Check out this public service announcement from 1969. “VD is for Everybody,” according to this catchy tune. I actually remember seeing this PSA as a teenager. Viewing it now, though, it appears as though having VD is a good thing.
[via Shaggylocks at Salon.com]
Here’s why we shouldn’t teach kids about sex in school.
Remember the old argument that porn encourages rape? I’ve always been suspicious. It would seem that men who relieve their sexual frustrations in private would be less likely to harass real life women. I’ve sometimes wondered, then, whether sexual assaults have decreased since Internet porn has become more readily available.
Here are some rather startling statistics, and they suggest that many measures of sexual irresponsibility have decreased with the increased availability of Internet porn. This includes a decrease in sexually transmitted infections, teen sex, divorce, and rape (since 1995, rape has decreased by 44 percent). This article at Psychology Today concludes: “If Internet porn affects society, oddly enough, it looks beneficial. Perhaps mental health professionals should encourage men to view it.”
Dan Savage examines the new statistics from Guttmacher Institute showing that banning abortion doesn’t reduce the number of abortions, and draws several inescapable conclusions: Banning abortion kills women. Making contraceptives readily available reduces abortions and saves the lives of women. He concludes that banning abortions, then, is an attempt to punish women for having sex.
These thirty stories about animal sex are stranger than fiction. I had heard of many of these stories before, but hadn’t known about all of these stories featured at “Neatorama.” I found this site looking for a video of porcupines having sex–I heard porcupine sex described by psychologist John Gottman tonight and I wanted to see it for myself. If anyone locates a video of porcupines having sex, do share!
I’ve seen videos of some of these thirty stories featured on David Attenborough’s nature documentaries. And I had previously seen a spectacular video of two flatworms mating on the video “The Shape of Life.” In fact, I found a another video of flatworms mating in the video below (as well as the mating of other invertebrates including sponges (sponges are animals!), jellies and horseshoe crabs–you’ll see the hermaphroditic flatworms double-penis-fencing at the 4:30 mark–the one who loses this battle has to be pregnant):
But back to the site featuring the 30 most unusual animal sex stories . . . I had never before seen the video of the moonwalking manakin, which made me chuckle. The clownfish story was ironic in light of Disney’s Nemo. The detachable penis of the nautilus probably wins the day. But there are so many worthy contenders for most bizarre animal sex . . . I’m glad that this website includes links to the sources of most of the stories because some of them are quite difficult to believe. But then again those other species would probably think it bizarre the way we humans display our sexuality and mate. It’s probably a matter of perspective.
Truly, all of these stories are stranger than fiction. Amazing.
In the recent decision of 1568 Montgomery Highway v. City of Hoover, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the Alabama Legislature’s prohibition of dildos and vibrators, basing this decision on “public morality.” More specifically,
In its second counterclaim, Love Stuff asks to have Ala. Code § 13A-12-200.2 (which generally bans the sale of sex toys) deemed unconstitutional.
The trial Court had found that “The target market for Love Stuff [the name of the store in question] consists of females, ages 32-52.” The Court held that commercial public sales of devices geared toward masturbation can be prohibited (though the Court suggested that the decision would be otherwise if the devices were handed out gratuitously or if they were sold at private “Tupperwear”-like parties).
Geoffrey Stone harshly disagrees with the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court and properly characterizes this as an improper exercise of religion:
[W]hat is it about the use of a vibrator or a dildo that affronts the “public morality”? Why is a person who uses such a device “immoral”? The answer, I submit, turns entirely on religion. The pivotal shift from the world of the classical Greeks to our contemporary world, in this respect, was the advent of Christianity, with its emphasis on sexual pleasure as sinful. Much of this can be traced to Augustine, who reasoned in the fifth century that sexual pleasure was integrally related to Adam’s Fall from Grace. Adam’s original sin, he argued, had not been one of pride or disobedience, but of sex. Thus, sexual pleasure was born out of evil, and man’s best hope for redemption lay in repudiating the sexual impulse and, with it, the burden of guilt inherited from Adam. Sexual pleasure was therefore deemed defiling and shameful.
I agree with Stone’s thorough analysis.
Have you ever wondered why so many Americans wear clothing when it’s warm outside? Are they really covering up for sexual propriety—because of shame? Or could it be that they are wearing clothes to cover up their animal-ness– their mortality? I’m intrigued by this issue, as you can tell from my previous writings, including my posts about “terror management theory,” and nipples.
