A World of Cheese, For your Pleasure

Guess your fetish

From the people at Hoot Island, where sex is silly, comes the "Guess Your Fetish" quiz. I got 12/20, and I think that's not a bad score.

Man tries to burn porn picture on plane

Man tries to burn porn picture on plane.

Says he was "overcome with the desire to destroy" the picture. Old news, sure, but still rather scary. Schizophrenia, they say.

I don't know much about schizophrenia. Are people formally restricted from doing certain things if they are known to have the disease? Or at least known to have a habit of coming off their meds? You aren't generally allowed to drive if you have epilepsy, so I am told. Can a doctor tell authorities know that you are a dangerous person if you go off your meds> Not to say that is what happened here.

The Secret Service came to my house!!!1!! LOL

I'll let you form your own conclusions about this.

But know that this close to the election, there are a lot of reports being called in about threats to the President's life. Certainly, a LiveJournal posting (full disclosure: I haven't read the original post) would be of the utmost importance and must be investigated right away by the Secret Service.

Tell me, were they wearing dark suits and sunglasses too?

Today is...

Today is National Cranky Co-workers Day and National Day of Meditation.

Coincidence? I think not.

Shielding names of accusers

Joe Grossberg brings up a good point when discussing publicly bringing up names of alleged rape victims. Victim's rights groups are advocating that her name be anonymous indefinitely. He asks:

Yeah, I feel really, really bad about the shit she's been put through (death threats, a permanently tarnished reputation, etc.) ... but we don't do it for (adult) victims of other traumatic crimes.

If people accusing others of fucked up shit like attempted murder, (non-sexual) assault or hate crimes have to accuse their assailants publicly or not at all.

So why do those that allege rape get this special treatment? Why is their victimhood elevated above others'?

Is rape truly the worst thing you can do to another adult human being? Is it worse than system(at)ic torture, violence, hate crimes, attempted murder? Genocide? Is there no other crime that can destroy or alter lives the way that rape can? Is it because women are usually the victims? And if you respond, please do not start with the "you're a man, you can't possibly understand" line. If you do, I can guarantee that I will never understand. At least try to say something that makes sense, and there's a chance that I might agree.

I guess women are a protected group, like some visible minorities, or Arctic foxes. I don't necessarily disagree, either, depending on what we are talking about, but that's probably best handled in another post.

Another thing: if Kobe hasn't been convicted, then is there a legal victim? I know it's just semantics, but is calling her a victim, specifically his victim, strongly implying that he is guilty? Do we know that yet? I haven't been following the trial, so I know very little. I do know that whenever I hear about these celebrity rape cases I immediately get really suspicious for two reasons. One reason is that there is a HUGE opportunity to extort money from a very rich man, like it or not. When large sums of money are involved, people act very differently than they normally would. Kobe stands to lose lots of it if convicted, so if he is guilty, he'll start slinging bullshit around even more. If innocent, he will try to protect his money, family and career from someone who wants to steal from him by abusing the legal system.

On the other hand, men with lots of money, especially athletes and certain businessmen, forget that the same rules apply to them as they do to everyone else. If they weren't so powerful, they might not act the way they do. They probably get away with all kinds of stuff because people let them. I'm not saying that he decided to rape this girl, but that he may have lost sight of what he was doing because he didn't believe that there were any consequences for him. Of course, this is probably worse.

Rise of the Supercentenarians

People have said that it has never been a been time to be alive than now. This is probably true in more ways than one. But our time is already past, I think. A scientist is convinced that some children alive today will still be alive in 2150. So much so that he made a bet with a colleague. I assume that this is a trangenerational bet. I'd like to see them in heaven when it all comes down 150 years from now.

What is interesting is that apparently for our size, we shouldn't live for more than 30 or 40 years, and this used to be common. It still is in parts of the world. Why do we live for so long?

The fact that we do not is down to two factors: our brain size and our sociality - the ability to specialise and act together.

So those cool loners from high school? Don't expect them around on your 50th high school reunion.

Finally, a PETA I can "get behind"

PETA PROTESTS LACK OF ORAL SEX

"Animals Get Eaten More Than We Do," Say Nude Women. People for Eating Tasty Animals, or PETA, is demonstrating to fight "the persistant nude caged woman painted like a cat and invidious male failure to lick pussy, give head, or go muff diving."

Well, you go, girls. Give 'em head, er...hell.

Hasn't a movie been made about this?

Some stranger took over the home of a woman on vacation. She was squatting and planned to steal thousands of dollars in jewelry. To avoid the ads, I'll just reprint the article here and hopefully they won't sue me.

Oct. 22, 2004 | DOUGLASVILLE, Ga. -- A woman came home from vacation to find a stranger living there, wearing her clothes, changing utilities into her name and even ripping out carpet and repainting a room she didn't like, authorities said.

Douglas County authorities say they can't explain why Beverly Valentine, 54, broke into an empty home and started acting like it was her own.

During the 2 1/2 weeks the owner, Beverly Mitchell, was on vacation in Greece, Valentine allegedly redecorated the ranch home, ripping up carpet and taking down the owner's pictures and replacing them with her own.

Mitchell was a complete unknown to Valentine, said Chief Sheriff's Deputy Stan Copeland. He said he had no idea how Valentine knew Mitchell was gone.

"In 28 years, I've never seen something this strange," Copeland said.

Valentine was being held in Douglas County Jail on a $25,000 bond, Copeland said. If convicted, she could face one to 20 years in prison. Copeland said Friday that he believed Valentine did not have a lawyer.

