An art sculpture designed to represent unity has been moved from a Michigan town, because residents thought it was meant to be a gay orgy. Blue Human Condition, by sculptor Mark Chatterley, was unveiled last week near Adrian City Hall, but residents labelled it an “abomination” and referred to it as “the orgy statue." Chatterly said the sculpture was not intended to be sexual, and told Huffington Post the meaning was that “living today, we can’t do it alone. We rely on other people (…) to try to survive.”
You know what? It does kinda look like a big gay orgy. Clearly wrong for Adrian, Michigan—but absolutely perfect for Fremont, Center of the Universe. The folks who brought Lenin to Fremont should get on bringing Blue Human Condition to town.
One in five college-age women have been sexually assaulted—but that doesn't mean one in five college-age men are rapists. Amanda Marcotte:
No one is saying that the high rates of victimization among college women mean that all men are rapists. That one in five college women have been assaulted doesn't mean that one in five men are assailants. Far from it. A study published in 2002 by David Lisak and Paul Miller, for which they interviewed college men about their sexual histories, found that only about six percent of the men surveyed had attempted or successfully raped someone. While some of them only tried once, most of the rapists were repeat offenders, with each committing an average of 5.8 rapes a piece. The six percent of men who were rapists were generally violent men, as well. "The 120 rapists were responsible for 1,225 separate acts of interpersonal violence, including rape, battery, and child physical and sexual abuse," the researchers write. A single rapist can leave a wake of victims, racking up the numbers rapidly, as the victim surveys are clearly showing.
This cannot be emphasized enough: The high rates of campus sexual assault are due mostly to a small percentage of men who assault multiple women. Understanding this makes the problem of sexual assault on campus much less overwhelming and, hopefully, easier to accept and address. Women aren't running a gauntlet of would-be rapists when they go to a party or go out on dates. Most men they encounter are perfectly safe. This issue isn't about demonizing men as a group or scaring women into thinking men are inherently dangerous. The issue here is about eradicating the small group of predators on campuses that are continually getting away with their crimes.
Another stat that we're just starting to wrap our heads around: men are often the victims of rape—it also happens to our sons and brothers—and the rapists are
usually often women.
UPDATE: A reader corrects me...
It's not accurate to say as you do, "and the rapists are usually
women." According to the source you link to: "46 percent of male victims reported a female perpetrator." So the rapists of men may as often be women, but "usually" implies a vast majority. Not to downplay the incidence of men being sexually assaulted, because I'm not, but laying the blame almost entirely on women is simply not factual and it will fuel the fire of MRAs trolls who descend on feminist blogs. Thanks.
NPR take a look at the "divorce rate" among birds:
Flamingos, it turns out, are embarrassing. They break up 99 percent of the time. The divorce rate for piping plovers is 67 percent. Ducks do better than humans. Human marriages (American ones) fail at a rate of roughly 40 percent (which is about equal to Nazca boobies). Mallard marriages are 91 percent successful. The big shock was swans. Everybody, ornithologists included, figured swans would be at the top of the Most Faithful list. But they're not. They have a 5 percent divorce rate. So who's the champ? Do I need to say? Albatrosses are 100 percent faithful. That's not to say that albatross dads don't occasionally have a dalliance with ladies who aren't their mates. That happens. But the original pair stays intact—which is surprising when you consider that albatross couples can last for decades.
Unless male albatrosses are scrupulous about dallying—that's NPR for "fucking"—only with single lady albatrosses (albatri?), the female of the species is getting it elsewhere too. But the albatross may have a more workable definition of "faithful" than the one humans have been saddled with: a lasting partner bond with the occasional dalliance, aka social monogamy, not sexual monogamy. Another thing albatrosses seem to do right: they spend a lot of time apart—sometimes months alone. Research shows that human couples who do the same are happier and have stronger relationships.
