Category Archives: Sex

Not to Dwell on Roman “the Rapist” Polanski, but…

This piece from HuffPost is part of a series of backlashes against defenders of Roman Polanski, the child rapist.  It is a particularly scathing (appropriate) criticism of Polanski and the people kissing his ass.

Maybe [Polanski’s supporters] believed the child rapist was a worthy cause to rally around. But a child rapist is not a political prisoner. Political prisoners tend to be brave and selfless. A middle-aged man who treats a 13-year-old girl like an inflatable sex doll, and who then flees justice, is a degenerate and a coward.

Wheres Jack Ruby when you need him?

Where's Jack Ruby when you need him?

I only update about this because the defense of Roman Polanski– the belief that somehow he’s exempt from justice because he’s an artist or had a hard life (who cares?)– is something that feels like a shotgun blast to my brain.  I’m not a bloodthirsty, death-penalty-for-pedophiles kind of guy– the rights of the accused, in particular the presumption of innocence, are what makes democracy work, and I love democracy– but the rights of the convicted do not include a pass to escape to Europe and keep working on movies until you’re an old man, when your arrest will be framed as a “sabotage” or a “political stunt” by the people who worship you.   I don’t know how to argue when the argument itself is so obvious that it should be useless to even talk about it.  Something misfires in my brain when the other side (why is there even another side to this?) has thrown out all the assumptions that I thought humans took for granted.

Evil Atheist Christopher Hitchens Hits Nail on Head

Christopher Hitchens, and a man so atheist that he’s devoted his life to the cause, wrote a short op-ed for Slate today and proved more than anything that the English have a God-given talent for making prose sound like poetry.  Hitchens, who kind of looks like Tim Curry, comments on Roman Polanski’s evasion of the law after committing child-rape, the inexplicable support Polanski is receiving from Hollywood, and some of the other sick doctrines (besides celebrity exceptionalism) that allow sick things to be done to children around the world.

Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens

It is, rather, quite astonishing that Polanski has been able to caper about on the run for so long, thumbing his nose, even collecting damages, flourishing a “Get Out of Jail Free” and a lucrative “Pass Go” card, and constantly reminding the law of its impotence.

For another excellent opinion piece written by someone who has a vague idea of what the rule of law means, read this piece from Salon.com:

Roman Polanski raped a child. Let’s just start right there, because that’s the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in “exile” (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never — poor baby — being able to return to the U.S.).

This Polanski story makes my head hurt.  I cannot understand what is going on in the world when people who I assumed weren’t justice-hating rape apologists are dying for a chance to show support for Polanski because, well… that’s just it—  I don’t know why the hell anyone is complaining that he was arrested!  The best these people can come up with is that he’s a Holocaust survivor; he’s a genius filmmaker; it happened so long ago; the victim doesn’t want to press the issue; they arrested him on the way to a lifetime achievement award; blah blah blah this SUCKS!!!  I can’t believe it but my head actually hurts to think about it.  My head doesn’t hurt like this when I think about the people who buy seasons of crappy sitcoms like “Two and a Half Men” on DVD; or when I hear someone saying that maybe old black people were discriminated against but younger black people don’t really face discrimination; or even when I see that Nickelback went triple-platinum: nothing sucks as much as people making excuses for themselves and their friends based on nothing, especially when the rule of law or common decency is being subverted.

Nothing Funny about Letterman Tonight

I heard the news before watching tonight’s show, but it was hard to watch Dave admit to having several sexual affairs (he called “sick, sick things”) with staffers at the show.  He spoke about the man (who it turns out is the producer of “48 Hours”) who tried to blackmail him for $2 million for most of the segment, but finally admitted that these “sick things” he was accused of were true.  There was laughing throughout, especially near the beginning of the story when he was in “Uncle Dave” mode, but as the story went on he became more contrite and spent the remainder of the show– including the guest interviews and the Top Ten list– looking bothered and distracted.

Philandering Boys Club!

Philandering Boys Club!

Letterman’s personal crisis bothers me because it means that a hero of mine is just another philandering drop in a sea of wealthy, powerful, adulterous men, helping to prove that there is no such thing as a wealthy, powerful man who can control his every sexual whim.  I don’t care to be wealthy or powerful but I started wondering, should I become brilliant like Letterman and accrue wealth and power in the meantime, would I be susceptible to this kind of behavior, or– and this might be a stretch– does my intense desire to be a trustworthy, non-philandering man preclude my being brilliant and successful? Are these traits mutually exclusive?  Is there an intervening variable here that might explain why so many wealthy or powerful men are adulterers?  Does this mean wealthy and powerful men are nearly irresistible to women, and that it’s a given that any man will sleep with a woman who finds him irresistible?  Should it be okay for a man to have affairs or mistresses or the occasional night with a prostitute if it allows him to keep being brilliant?  If that’s how we are by nature, then why does it seem so messed up?  Why are people always hurt by these “sick things” if it appears they have some natural reason to accept or even embrace them?