The case came to light when Mitchell, who lived alone, returned home Oct. 4 to find the lights on and a strange car parked in the driveway. Mitchell called police, who went in and found Valentine, who at first pretended she was renting the home.

Later, Copeland said, she admitted she broke into the house with a shovel and was squatting there. She was charged with burglary.

Authorities found a gun and $23,000 worth of Mitchell's jewelry in Valentine's car.

Valentine had the electricity switched over to her name and moved in a washer and dryer and her dog.

Copeland said she was even wearing some of Mitchell's clothes.

"There's a lot of people saying, 'What?'" Copeland said.

Valentine was asked what to do with the washer and dryer she moved in, and Valentine said she didn't care, so police will leave it up to Mitchell what to do with them, Copeland said.

I mean, what could this freak have possibly been thinking? Obviously there wasn't a plan. Maybe she was banking on the woman being killed while on vacation.

Write gender

According to this, I write like a man. I could've told you that.

What about you?

ETA: Female Score: 124 Male Score: 492

Political Scruples

Here's a survey initiated by Nerve. Nothing really surprising here, I was particularly interested in questions 15 and 16.

15. Does the public have the right to know about a politician's sexual orientation?
Yes, it reflects a politician's morals and character. 2%
Yes, because it's nothing to be ashamed of — hiding it promulgates the notion that there is. 26%
No, it's nobody's business. 63%
No, and a candidate has a right to conceal it. 8%

16. Does the public have a right to know about a politician's adulterous affair?
Yes, it reflects a politician's morals and character. 11%
No, and a candidate has a right to lie to conceal it. 32%
No, but a candidate should never lie about it. 57%

For number 15, I'd probably answer that it's nobody's business, however, I am tempted to answer that it's nothing to be ashamed of. I don't know about the States, but in Canada, gay candidates have been running and winning with respect for a long time. They have been a key part in the acceptance of alternative sexual orientation (and you can accuse me of "othering" in that sentence if you like). Without them, things might very well be different in this country. But we make a pretty big assumption. When we speak about secual orientation, we immediately think of homosexuals. What about trannsexuals, bisexuals or even autosexuals?

Or what if we replace the term "sexual orientation" with "sexual behaviour"? Should this affect a person's ability to get elected, assuming that it did not affect their competence? I don't know, but it definitely would. People would be glad to know these things, and a great many people would styop taking them seriously at that point. Just as there are certain things that would prevent us from speaking to or associating with certain people based on things like sexual habits or political beliefs, so we will be affected by the sexual habits or orientations of candidates.

The question remains: Should we have a right to know those details? I guess it depends on how you view the position. Do you have the right to know if your elected official may do something immoral or illegal? Certainly. If these sex acts are immoral in your opinion, then you probably should know about them and vote for an otherwise equivalent person without that flaw. It is quite different than hiring someone in a private enterprise. Those are generally run for profit and very little else. And they are private institutions with certain highly regulated rights and responsibilities. Publicly elected officials should be held to a higher standard because they are supposedly there for everyone and affect everyone. You can waive your "right-to-know", of course—many of us do for varying reasons.

This is why I think that even though I generally do not care what the candidates do in their beds, I believe that depending on what the action is, it can and sometimes does reflect their moral character. Most people seem to believe that the witchhunt against Clinton was moralist bullshit at best. I am not so sure. The general view is that Slick Willy took advantage of someone over which he had power and betrayed his wife. Assuming that the Clintons had not decided previously that this was okay, is it so unreasonable to think that perhaps his moral fibre is not that strong? He sexually took advantage of a subordinate. is it unreasonable to think that perhaps he might take advantage of, say, foreigners and wage war on them? There was a series of things that could lead a person to reasonably think that this was not an isolated incident, although I am not interested in dredging all of that up here. Many think that Bush is immoral and/or misguided. Michael Moore is trying to show that his character, his moral character, is at fault. This allows him to commit what many consider to be atrocities around the world. Is there a connection? Probably.

Other examples: teachers and other professionals routinely get fired for having sex with people over whom they have power, and this doesn't include the ones that are actually having sex with minors. Others get in trouble for consensual relations outside of their marriage even when there is no imbalance of power, depending on their position in society. The point is, if there is reason to believe that a candidate needs solid moral platforms that they themselves live by, isn't it reasonable that this be taken into consideration when electing them? And shouldn't be know about it? Sure, they can be impeached if they lie about who they are, but we've seen how effective that is.

Any thoughts on this?

Owned

Edward gets busted for trying to secretly tape sex with his girlfriend. Isn't this a criminal offence? What's the actual charge if it is where you live?

via sexblog.gs.

Acquittal

There is much I have to say on this story now that it's over.

But it will have to wait until I'm not incandescent with rage.

Mundo Italia

Really awesome site, possibly NSFW. Sorry to sound so juvenile, but there's something about superior web programming and hot women that turns me into a 16-year-old. via GoodShit.

Nude Walkabout

Ever wonder how you would react to seeing this woman nude all around town? It happens in lots of places where I am not, and if you belioeve what you read online, it usually happens in Eastern Bloc countries. Take a look, but these pics are NSFW, and the page is very badly put together. About 50 large images are loading on the one page.

Pac-Man art

Pac-Man art, from the ghosts' perspective. My favourite is the last one, with the visionary ghosts, and the "What are you a ghost of?" one that makes you really think. If you are a ghost in a Pac-Man world anyway.