been thinking about working out for a while – but not as hardcore as he does. He runs (I jogged and walked a little) first. Then he goes into the weight room. I swear there were a couple of times he forgot I was a girl and hadn’t worked out in a while when he was selecting the weights. Then today, he had me work out with the cardio stuff. I’m not sure if he’s a perspective trainer or boyfriend.
It’s kind of weird hanging out with him though. I had a huge crush on him last year when I used to go to the gym all the time. But it’s also weird because we’ve spent a lot of time together the past couple of days. That’s a good thing…I think. Besides the fact that every part of my body is sore, I’ve had a good time with him.
So far we haven’t even kissed. We wrestled but that’s about as much contact as we’ve had. He’s really flirty and really playful. Plus, he’s laid back and doesn’t take things serious. A lot like me.
This is going to sound really – bad but I’m wondering why he’s into me. I’ve seen some of the girls he talks to that come into the gym. Super skinny, blonde, great bodies – etc. They all wear the skin tight shorts and just a sports bra. They have bodies I’d pay for. I honestly think he’s heard that I’m easy, a good fuck or something. I know he knows at least one of my ex’s.
Anyways, I should get back to working on this paper.
From “Mr. Next”
{ 0 comments }
“Mr. Jefferson is run on a basis of trust.”
John LeCarre, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Sply
New Yorks’s Mr. Jefferson – based on Thomas J., man of many accomplishments, not the LeCarre character – but he is a man you can trust. More about Mr. Jefferson’s personal attributes in near future. Or reasonably near future. However, for the moment, a half-time single parent just starting a new household, Mr. J. is in need of some stuff for himself and kids:
Here’s his list:
Television
Small dining table
Day bed
Twin bed
Chests of drawers
Desk
Bookcases
Nightstands/end tables
Rugs
Printer
Hee’s the post it came from: Moving.
And, of course, we here at Sunnydale Recycling wouldn’t even know about OneLife,Take Two (Mr. Jefferson – who’s having only one life, but clearly taking and giving far more than just two – no matter what wonderful thing it is you might be thinking about: kids he loves, lovers he loves, friends, new friend – almost all of these in amount greater than two. Perhaps the name should be One Life – Take a number greater than or equal to Two). It’s reasoning like this that make Jefferson, and Mr. Paine, and Ms. AAG, such good writers – and me – at least on no sleep – not so much.
{ 0 comments }