Most of all, why are people sticking up for Roman Polanski, the child rapist?

Porn Makes You Gay?

Here’s the conservative moron story of the hour, followed by my own brand of moron-

At a Value Voters Summit over the weekend (expectations are already through the floor), the chief of staff for Tom Coburn, Republican senator from Oklahoma, tells the crowd exactly what they want to hear:

All pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards.  And if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to get a copy of Playboy?  I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants!

Is he really talking about masturbation?  That’s the logical conclusion of watching porn– I say “watching” because there’s no modern 11-year-old boy that would consume printed pornography when there are terabytes available for free viewing online– otherwise, the boy was just a disinterested observer of the very pictures or videos that he sought out in his passion.  So let’s assume when he says “pornography” he really means “masturbation”.  Let’s fix his statement:

All [masturbation] is homosexual [masturbation] because all [masturbation] turns your sexual drive inwards.  And if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to [download that gig of Girls Gone Wild]?  I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants!

Okay, that sounds better already.  Next is the problematic “turns your sexual drive inwards”.  The only sexual drive you can have in inside your body, so surely he meant something else.  Maybe he means that when you masturbate, it makes you want to have sex with yourself, and everyone knows that you are of the same sex that you are, so that means you’re gay!  The problem with this, which is the only evidence he tries to give, is that the point of masturbation is to project yourself into a sexual situation where you are satisfied not by yourself (unless you’re John Edwards), but by the woman, midget tranny, or– and here’s where it can get pretty gay– man in the picture or video or daydream, whatever; no one is closing his eyes and fantasizing about being in his own room alone, masturbating quietly so the parents don’t hear.  So we can replace the strange “turns your sexual drive inwards” and get rid of the unprofessional second person perspective with “places one in a remote sexual fantasy”.  Then there’s the trouble with saying “masturbation” three times in one sentence, so we’ll get rid of a couple.  Now let’s see what we’ve got:

All [masturbation] is homosexual because [it] [places one in a remote sexual fantasy].  And if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to [download that gig of Girls Gone Wild]?  I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants!

Some self-respecting playthings

Some self-respecting playthings

Maybe “all masturbation” could use a little tweaking to make it focus on the real beneficiaries of compassionate conservatism: the people.  Let’s replace it with “all those who masturbate,” which in turn can be changed to “nearly everyone”.  The chief of staff is “pretty sure” the 11-year-old boy he tries to help will lose interest, but he’s not absolutely sure.  The “last thing he wants” is still something he wants, so let’s make that correction, too.  And let’s replace “homosexual” with “masturbates” because those are synonymous to the good Chief of Staff.  Get rid of all the brackets, change the “do” to “don’t” to fit the tone of the question, and what have we got?

Nearly everyone masturbates because it places one into a remote sexual fantasy.  And if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, don’t you think he’s going to want to download that gig of Girls Gone Wild?  I’m not absolutely sure he’ll lose interest. That’s something he wants!

There is something I generally agree with, which just ends up being an observation.  The question remains whether 11-year-old boys, or anyone for that matter, should be watching Girls Gone Wild.  I don’t think so; not because it would make little Johnny homosexual (God forbid!), but because it objectifies women and sets Johnny up for a harmful attitude toward girls he will like and women he will work with in his adult life.  I believe masturbation is healthy but pornography is more or less harmful for the expectations it makes men put on themselves and on the women that they should respect.  When most of the females in Johnny’s head are naked playthings to be used and abused for Johnny’s pleasure, he will consider the women he finds unattractive to be useless, and the women he finds attractive to be useful only to the extent that they can provide that pleasure.  With that mindset, Johnny is really missing out on the contributions of over half of the population of the world.

So what is Johnny or anyone to do if he can’t look at pornography?  A good rule: make every sexual experience your own.  That means using your own imagination– and sure, that mind will probably be full of real, live girls that you know or have seen in real life– not a cold video of distant strangers; it means seeking out girls who don’t just appeal to you sexually, but girls that you can talk to and love so that if you ever have a sexual concern, discussing it won’t be such a big deal; and just being concerned with yourself, your partner, and the expectations of both, untainted by the images and messed up priorities of the industry that only wants to sell you other people’s sexual encounters.  Make sex as warm, intimate, and realistic as possible.