This issue came to mind again recently when I found a website that allows you to completely undress people. The site has nothing to do with sex, I can assure you, but it has a powerful set of images that raise interesting questions about human nakedness. To get the full experience, go to the website and select an image of a fully clothed person. These are absolutely ordinary looking people, as you will see. Then click on the images of any of these men or women and watch their clothes disappear.
If you are like me, when their clothing disappears, this will not cause you to any think sexual thoughts. If you are like me, you will find yourself thinking that these people looked more “attractive” with their clothes on. For me, the effect is dramatic and immediate, and it reminded me of a comment by Sigmund Freud (I wasn’t able to dig out the quote), something to the effect that we are constantly and intensely attracted to the idea of sex (duh!), but that sex organs themselves often look rather strange to our eyes–sex organs are not necessarily sexy. I think the same thing can be said for our entire bodies. Nakedness isn’t the same thing as sexuality or else nudist colonies would tend to be orgies (which, from what I’ve read, they are not). Rather, sexual feelings are triggered by the way we use our bodies. We do many things that are sexual, and most of these things take some effort. Simply being naked is not an effective way to be sexy.
In America, people constantly confound nudity with sexuality. I admit that the media presents us with many ravishing image of sexy naked people, but the sexiness of such images is not due to the mere nakedness. There’s always a lot more going on than mere nakedness. Consider also, that when people actually mate, they often bring the lights down low, further hiding their bodies.
Then why do Westerners cover up with clothing to be “proper”? I suspect that anxiety about death (not so much anxiety about sex) contributes to our widespread practice of hiding those naturally furry parts of our bodies—those parts associated with critically “animal” functions relating to reproduction and excretion of body wastes.
[More . . .]
I’ve been mulling an idea for an amendment to the U.S. constitution that probably won’t have as much a chance as the failed Equal Rights Amendment, in which persons of the female persuasion would have been defined explicitly as full fledged people with the same rights as the white male landholders for which the constitution was originally penned.
How’s this?
“Government shall pass no law abridging the right of any person to decide whether an organism living within his or her own body is a harmful parasite or a welcome guest, and to respond accordingly.”
A lawyer could probably tighten up the wording, but I think the gist is there.
This amendment might save oodles of money on government health care in ways such as:
Discussion?
Whether you consume rap and hip-hop or not, you know the genres have dingy reputations. I believe the hate for hip-hop and rap blossomed in the 90’s. Rappers were actually cold-blooded gangsters at the time, people who occasionally shot one another. The music reflected the turmoil that its creators had experienced- growing up in crack-infused ghettos, resorting to crime to scrape by, and dying in a swarm of bullets even if they did finally make it out and become famous.
“I’m twenty-three now but will I live to see twenty-four/ the way things is going I don’t know,” Coolio said in “Gangster’s Paradise”, and he was by no means a Tu-pac; he was gangster-rap-lite. The depression of 90’s rappers manifested itself in loud, brash talk of guns and glory; no wonder white outsiders were scared. The violent content of 90’s rap inspired Tipper Gore and their ilk to censor and criticize with fervor, cementing rap’s image as a crude, violent genre for future gang-bangers.
Hip-hop and rap also have the reputation of being degrading to women. This present stereotype was also inspired by past trends. After 90’s gangster rap subsided, it was replaced with a money-cash-hoes mentality. In the early aughts, Jay-Z, 50 Cent and others spat mainly about their wealth, their rise from the streets, and the women that their amassed wealth could attract (Jay-Z wrote a song called “Money, Cash, Hoes”).
Women were called hoes and bitches in earlier rap and hip-hop songs, it’s true, but in the early 00’s the music seemed more intently focused on the subject. Rap and hip-hop from this period was all about the ascent into fame, and the amassing of expensive objects. One of these objects happened to be attractive women. “I’m into having sex, I’m not into making love,” 50 Cent reminds listeners in one of his most popular singles. Thus rap and hip-hop received another nasty label: it was degrading and shallow.
One of the first posts I wrote at this site was an in-depth look at a “pregnancy resource center” which, to my dismay excelled at spreading untruths about abortion and did its best to discourage the use of effective birth control. What a strange thing, I thought, to discourage methods that would prevent accidental pregnancy which would, in turn, lower the abortion rate. Maybe fighting effective birth control (i.e., methods that don’t exclusive rely on just say no) would be good for repeat business at the “pregnancy resource center,” but it is terrible for the unwitting clients of these highly dysfunction centers.
