…and this is a 
Kristin Maguire, chair of the South Carolina State Board of Education, has resigned from her position for all the wrong reasons. She has been a shill for the religious right, and has opposed the teaching of evolution in the public schools; she has also promoted that worthless 'abstinence only' sex education. She should have been fired for basic incompetence. But no, that is not sufficient reason to kick someone out of office in America. What gets American politicians in trouble?
You guessed it: sex. There were unverified rumors of inappropriate behavior, but what really got her was that she has a history of publishing hard core erotic porn on the internet, under a pseudonym — ordinary stuff, of the sort you can find on all kinds of sites, like Literotica, all over the place.
I say, good for her. There's nothing wrong with a healthy sexual outlet, especially since it harmed no one at all. The hypocrisy of fostering a repressive social agenda in her work while indulging in fantasy play in private is a bit bothersome, but that a human being enjoys sex personally and in a way that does not interfere with his or her work should not be a bar to working in government.
Pushing creationism…that ought to be a serious problem. She did not lose her job for that, annoyingly.
At least now she's free to write more stories!
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Rick R | August 31, 2009 6:17 PM
I'll bet it was "Brokeback Mountain" slash. Two, two, two sins in one!
Posted by: John | August 31, 2009 6:21 PM
Are there any pictures of her? I enjoy fantasizing about spanking naughty Fundamentalist kooks to help purify them.
Posted by: Bob L | August 31, 2009 6:22 PM
"Unverified rumors"; their governor gets caught messing around in Argentina and he doesn't resign, but she does on a rumor? Me thinks there is more to this story than is being reported.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 31, 2009 6:25 PM
I linked to a couple of her stories, and they are fairly explicit. That would be enough in most places to give her the axe, to the shame of this country.
Posted by: Aetre | August 31, 2009 6:25 PM
Amazing how often school boards remind us of the need for better quality education, isn't it?
Posted by: truebutnotuseful | August 31, 2009 6:31 PM
Jesus Christ, I'm getting sick of this country and the goddamn fucking prudes who run it.
Who cares if she writes pornographic stories? It's not like she's doing dramatic readings of them in 2nd Grade home room.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
August 31, 2009 6:32 PM
It certainly demonstrate she's an hypocrite, but you're right, it's the wrong reason for being fired.
Posted by: Valdyr | August 31, 2009 6:33 PM
But the most important question is: Are her smutty stories any good?
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 31, 2009 6:33 PM
Fired for that?
I recall a physical therapist at a school in New York was in hot water for posing nude for playgirl magazine but he wasn't fired because the board concluded that there was nothing wrong with it.
Honestly though, she shouldn't have been hired in the first place if that's her view on education.
Posted by: Tammy | August 31, 2009 6:34 PM
I just wanna know how many hits Literotica got after being listed here... lol.
Posted by: Funnyguts | August 31, 2009 6:34 PM
Great. As a budding overhauler of the American public school system who happens to both be trans and interested in doing similar things to the above (thanks to a couple friends and Greta Christina) everyone's going to think I'm going after their children.
I'm guessing the atheist part isn't going to help either. Dang.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 31, 2009 6:35 PM
Yay my state back in the news!\
More on Maguire
Just a taste, she's a home schooling mother in charge of the School Board.
Great idea.
Yep it is too bad she had to resign for the reason she did, but good riddance.
Posted by: Jim Linville | August 31, 2009 6:35 PM
I think that would be the case pretty much everywhere in North America and not just S. C. Hell, Canada's "science" minister is creationist.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 31, 2009 6:36 PM
A whole other religious right that we didn't know about? Or the same one?
And are we talking about a faction, or a human/civil right?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Xenu, Lord of Darkness | August 31, 2009 6:37 PM
At last a creationist I might want to meet. Any photos of her?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 31, 2009 6:38 PM
I should have said
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | August 31, 2009 6:43 PM
I don't suppose, by any chance, her stories were about naked lesbians masturbating with bibles?
Posted by: Sean Micheal | August 31, 2009 6:43 PM
Reminds me of the movie The Contender: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/ (except that the official in question was actually qualified...).
Posted by: Olowkow | August 31, 2009 6:45 PM
Pretty boring, out ot touch writing style, to my taste at least. No one uses the c*** word any more, especially women.
Posted by: HarmlessEccentric | August 31, 2009 6:45 PM
My contract as a public school teacher would protect me from being fired for writing porn. I'm pretty sure it would even protect me from being fired for appearing in porn films, as long as I wasn't bringing the material to class. I don't, by the way, appear in porn films. There's very little market for fat middle-aged lesbians in porn, though I suppose that everybody is somebody's fetish. But it's not hard for me to imagine pissed-off parents making my life rotten enough to resign
What was I saying?
Oh, right- a person's private behavior, to the extent that it doesn't affect work performance, shouldn't result in people losing their jobs. This woman shouldn't have had to resign over this. She was writing text-based porn? That's nothing; it's practically wholesome.
Posted by: Sastra | August 31, 2009 6:47 PM
Screechy Monkey #17 wrote:
Sounds like you found a research project. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.
Be brave.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 31, 2009 6:48 PM
Valdyr #8
I read the two stories that PZ linked to. To quote G.K. Chesterton: "Competent but uninspired." The writing was good but I didn't get a stiffy either time.
