Posts Tagged Sex
Subtitle: Part One of an Ongoing Series Dedicated to the Deconstruction of Arguments Against Polyamory or NAMBLA
This is not a fully researched, peer-reviewed, cited and documented critical analysis. You won’t find dry, scholarly lecturing using enormous words that only three people in the history of people understand the meaning of and one of those three people went insane in the 1960’s trying to decide whether it was an historic moment or a historic moment and is now wandering in the woods sans underwear, unavailable to answer questions. No, these are my thoughts, off the top of my head, about some arguments against polyamory that I made up off of the bottom of my head. Exactly why the top and bottom parts of my brain are having an argument is better left for a different blog post.
What is polyamory, you ask? I’m glad you asked, friend, glad you asked! Poly, from the greek poly meaning many; –amor, from the latin amor, meaning love; and –y, from the Aztec qxztyclx, meaning, well, no one is sure what it means and the scholarship is sorely lacking on exactly why it is considered part of the etymology of the word “polyamory” so for our purposes, we’ll simply ignore it. Therefore, polyamory directly translates into “many loves (plus that bizarre part we’re going to ignore)”. Polyamory is a having loving, intimate relationships with more than one person, all of whom are aware of all of the relationships. Consent and communication are at the core of this configuration. Let’s take a moment to visualize a standard-issue V-configuration (technical term) consisting of A) one person, B) another person and C) some third person who’s gender is inconsequential to our discussion and therefore is being omitted to preserve our feminist street cred. Now that we’ve all pictured a hot threesome with myself, Captain Jack Harkness and Kathy Ireland, let’s get back to our V-configuration. Person A is in a loving, intimate relationship with person B. Person B is in a loving, intimate relationship with person C. Person C may or may not be interested in Captain Jack Harkness, but that’s beside the point. The point is that there are multiple loving, intimate relationships between these three people that they are all aware of and consent to. Ergo, polyamory!
Perhaps the easiest way to understand polyamory is to contrast it against its non-identical cousin monogamy. Even though monogamy prefers to go by its nickname from high school, The Bull, we’re going to refer to it as monogamy because The Bull is a really stupid nickname that deserves to be left among the detritus of other high school memories such as wedgies, swirlies and that one time you threw up on that really cute girl’s shoes at the dance in the gym. Monogamy should be familiar with anyone who is familiar with Disney World. At Disney World they have these new-fangled contraptions called monorails. These monorails are similar to their sibling duorails only, being born second, they got shafted in the inheritance department and only ended up with one single rail. Hence we now refer to anything that only has one something as mono. Monogamous people are people who only have one gamy. Since the word gamy is offensive to the indigenous peoples of the south antarctic island of Halakalmoniqua, we’re going to use its more popular (and arguably less offensive) synonym, spouse.
To summarize, monogamous people only have one spouse or partner. Polyamorous people have >1 partners. That’s pretty much it. Simple. Non-complex. Quite straightforward.
Or so it would seem. Not everyone on the third planet orbiting a medium sized yellow star called Sol is cool with the whole >1 part of polyamory. Hence, conflict. Hence, strife. Hence, turmoil. Hence, this blog.
What possible problem could anyone find with >1? In a great number of areas of life, having >1 of something is considered a point of pride. In the case of money the further one gets from 1 in a positive direction on the number line, the more wealthy one is considered. In the case of relationships, this dynamic changes. That’s what we are going to be discussing in this epic, sensational, only partially fictionalized ongoing series of blog posts.
Thanks to the WorldNutDaily, I’m definitely going to see this movie. The brilliant-as-usual Bob Unruh gives us a peek into the latest Sasha Baron Cohen film “Bruno”. Or rather gives us a peek into the mind of Movieguide, the Christian Film & Television Commission ministry’s family guide to movies and entertainment and its founder Ted Baehr. The movie was so bad, Baehr told WND, “that it cannot accurately be described in print.” But they were gonna give it the old college try in a letter they’re sending to city managers and local district attorneys.
Our organization has just viewed the upcoming ‘R-rated’ movie ‘Brüno,’ which is scheduled to come out in local movie theaters Friday, July 10.
Based on our screening of it, and the opinion of many other critics, BRÜNO is the most vile, perverse movie ever made by a mainstream movie studio. This disgusting, abhorrent movie contains (among other things) extremely graphic scenes of heterosexual and homosexual sex acts, explicit scenes and extended close-ups of full male and full female nudity, an extended scene of a totally nude heterosexual woman repeatedly whipping a homosexual man in his bikini briefs, partial nude scenes (including full rear male nudity) where body parts are partially covered up with black bars placed in strategic places, obscenely graphic verbal descriptions of perverse sex acts in dialogue and conversations with real people, and images of a male black baby from Africa in a hot tub with white adults who are clearly interested in doing some kind of sex acts with one another.
Vile, perverse, disgusting, abhorrent? Boobies and dicks? Sounds like a damn fine film to me. Right up there with “Casablanca” and “Gone With The Wind” and “Debbie Does Dallas”.
Pssst… hey, fundies. I gotta tip for ya’: Don’t like what’s in a movie? Don’t go to see it!
Those poor souls at Movieguide, being forced to watch such filth! The sacrifices they make in the noble name of protecting the community. I wonder how many erections they had to conceal during their private screening? Down boy! This is filth! Vile, vile, filth! Hot, steamy, luscious filth! Hey, dude next to me, why are you rubbing my crotch?
But, of course, they’re not doing this for themselves.
He tells those managers and district attornys[sic], “Studies have shown conclusively that movies like this will harm the psychological development of children and teenagers of all ages. Other studies have shown that almost half of all movie theaters do not card underage children who try to get tickets to such vile R-rated movies as BRÜNO by themselves, unaccompanied by adults.
“The physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well being of your children and grandchildren is at stake!!!”
OH NOES, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDRENS!!!!@1!!!!1!
Guess what? I wouldn’t let my kid go see this movie. But I’ll be damned if I’m gonna let some pack of frothing at the mouth, sexually repressed fundies try to tell me that I can’t see it.
WND is not providing a link to the movie’s website because of the explicit content.
Hell, I’ll provide a link because of the explicit content. Click away, my pretties!
Given who I am and the topic of this post I read over at Neurotopia, how could I not pass it along? It’s got everything: penises, Jell-0, science. The only thing missing is Lego. Oh well, nothing’s perfect.
Here’s a money quote from the post: “So these authors made a special gel bath, to serve as an artificial vagina. Basically, participants got to make mad, passionate love to a Jell-O mould.”
This is science, I swear it! I would never gratuitously blog about penises and Jell-o if it weren’t. Seriously. I would blog about boobies and Jell-o. Jeesh!
Oh, and how do I get invites to these kinds of studies? Hel-lo, lady scientists, I’m over here!
Head on over to Neurotopia and get your dose of
brought to you by the aptly named Scicurious.
The headline caught my eye, I must say:
Stroking reveals pleasure nerve
Thank you, Jenny Carpenter, Science Reporter for the BBC, for this hard-hitting piece of investigative journalism.
A new touch-sensitive nerve fibre responsible for the sense of pleasure experienced during stroking has been described at a UK conference today.
Oh, it gets better:
The nerves tap into a human’s reward pathways, and could help explain why we enjoy grooming and a good hug, a neuroscientist has explained.
His team used a stroking machine to reveal the optimal speed and pressure for the most enjoyable caress. (emphasis mine)
I know a few people who would like to get their hands on that machine.
In order to isolate the touch-sensitive nerves responsible for the pleasure experienced during stroking, Professor McGlone designed a “rotary tactile stimulator” – a high-tech stroking machine.
“We have built some very sophisticated equipment, so the stimulus [of stroking] is very repeatable.”
Now this is the kind of science I can get into! Unfortunately, the article goes on to destroy my hopes and dreams:
Professor McGlone points out that these touch nerves are not responsible for the pleasure experienced from rubbing sexual organs, nor are they found in a person’s palms or soles.
Well, then, what’s the point?