Along comes this Alternet post by Christina Page, “Why the Anti-Choice Movement Is on the Verge of Civil War.” This is a fascinating look at the anti-choice movement’s big schism:
The question now is: ‘are you pro-life and pro-contraception, therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions, or are you pro-life and against contraception and you hope that people’s lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so.’”
And consider this–I think that Page’s logic is impeccable:
It may come as a shock to most pro-life Americans, but there’s not one pro-life group in the United States that supports contraception. Rather, many lead campaigns against contraception. As [anti-abortion yet pro-contraception] Congressman [Tim] Ryan explained, “I think the pro-life groups are finding themselves further and further removed from the mainstream; they’re on the fringe of this debate.” Considering that the average woman spends 23 years of her life trying not to get pregnant, the anti-contraception approach depends on a scourge of sexless marriages or a lot of wishful thinking.
Where does this lead? If you aren’t for preventing accidental pregnancies, you can’t truly be anti-abortion. Yet that is the situation with all major anti-abortion groups. For example, none of them support Ryan’s legislation that would increase funding to make birth control available, promote effective sex-ed and provide financial incentives for adoption. Yet no pro-life group supports his efforts. Many groups staunchly oppose the use of real birth control (e.g., this one). On the other hand, most pro-life individuals support his efforts. Not surprising, in that 80% of pro-life individuals (90% of Catholics!) support the availability of effective birth control. Page presents many other eye-popping stats in her article.
The bottom line?
The greatest opportunity to reduce the need for abortion is to focus the 95% of unintended pregnancies that are highly preventable. The plan is simple: address the lack of and incorrect use of contraception.
This is a solution that virtually all individuals agree on. But all we get from “pro-life” groups is defiance. Therefore, pro-life groups (such as Democrats for Life) are wholly unaccountable to their constituents.
I once saw this activity at the turtle exhibit at the local zoo, and it didn’t take a biologist to tell me that I was not misinterpreting what I was seeing. These turtles seem incredibly almost-human, even though they didn’t smoke cigarettes afterward. Captured here in living color close-up, I’m posting this video as an animals-in the-wild education video:
Watching this reminded me of watching David Attenborough “Trials of Life” series with my then four-year old daughter. One of these exquisitely filmed Attenborough videos, which was on the topic of animal reproduction, included more explicit animal sex videos than I could ever had imagined, including elephant sex. At first I wondered whether I should be letting the video keep running. While I was contemplating my options, my daughter looked up and asked, “Daddy, what are those elephants doing?” I found myself saying, “Those are elephants having sex.” I didn’t offer any further explanation and my daughter didn’t request one. We quietly watched the entire video and now, 7 years later, my daughter doesn’t seem to be emotionally damaged from having seen the episode.
Oh, and according to doctors polled by the U.K. Guardian, having sex before going to bed is the second-best way to have a good night’s sleep. The winning solution was for couples to sleep in separate beds.
I’ve repeatedly written about Geoffrey Miller based on the many provocative ideas presented in his earlier book, The Mating Mind. (e.g., see my earlier post, “Killer High Heels“). A gifted and entertaining writer, Miller is also an evolutionary psychologist. His forte is hauling his scientific theories out into the real world in order to persuade us that we didn’t really understand some of the things that seemed most familiar to us.
In his new book, Spent, Miller asks why we continuously buy all that stuff that we don’t really need? Miller’s answer is twofold. Yes, human animals have been physically and psychologically honed over the eons this to crave certain types of things over others to further their chances at survival and reproduction. That’s only half the answer, however. We must also consider “marketing,” which is
The most important invention of the past two millennia because it is the only revolution that has ever succeeded in bringing real economic power to the people. . . . it is the power to make our means of production transform the natural world into a playground for human passions.
Is the modern version of marketing a good thing or a bad thing? The answer is yes.
On the upside it promises a golden age in which social institutions and markets are systematically organized on the basis of strong purple research to maximize human happiness. What science did for perception, marketing promises to do for production: it tests intuition and insight against empirical fact area market research uses mostly the same empirical tools as experimental psychology, but with larger research budgets, better-defined questions, more representative samples of people, and more social impact.
Here is a July 2009 interview of Geoffrey Miller by Geraldyne Doogue of the Australian Broadcast Network:
Most of us are quite familiar with the downside of marketing. It encourages us to buy things we don’t really need. But marketing doesn’t merely clutter up our houses and garages; it corrupts our souls:
