I should do more Men (and Women) of the Hour posts. I totally missed my chance with Julian Bond when he was on the Colbert Report and signed a petition in favor of gay marriage within one week. He's got an admirable sense of humor, a strong focus on civil rights for all people, and, heck, he's a bit of a looker for a man his age. Anyway.
This week, Michael Lucas—the gay porn producer/actor/director I so admire for living the American Dream and being reasonably upstanding—is in Israel doing a live sex show. I don't know if it's one performance or many, but in any case, he's over there for a performance, and the media's gone a little crazy, reporting on something they'd normally ignore. People are condemning him, Israelis are telling him to get out of their country, blah blah blah. I think it's great. As he points out, Israel bests most countries, including the USA and especially Israel's neighbors, when it comes to gay rights. They allow gay men in their military (then again, service is mandatory), and they allow these live sex shows and other free expressions of sexuality. Michael's mentioned on his blog that when customs asks him why he's in Israel, he tells them he's an adult performer in for a sex show, and there's never any question or problem.
Israel certainly has issues. It wasn't created under the most morally unambiguous of circumstances, and the strong military presence leads to some horrible, horrible shit. But I do think it's important to remember that the values of the country are just, well, better than the values of surrounding countries. (Yes, I understand some will disagree with me, but I doubt any of my friends will disagree on that point, and the blog is primarily written for people I know.) Does that give it more of a right to exist? Probably not...I don't think they're directly related. But I would be very happy to support a country that lets Michael Lucas do live sex shows. That's more of an American value than America can muster.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Earth to Pluto
Turn around, bee-yatch, and get your icy ass out of the solar system. Oh, wait, you hardly need you. You're six frickin' light hours away from the sun anyway. You probably haven't even heard the news yet: You're no longer a planet! You're a "dwarf planet." And don't go thinking that's like a regular dwarf--human, just small--you're in a totally separate classification. It's kill or be killed around here, and until you accrete or knock out your neighbors, you are killed, killed, killed. So go join your mini-buddies in the Kuiper belt. Go back with your own kind! Because you're not one of us, you eccentricly orbiting block of ice. Leave the planeting to the big boys.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Voyeurism 2.0
I don't even need to admit it; you already know exactly what I'm doing right now. Yup: I'm analyzing the AOL searches of the 650,000 unfortunate (and rather silly) AOL customers who had their search data accidentally released by their ISP. Oh, AOL...keep digging. Just keep digging.
I've thus far been pretty disappointed with the AOLers...well, maybe disappointed's the wrong word. I have a pretty low opinion of most AOL users anyway. But still. Most importantly, nobody searched for me! Come on people. I know you're all grandmothers who can barely figure out how to use the internet, but please, learn a little about my awesomeness. It couldn't hurt. And forget about the fact that nobody serched for Seed Magazine. With that attitude towards learning about science and culture, it's no wonder you're getting ripped off. However, there are a few redeeming/amusing people, and I'd like to tour through one of them. Just to profile a random dude.
5278294
This fellow starts out nice and easy with searches for "citibank" and "palm springs," moving quickly into searches for "frank serio." Damned if I know who he is. Searches follow for "vegan new york" and different travel planning sites. He goes to craigslist a bunch (throughout the whole search list) and then looks for "gay hotel south beach miami." Sounds like a good time, 5278294. "William Mann:" Wikipedia tells me he's a gay author and historian. Then we start on Israel searches, culminating in my favorite, toward the end of the search period, with inquiries on "gay sherpa." Oh, now we find out that the infamous frank serio died in palm springs and appears to be having a funeral there. That would explain the hunt for the gay hotel, I suppose. Now he's searching for "tattoo" a lot. Unclear whether he wants one or likes them on other people. We get into searches for "nude male models." I think 5278294 and I have a lot in common. Ooh, and he likes "alex lundqvist." EXCELLENT taste. He looks for "the honeymoon is over musical." It looks (from my own searching) like that's a song from a Bert Lahr vehicle called "Foxy." For whatever reason, he looks up about 20 different rivers. He looks up "1945 andrews sisters hit song" (again, great taste). "The owl and the pussycat poet" (edward lear), "homeric sea," "swiss child psychologist jean." He goes on to search tons of people who seem to photograph male nudes (still very nice) and finally goes for "bath house san diego." Please be safe, 5278294.
And then that's just about it. There you go...a few months of someone's life in searches. I feel like I know this guy. He's gay, cultured, probably a little on the older side, web savvy. Be my friend, 5278294.
Now I'm going to see if I can hunt for a sicko. Voyeurism 2.0! Woohoo!
By the way, this is the 100th post on this blog. Rejoice.
I've thus far been pretty disappointed with the AOLers...well, maybe disappointed's the wrong word. I have a pretty low opinion of most AOL users anyway. But still. Most importantly, nobody searched for me! Come on people. I know you're all grandmothers who can barely figure out how to use the internet, but please, learn a little about my awesomeness. It couldn't hurt. And forget about the fact that nobody serched for Seed Magazine. With that attitude towards learning about science and culture, it's no wonder you're getting ripped off. However, there are a few redeeming/amusing people, and I'd like to tour through one of them. Just to profile a random dude.
5278294
This fellow starts out nice and easy with searches for "citibank" and "palm springs," moving quickly into searches for "frank serio." Damned if I know who he is. Searches follow for "vegan new york" and different travel planning sites. He goes to craigslist a bunch (throughout the whole search list) and then looks for "gay hotel south beach miami." Sounds like a good time, 5278294. "William Mann:" Wikipedia tells me he's a gay author and historian. Then we start on Israel searches, culminating in my favorite, toward the end of the search period, with inquiries on "gay sherpa." Oh, now we find out that the infamous frank serio died in palm springs and appears to be having a funeral there. That would explain the hunt for the gay hotel, I suppose. Now he's searching for "tattoo" a lot. Unclear whether he wants one or likes them on other people. We get into searches for "nude male models." I think 5278294 and I have a lot in common. Ooh, and he likes "alex lundqvist." EXCELLENT taste. He looks for "the honeymoon is over musical." It looks (from my own searching) like that's a song from a Bert Lahr vehicle called "Foxy." For whatever reason, he looks up about 20 different rivers. He looks up "1945 andrews sisters hit song" (again, great taste). "The owl and the pussycat poet" (edward lear), "homeric sea," "swiss child psychologist jean." He goes on to search tons of people who seem to photograph male nudes (still very nice) and finally goes for "bath house san diego." Please be safe, 5278294.
And then that's just about it. There you go...a few months of someone's life in searches. I feel like I know this guy. He's gay, cultured, probably a little on the older side, web savvy. Be my friend, 5278294.
Now I'm going to see if I can hunt for a sicko. Voyeurism 2.0! Woohoo!
By the way, this is the 100th post on this blog. Rejoice.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Extracurriculum Ridiculum
I have begun a new extracurricular activity. These are the things that get you into college. However, since I've already graduated from college, it won't do me any good in that regard. And it would take a very special institution of higher learning to admit me based on my new hobby.
I am photographing penises. Yup. Got that right.
A few months ago I discovered a website, where "Mrs. Candy," a "56 year old former head mistress on a mission to find the perfect phallus," reviews pictures that men send in of their penises. I like this site not just because of the pictures of penises (I'm super-female in that regard—visuals are never nearly as arousing as a good story), but because of the approach the site takes to erotic material. There's so much talk about exploitation and objectification in pornography, and this site defies both. Submissions are totally voluntary, and nobody gets paid for submitting. Submissions are pretty much anonymous, especially if the "phallic patron" has a fairly common name...although an 'Aloysius, 18, Katonah" might not fare especially well. It's just for people who want to show off their penises. As for objectification...well, I feel the real problem with that is objectifying the whole person, not the body. Pornographic films where women are just used as sex toys strikes me as much more objectifying than lots of pictures of boobs or, as the case may be, pictures of penises. It's not saying that the person is an object...it's saying that individual parts of the body can be beautiful and arousing. My favorite aspect of the site is that it's entirely positive. There are no bad reviews. If Mrs. Candy doesn't love your phallus, she doesn't review it. Also, I suspect she deletes all negative comments, because I've never seen one. While I'm generally not in favor of censorship, I feel that a private site where men put out their penises for criticism is a clear case of "Oh, come on, get over it." There's much benefit of a purely positive site, and it's not the government; it's just some lady.
So, anyway, a few weeks ago, I realized that there were probably men who wanted to submit to the site but didn't own digital cameras or know how to take a good phallic self-portrait. So I volunteered my services. Mrs. Candy kindly posted my contact information on her site, and within a few hours I had heard from two men! In total, I've had responses from four, but only one has thus far had the initiative to actually try to schedule a time. And he was the focus of yesterday early afternoon.
Scott is a 26-year-old starting his residency in dentistry. I may write a guest post for Mrs. Candy on my experience, so I won't go into too many details here, but in a nutshell, he's a friendly, normal (but not TOO normal), chill and gentlemanly fellow with a nice body and a very nice penis. We had a pretty easy time talking and an only slightly awkward time shooting. He brought an atrocious porno (NB: judgment based on occasional glances as I changed angle) in an Ella Fitzgerald case. Nice. He's also a good Jewish boy—and a doctor, if of teeth—so you could bring him home to mom...if these things matter to mom. The lighting was decent in my living room, so the shots came out pretty well. Overall, a very positive experience. Now to see if they make it onto the site. I hope they do. If so, I'll link to them...even though the vast majority of the people who read this blog like men (if not only men), you didn't come here to see penises, so I won't put them here. Right-o.
I am photographing penises. Yup. Got that right.
A few months ago I discovered a website, where "Mrs. Candy," a "56 year old former head mistress on a mission to find the perfect phallus," reviews pictures that men send in of their penises. I like this site not just because of the pictures of penises (I'm super-female in that regard—visuals are never nearly as arousing as a good story), but because of the approach the site takes to erotic material. There's so much talk about exploitation and objectification in pornography, and this site defies both. Submissions are totally voluntary, and nobody gets paid for submitting. Submissions are pretty much anonymous, especially if the "phallic patron" has a fairly common name...although an 'Aloysius, 18, Katonah" might not fare especially well. It's just for people who want to show off their penises. As for objectification...well, I feel the real problem with that is objectifying the whole person, not the body. Pornographic films where women are just used as sex toys strikes me as much more objectifying than lots of pictures of boobs or, as the case may be, pictures of penises. It's not saying that the person is an object...it's saying that individual parts of the body can be beautiful and arousing. My favorite aspect of the site is that it's entirely positive. There are no bad reviews. If Mrs. Candy doesn't love your phallus, she doesn't review it. Also, I suspect she deletes all negative comments, because I've never seen one. While I'm generally not in favor of censorship, I feel that a private site where men put out their penises for criticism is a clear case of "Oh, come on, get over it." There's much benefit of a purely positive site, and it's not the government; it's just some lady.
So, anyway, a few weeks ago, I realized that there were probably men who wanted to submit to the site but didn't own digital cameras or know how to take a good phallic self-portrait. So I volunteered my services. Mrs. Candy kindly posted my contact information on her site, and within a few hours I had heard from two men! In total, I've had responses from four, but only one has thus far had the initiative to actually try to schedule a time. And he was the focus of yesterday early afternoon.
Scott is a 26-year-old starting his residency in dentistry. I may write a guest post for Mrs. Candy on my experience, so I won't go into too many details here, but in a nutshell, he's a friendly, normal (but not TOO normal), chill and gentlemanly fellow with a nice body and a very nice penis. We had a pretty easy time talking and an only slightly awkward time shooting. He brought an atrocious porno (NB: judgment based on occasional glances as I changed angle) in an Ella Fitzgerald case. Nice. He's also a good Jewish boy—and a doctor, if of teeth—so you could bring him home to mom...if these things matter to mom. The lighting was decent in my living room, so the shots came out pretty well. Overall, a very positive experience. Now to see if they make it onto the site. I hope they do. If so, I'll link to them...even though the vast majority of the people who read this blog like men (if not only men), you didn't come here to see penises, so I won't put them here. Right-o.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Out of Style
It's time for a bitch post! Here's one of my pet peeves: People who correct grammar incorrectly. Well, perhaps incorrectly is the wrong word: People who correct grammar ungenerously and uncreatively. Sure, everyone's annoyed with people who say "between you and I," that's nothing new, but here are some of my annoyances:
"Ugh, I don't feel well."
"What? Are there no nerve endings in your fingertips? Are you somehow just untalented or unskilled at feeling? I think what you meant is 'I don't feel good.'"
No, motherfucker! "Well" can mean healthy. It's an adjective in addition to an adverb. Yes, it also can be a noun or a verb (how versatile!), but that's not what's at issue here. What's at issue is that "wellness" means "health," and it is perfectly acceptable to say "I don't feel well."
"I'm so happy; I am literally on cloud nine."
"Really? Is that where we are now? Or is it just you there and I'm not there, too. How can you be...OH, you meant you're figuratively on cloud nine. That's what you meant, right?"
No, sugartits! Your friend didn't mean figuratively. He was using the word 'literally' as hyperbole. He was exaggerating. He was trying to make a point by taking an expression that's lost a lot of its power back to its etymology by reminding you of the meaning. Sure, it's a strange technique—the exaggeration is actually a flat out lie—but don't think the diction is incorrect. It's just bizarre.
Anyone have anything to add?
"Ugh, I don't feel well."
"What? Are there no nerve endings in your fingertips? Are you somehow just untalented or unskilled at feeling? I think what you meant is 'I don't feel good.'"
No, motherfucker! "Well" can mean healthy. It's an adjective in addition to an adverb. Yes, it also can be a noun or a verb (how versatile!), but that's not what's at issue here. What's at issue is that "wellness" means "health," and it is perfectly acceptable to say "I don't feel well."
"I'm so happy; I am literally on cloud nine."
"Really? Is that where we are now? Or is it just you there and I'm not there, too. How can you be...OH, you meant you're figuratively on cloud nine. That's what you meant, right?"
No, sugartits! Your friend didn't mean figuratively. He was using the word 'literally' as hyperbole. He was exaggerating. He was trying to make a point by taking an expression that's lost a lot of its power back to its etymology by reminding you of the meaning. Sure, it's a strange technique—the exaggeration is actually a flat out lie—but don't think the diction is incorrect. It's just bizarre.
Anyone have anything to add?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)