UPDATE: Yes, yes—human beings are not birds, as folks are pointing out in the comments. That would be a more devastating point if birds long believed to be monogamous—because they were socially monogamous—had not held up for centuries as a moral example to human beings. Then along comes genetic testing and we discover that—lordy!—none of those birds we'd been hearing about were sexually monogamous. So we had a lot to learn from birds when we believed they were monogamous. Now that we know they're not... nothing to see here, folks, move along.
And it wasn't too long ago that social conservatives were cheering March of the Penguins, a documentary about the mating habits of penguins that "[affirmed] traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice and child rearing," according to social cons:
Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, told the young conservatives' gathering last month: "You have to check out 'March of the Penguins.' It is an amazing movie. And I have to say, penguins are the really ideal example of monogamy. These things—the dedication of these birds is just amazing."
Reality, however, has a
liberal non-monogamous bias:
Emperor Penguins are serially monogamous. They have only one mate each year, and stay faithful to that mate. However, fidelity between years is only about 15%. The narrow window of opportunity available for mating appears to be an influence, as there is a priority to mate and breed which often precludes waiting for the appearance of the previous year's partner.
To recap: "Penguins are monogamous? People should act more like penguins! Penguins are a shining example to us all! Wait—penguins aren't monogamous? People shouldn't act like penguins! Penguins are animals and their example is entirely irrelevant!"
The Louisiana House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly — 27–67 — to retain a law banning “crimes against nature,” including oral sex and all forms of same-sex sexual contact. The law has been unenforceable for over ten years, since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that laws criminalizing consensual private sexual behavior are unconstitutional. The 67 lawmakers who opposed the repeal thus violated their oath of office, in which they swore to support the Constitution of the United States. Repeal of the unconstitutional law was opposed by the Louisiana Family Forum, a state affiliate of Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. In a letter to lawmakers, the group argued that “Louisiana’s anti-sodomy statute is consistent with the values of Louisiana residents who consider this behavior to be dangerous, unhealthy, and immoral.”
Yesterday's vote could lead to some highly entertaining press conferences if political reporters have the nerve to ask the obvious followup question of those 67 lawmakers: "Have you ever given or received a blowjob?" So there's a potential silver lining here.
Last week, I posted about a new advertisement outside the liquor store on 12th and Pine—an ad that encourages people to get so hammered on Jägermeister that they think they have an immortal legacy. Like I said, the ads play into the worst fears of many locals who have watched the neighborhood become a magnet for racist, homophobic, violent bigots who drink themselves into a stupor—maybe doing shots of Jägermeister—and then attack people of color, gay people, and drag queens. A cook at Linda's Tavern has been putting up fake Jägermeister ads mocking the campaign and the gentrification of the neighborhood.
Now someone else has, um, enhanced the original. I don't want to post the image above the jump, because images of booze just are not part of a healthy working environment. Oh also, there's a big uncut dong on the mural now:
Susan Elizabeth Shepard and Charlotte Shane offer up a feminist critique of the 69 position:
Further examination of 69 confronts us with an unfortunate truth: it is a distinctly capitalistic, efficiency-emphasizing endeavor that erases the unique personhood of each participant by relying on a crude approximation of how human bodies fit together if human bodies are conceived of as identical, two-dimensional figures like the numbers of its name. While it is possible that two bodies might be so perfectly proportioned that, when flipped to be positioned feet to head with one another, the genitals and face align perfectly, a cursory survey of most human bodies would testify to this supreme improbability. Height alone is not the issue but rather distribution of that height along someone’s torso. Contortion will almost always be required of the neck and larger spine, creating an oft-unsustainable and painful form that dooms the experiment from the start....
The position also echoes the service economy in its demand (mainly on women) of a convincing performance of pleasure. It's not enough to simply be present and to competently do the job that's asked of you by your lover, you must also appear to simultaneously enjoy said lover's ministrations, regardless of the delicate balancing requiring to keep from suffocating him or breaking his nose. This is a form of emotional labor like that demanded from baristas, servers, and sex workers; not only do you have to do a good job, you have to like it.... Inevitably, a man such as this will make a great show of this request testifying to his “love” of “pleasing” a woman. You are well within your rights to ask such an individual, “if you are so mad about eating me out, why can you not give it your full attention? Why must my nose in your balls be the carrot before the horse?”
My money is on parody. But in the era of #CancelColbert... who the fuck knows?
What do religious conservatives mean by "traditional" marriage"? They mean "opposite-sex" marriage.
The gang at NOM, for instance, doesn't care if a couple hews to traditional (and archaic, sexist, and patriarchal) gender roles. NOM doesn't make a distinction between two socially-conservative virgin Baptists who wanna have as many children as God grants them and two atheist abortion-clinic doctors who wanna live a Femdom/cuckold/hotwife lifestyle. So long as both couples are opposite-sex—one man and one woman—both should be able to legally marry, according to NOM and other defenders of "traditional marriage." Only same-sex couples, a.k.a. non-traditional couples, should be prevented from marrying. Says NOM: traditional = opposite-sex and opposite-sex = traditional! Period. The End.
So while some will condemn Rep. Vance McAllister for having an extramarital affair—Vance got caught on tape—he deserves some credit for having traditional extramarital affair:
A Louisiana newspaper claims to have surveillance video showing Rep. Vance McAllister (R-LA), a married freshman member of Congress who ran for office last year as a conservative Christian with the backing of the stars of the "Duck Dynasty" reality show, "passionately embracing and kissing" one of his female staffers. The video was published online Monday by The Ouachita Citizen, a conservative-leaning newspaper that endorsed McAllister's opponent in last November's special election to fill Louisiana's 5th District seat in the House. The newspaper, which has a paid circulation of 5,200, credited an "anonymous source" with providing the surveillance video of what it described as an "extramarital encounter." According to the Citizen, the video shows McAllister kissing a woman the newspaper identified as Melissa Peacock—McAllister’s district scheduler—at his district office in Monroe.... The Citizen describes at length the ways in which McAllister touted his Christian faith during his campaign. On his campaign website, McAllister listed "faith and family" at the top of his "issues" page, and touted his 16-year marriage to his wife. The couple has five children.
("Vance on the Issues" image via Gabe Ortiz.)
...and if you unwrap her and pass her around and, well, she's gonna get all dirty and no one will want to eat her. That's the message "abstinence-plus" sex "educators" are giving to teenagers in Mississippi:
With the teen birth and sexually transmitted disease rates among the highest in the nation, Mississippi lawmakers in 2012 moved to require school districts to provide abstinence-only or so-called abstinence-plus sex education programs to students. (Though calling abstinence-only curriculum “sex education” is a stretch.)
Since then, at least 71 of the state’s 151 school districts have opted to teach abstinence-plus sex education, a nominal improvement from previous decades. But as the Los Angeles Times reports, the quality of that education varies widely, and can sometimes undermine safe sex practices and basic awareness of sexual health issues. Case in point: A school district in Oxford is teaching students that sexually active teen girls are like dirty chocolate that’s been passed around among students.
“They’re using the Peppermint Pattie to show that a girl is no longer clean or valuable after she’s had sex — that she’s been used,” Marie Barnard, a parent and public health worker, told the Times. “That shouldn’t be the lesson we send kids about sex.”
And they have a point—a girl is just like a piece of chocolate! But one that can make her own choices about when and whether to unwrap, get herself vaccinated against HPV, use birth control, refuse to waste her time with anyone who won't eat her, and jump in the shower before wrapping herself back up.
I always kinda hoped he was one of the good guys. Naw. Of course not. The celeb (who could date probably a gazillion different WOMEN) tries to seduce a high school girl? Boooooooooooo, James. You nasty.
Denmark hopes to boost its sinking birthrate by sending couples off on romantic holidays. Gay couples are invited to participate in this Danish-baby-making/future-taxpayer-creating competition. And, hey, who says two men can't make a baby? The exact same people who say that "anything is possible for God," of course, which has always seemed like a massive contradiction to me.... and kind of insulting to a supposedly all-powerful, miracle-working God. So go for it, Danish gay couples! Visit Paris, have at it, and pray for a miracle! (Thanks to Slog tipper Lynda!)
In the first minutes of Nymphomaniac: Volume I, the latest film from Danish director Lars von Trier, the camera winds its way through a rain-soaked night to find our main character: a brutally beaten woman lying wounded in an alley. This woman should not be confused with any of Von Trier's previous brutalized females, including Breaking the Waves' Bess (who is raped and beaten to death), Antichrist's "She" (who cuts off her clitoris with scissors), Dogville's Grace (who is raped and enslaved by an entire town), or Dancer in the Dark's Selma (who is tortured by circumstance then graphically executed by the state). Are you sensing a theme? Or are you too busy trying not to puke?
If it's any consolation, Von Trier's latest piñata-with-a-vagina insists she was asking for it. After being found beaten in the alley, Nymphomaniac's Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) is taken in by the bookish bachelor Seligman (Stellan Skarsgård), who offers her tea and listens to her tales of a life beset by sex addiction. These tales come to life before our eyes, as the young Joe (portrayed by Stacy Martin) learns of sexual pleasure and her own sexual power. The sex is both graphic and technologically accomplished, with the intermingling genitals of nameless porn actors superimposed on the bodies of the film's stars (including Shia LaBeouf, who takes the preteen Joe's vaginal and anal virginity with a half dozen dull thrusts).
Back in the present, Seligman draws parallels between Joe's frantic fuckery and his own studies of fly fishing, through dialogue so stilted and inane, you'll laugh out loud. And yet! In this swamp of garish pretension, Nymphomaniac: Volume I hits upon stretches of great cinema....
Who gives a shit about Fred Phelps? This, for me, is the headline of the day:
No-one with an undetectable viral load, gay or heterosexual, transmits HIV in first two years of PARTNER study
More from AIDSMap:
The second large study to look at whether people with HIV become non-infectious if they are on antiretroviral therapy (ART) has found no cases where someone with a viral load under 200 copies/ml transmitted HIV, either by anal or vaginal sex. Statistical analysis shows that the maximum likely chance of transmission via anal sex from someone on successful HIV treatment was 1% a year for any anal sex and 4% for anal sex with ejaculation where the HIV-negative partner was receptive; but the true likelihood is probably much nearer to zero than this. When asked what the study tells us about the chance of someone with an undetectable viral load transmitting HIV, presenter Alison Rodger said: "Our best estimate is it's zero."
The obvious takeaway: universal testing plus universal treatment equals the end of the HIV pandemic. (Via JoeMyGod.)
Listen, I want to tell you a story, and it's about porn.
I was dating this guy who was handsome and made me laugh and had dishwater blond hair. He lived in San Francisco and New York. The first time we ever talked was at the gym—he was staring at me (at my calves, he told me later), and I caught him looking. Then he approached me and asked me out on a date. I said no, but then the thing was, I kept thinking about him. His face and his voice. So a few weeks later, I found him and said yes.
Yes what? he said.
Yes, a date, let's go.
Since I don't want to keep saying "this guy," let's call him Alex. He's a private person. Not the sort of man who would want his name all over the internet. I hope you like the name I gave you, Alex.
Anyway, we went to this bourgeois tea and food place. There was a statue of Buddha, and the menu was all platitudes. The teas had names like "Goddess of Wisdom." I just had water. Alex ordered "Ocean of Mercy." It was supposed to be very peaceful.
In that place of manufactured calmness, on our first date, Alex asked me my favorite question: So what do you do?
The solution is obvious: she sits on his face and he tells her that the Republican health-care plan is almost here:
This ad is going to create a whole new class of fetishists. I look forward to fielding their questions. (Via RuffsStuff.)
Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are sounding the alarm about antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea, which threatens to pose a “major public health challenge” in the coming years. Over the last three decades, this common sexually transmitted infection has increasingly failed to respond to the drugs used to treat it—which means the thousands of Americans infected with gonorrhea every year are running out of options.
Gonorrhea is one of the most common STDs in the United States, with about 820,000 cases diagnosed each year. But this disease is “remarkably adept” at adapting to antibiotics, according to federal health officials. During the 1990s and early 2000s, gonorrhea developed resistance to several common drugs that used to be able to treat it. Unsurprisingly, drug resistance allows the disease to spread faster.
The good news: condoms provide highly effective protection against gonorrhea and other STIs "transmitted only by genital fluids" (chlamydia, trichomoniasis, HIV).
If YouTube pulls this, watch it here on VICE.com.
A lot of dumb stuff gets written about polyamory and open relationships—which are two different things—but this colossally moronic piece at Salon has to be the dumbest.
Colin Schultz at Smithsonian.com:
In the video above, Henry Reich and the team at Minute Earth explore animal bonding, finding that couples are often more monogamish than monogamous. Albatrosses, for example, are what's known as “socially monogamous.” They form a strong bonds, but when it comes to sexy time, gazes can wander. Strong social bonds have a benefit, but as Minute Earth notes, so does casting a wider net, reproductively speaking. It's hard to abstract from other animals to us, living in our world of cultural and societal norms. But as Dan Savage, the guy who coined the word monogamish noted, you probably know more socially monogamous—and only socially monogamous—people than you think.
The Daily Mail has its pleasures:
Secret recorded video of two New Jersey realtors kinky 'sexual escapades' inside a house they were supposed to be selling has been released today by the irate owner who claims they used his home like 'a cheap motel'.What was the homeowner's response to this deeply distressing fucking business (on our marital bed, our expensive house treated like a cheap motel, violating ethical standards)? He made the video of the "lurid affair" public. That will punish the two lovers forever. Once your image is on the internet, it's there forever. God's eternal damnation is no match for the one that is the internet.
The revealing footage of Coldwell Banker realtors Robert Lindsay and Jeannemarie Phelan comes as homeowners, Richard and Sandra Weiner sue the pair for damages, claiming they were promised the house would sell for $650,000.
According to Weiner, his home security cameras recorded affectionate Phelan and Lindsay having sex at least 10 times - including on his marital bed - and he claims the realtors listed his home above market value so that they could use the house for their lurid affair.
Americans have enjoyed a vast yet mostly silent history with edible underwear. It was invented in 1975, a time of thrusting bodies and glossily lacquered perms and mountains of cocaine. Back then, the original brand, Candy Pants, was rumored to gross $150,000 per month, probably because the panties managed to embody a fantasy so witty and perverse and delightfully bizarre that everyone everywhere utterly bought into it. Still, it's hard to find much information online about the garment apart from the obvious: the wisecracks, the multiple and clearly bullshit stories ending in death-by-suffocation, and the fact that National Edible Underwear Day is fast approaching.
This year, why not surprise your mom with a pair. Several local sex-toy emporiums offer them in a range of styles, each as wildly thrilling as one could ever hope. In Capitol Hill...
The Virginia House of Delegates passed, 100 to 0, a bill Thursday that will finally eliminate an unconstitutional sodomy ban than made oral and anal sex—even between consenting married [straight] couples—a felony. The legislation, which passed the Senate unanimously last month, will now go to Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) for his signature. After years of unsuccessful attempts to repeal the law, in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas ruling held that states may not ban private non-commercial sex between consenting adults.... More than a decade after the Lawrence decision, several other states still have sodomy bans on the books, including Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah.
Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal.
GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.
The documents also chronicle GCHQ's sustained struggle to keep the large store of sexually explicit imagery collected by Optic Nerve away from the eyes of its staff, though there is little discussion about the privacy implications of storing this material in the first place
One could imagine an In the Loop-style dark comedy about the bureaucrats tasked to somehow screen out all the dick pics in the hunt for some legitimate terrorism data. The more of these kinds of stories I read, the more I agree with Brendan Kiley: Off or on, no webcam is safe.
No Shit, Senator: John McCain says if the presidential election were held tomorrow, Hillary Clinton would win.
If They're Lucky, It'll Be Half as Good: Warner Brothers has announced that The Lego Movie 2 will be released on May 26, 2017. I wrote about how my Lego Movie-watching experienced was laced with fear for the inevitable sequel earlier this week.
Will Ferrell (Not) on Ice: He's like a gazelle in a skintight tuxedo costume:
How Conservative Is Humping? Conservative leader says “there is nothing conservative about sodomy.”
Cascadia Now? The Seattle Globalist provides a primer on Cascadia and compares the burgeoning Cascadia separatist movement with Quebec. What do you think of Cascadia, Slog?
Foook-eee-may, PIG! This is brilliant. Sorry it's five days [internet] old, but it's brilliant! Audio NSFW.
Yesterday I posted this stupid, stupid video about sex and economics, along with Lindy West's critique of it. While the video is based on data, it also operates on some amazing underlying assumptions that are not based on data (gay and trans people are completely ignored, marriage is assumed to be every woman's goal) and presents its work to come to a shitty conclusion that ladies need to agree to keep their legs closed more often.
Well, economics professor and author Dr. Marina Adshade at Psychology Today has something to say about the perspective on sex and economics presented in that video:
The economic story, which is one we have heard many times before, goes like this:
On the market for sex, men are buyers and women are sellers because men have a stronger sex drive than women. The price of sex on this market is the level of commitment men have to make in order to encourage women to enter sexual relationships. Historically, women have managed to keep the price of sex at the highest possible level by collectively withholding sex until marriage. Enforcing this collusive arrangement between women was easy because the lack of access to reliable birth control meant that pre-martial sex was costly for women. As birth control has become increasingly effective women have increased the supply of sex outside of marriage and, as a result, the price of sex has fallen to dangerously low levels. The solution to this market problem is for women to once again collude to withhold sex from men and drive the price of sex back up to the marriage level.
The video concludes with the statement: “Economists say that collusion, women working together, would be the most rational way to elevate the market value of sex. But there is little evidence of this happening among women today, at least not yet.”
I have discussed the issues raised in this video a number of times, most recently in this talk, and I don't want to get into the many problems with this theory today. I do, however, want to say this:
Not only do economists not say that that collusion is the only way to increase the value of sex, but economic theory makes it very clear that collusion among a large number of sellers is not possible.
So, Naomi Schaefer Riley at the New York Post has highlighted this little video on "the economics of sex," which she finds "refreshingly honest." It's all about the sex market and the marriage market, and how the pill fucked everything up and now sex is cheap and marriage is expensive. (Excuse me while I try not to hurl.) Interestingly, without any explanation or discussion, it moves forward on the assumption that everyone getting straight married is some totally agreed-upon societal goal, which, in 2014, is absolutely red-flag INSANE. Not just because it ignores that gay people exist and categorizes everyone as either male or female, but it also ignores the possibility that single people or long-term unmarried partners can be happy or stable, treating marriage as a universal goal.
But here, watch for yourself:
Oh, but, of course, it's just about numbers. These are just the averages we're talking about. "Nobody's saying this is the way it ought to be. It's just the way it is."
Yeah, well, we aren't the numbers. The numbers are us. They don't dictate what we do, they reflect it. That is the entire point of activism—to change the numbers, to change the shitty, blatant, measurable ways we marginalize one other.
I really don't know how I'd survive the internet without Lindy.
If you are panicking about a Valentine's day card, the awesome card boyfriend got me 2 years ago can quickly be DIY: pic.twitter.com/tXPGCJciIG
— Michael Kazarnowicz (@kazarnowicz) February 14, 2014
Points for honesty—of course you could get that card from someone who is sick of you or give it to someone you are sick of. There's just no way to deceit-proof a relationship.
And here's my stock Valentine's Day advice: fuck first. It's easier to get late dinner reservations, think 9 or 10 PM, the restaurant will be less packed, the waiters and cooks less harried. And since no one feels like fucking after a "romantic" meal (rich food, wine, dessert), it's a much better idea to go get something to eat after you fuck. Remember, kids: a romantic meal doesn't put you in the mood for a good fuck but a good fuck builds up an appetite for a romantic meal.
And if getting fucked on Valentine's Day is important to you—and it seems to be important to a lot of folks out there (judging from the amount of mail I get on February 15 from people complaining about not getting fucked on February 14)—you must fuck first. I've written back to folks who emailed me on Feb 15 to ask if their relationships were doomed because they didn't fuck on Feb 14 and asked them to describe—in minute detail—how the night went down. Invariably they went out to eat first, drank and ate, and then promptly slipped into food comas once they got home. Don't make that mistake. Fuck first.
And if you're single on Valentine's Day... stay home and watch a movie.
"File this one under 'creepy yet surprisingly hot,' Dan," writes Slog tipper Christine. "It's a Valentine's Day commercial for Vermont Teddy Bears that features a straight couple where he gives her a life-sized teddy bear. He hands it over to her and it is obvious she prefers the bear to the human. You gotta see it for yourself. Maybe an MFB threesome—or does he just like to watch?!?
The ad opens with nod to penis-size anxiety among men—why not compensate with a giant plush toy?—and quickly works in a nod to how-fat-is-my-ass anxiety among women. So that seems fair. But I'm curious if anyone has ever received one of these furgly things from someone they were fucking—and if, after receiving it, you ever fucked that person again.
But my standard advice for Valentine's Day applies if you're thinking about giving your girlfriend—or boyfriend—a giant teddy bear on Friday: Unless your girlfriend is a furry or a plushophile, fuck first. Fuck before you give her the bear. Because you're not going to get fucked after you give her the bear.
I think I did a disservice to the sex in the film Gloria in my review this week. I wanted for the mere fact of older people having sex—no, it must be said: the mere fact of older people fucking—on film to be something normal, not something noteworthy.
...Gloria's life isn't over. She goes to a singles bar crowded with people her age (such places apparently exist in Chile), and she dances and laughs and picks up the charming Rodolfo (Sergio Hernández). The camera, which likes to linger in general in Gloria, records their first tryst, then more later. Much will probably be made of the frank nudity of their older bodies, but unless you actually believe porn, the shock should be minimal. This isn't soft-focused, romanticized, sunset-of-life lovemaking, either; it's the unflinching, driven coupling of two people who just don't happen to be the age of those usually depicted having sex on film. As [Paulina] García said in an interview with NPR, "Look, I'm not Cate Blanchett. I'm a Chilean actress who has three children, and I am what you see. And [director Sebastián Lelio] told me, 'Look, I know how you look, and that is exactly what I want...'"
But it is notable, at least in the good ol' sexist/ageist U.S. of A. It should be pointed out, point-blank: It's still revolutionary here to portray human sexuality in mainstream movies outside of the sanitized coupling of perfect, extruded-looking heterosexual body doubles or, you know, women's breasts. It's still far, far from the norm. The release of the Chilean film Gloria is important, here, in this regard.
(And all this aside, you really should see Gloria. Paulina García's performance is a thing to be marveled at, frame by frame—and she's in every frame of the movie. Before this, she acted in soap operas for decades, making the nuance she conveys here particularly remarkable. Or is that another prejudice?)
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122