Posted by: Dennis | August 31, 2009 6:54 PM
Hah! Oh- a NSFW may need to be in there somewhere (depending where you work).
Posted by: Dwimr | August 31, 2009 6:56 PM
Meanwhile, all of our other fundie politicians here in SC aren't just sitting on their hands:
http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992912064017974&ShowArticle_ID=11012508092378610
Posted by: Porco Dio | August 31, 2009 6:56 PM
happy masturbatory monkey
Posted by: Joel Jacobson | August 31, 2009 6:58 PM
Why resign?
Follow Mark's example. Just take some time off to hike the ol' Appalachian Trail - if you know what I mean.
Posted by: au79 | August 31, 2009 7:00 PM
For John and Xenu, FWIW:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27856365@N07/3841707604/
She's the one on the right.
Posted by: spondee | August 31, 2009 7:04 PM
America- founded by people too uptight for England.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 31, 2009 7:06 PM
Dear Sexually Insatiable Atheists
Seeing as we are on the subject, I'd just like to point out that before I became a Christian one of my other personalities moonlighted as an author of erotic romance novels under the sensual pen-name of Claudia Rose, an all kiwi farm-girl with a penchant for inter-galactic sex.
I hope you don't object PZ, but if Pharyngulites are going to explore the delights of penned rumpy-pumpy than I think they should check out my explicit exploits at Ellorascave.Com before they start supporting a genuine creationist hypocrite.
Yours in illicit lewdness
Smoggy
PS I hope you all know me too well to expect subtlety. If you want real erotica, go read Anais Nin or something. And don't blame me for the cover designs either.
Posted by: spondee | August 31, 2009 7:07 PM
#28 Not mine by the way, I think it was Carlin that said it.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
August 31, 2009 7:14 PM
Ok, thank you, that was hilarious.
"And it's 68 degrees at the airport, which is stupid, because I don't know anyone who lives there."
-George Carlin
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Heleva Pryce | August 31, 2009 7:18 PM
I believe you can get her works in the three packs for $10 at the Deja Vu Love Boutique.
At least her spelling and grammar is better than some of the other contributors.
BTW Smoggy, Anais is decomposing and has nothing new to offer to the body of "Lickety Split more than rumpy pumpy. Miller is dead too.
Posted by: Pteryxx | August 31, 2009 7:19 PM
Y'know, out of all the outrage- and bitterness-provoking behavior examined here, all the human misery and dying kids and such... this one just breaks my heart. One flicker of ordinary, erotic creativity, one crack in the armor of conservative hypocrisy, brings out the torches and pitchforks. I actually feel sorry for her now.
Posted by: Chiaroscuro | August 31, 2009 7:22 PM
A religious, "abstinence only" promoter writing hard core erotic porn. It can only have two outcomes: Soft porn so dull that can be used in school sex education books or an unleash of repressed sexuality that can make Sade himself blush.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 31, 2009 7:24 PM
I like Anais, Heleva,
y'know, that thing with the paintbrush and the labia...
and the dog with the beautiful head and big tongue...
and the gorgeous corpse on the wharf...
Damn! Now I'm feeling filled with the spirit!
Got to go off and pray for a while.
Posted by: Dudemang | August 31, 2009 7:26 PM
"Fired for that?" #9
She quit, she wasn't fired.
Posted by: EricB | August 31, 2009 7:26 PM
At least she is gone.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
August 31, 2009 7:26 PM
Puritanism: the overwhelming fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 31, 2009 7:28 PM
What is it with South Carolina?
Mark Sanford "hiking the Appalachian."
Kristin Maguire and her stories.
Lindsay Graham and Andre Bauer's closets.
Jim DeMint...just Jim DeMint's presence in the Senate.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | August 31, 2009 7:31 PM
Resigning for some erotic writings? That it? Pffft. If I ever go into politics I hope that certain things I've put on the internet never see the light of day again.
Some things I've written and helped to write are not just NSFW and barely safe for home use either. When I look back, I can barely believe my brain was the thing that actually imagined that stuff. Not because any of it depicts illegal acts or anything, but acts that can't actually be performed in real life. I'll leave it at that.
But, remind me to destroy my old thumbdrive if I ever say I'm going into politics though, okay?
Posted by: MikeM | August 31, 2009 7:31 PM
Completely off-topic, so I apologize...
Mount Wilson observatory, where Hubble did some of his pioneering work in astronomy, is threatened by the Station Fire.
We should all be sad about this. One of science's major landmarks is about to be destroyed.
As for Maguire... Well, at least she has a second career to fall back on.
Posted by: raven | August 31, 2009 7:33 PM
What is porn these days anyway? Media with sexual content is so pervasive it seems normal and routine.
I don't know what they would do here on the west coast, probably nothing. There are some pretty funny photos of the California governor, a former weight lifter and movie star, with some nice looking babes that aren't wearing much. In fact they aren't wearing anything. No one cares if Arnold Scharzenegger isn't a virgin or even a boy scout.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | August 31, 2009 7:37 PM
It's Robin Williams from his Live on Broadway show.
The actualy quote I think is something more like this...
"Protestants... Protestants founded America. A people so uptight the english kicked them out. How uptight do you have to be before the the English say, "Okay... get the fuck out!""?
Posted by: Josh
|
August 31, 2009 7:45 PM
Ohhh, teh sex...
Teh sexwriting about the sex is teh bad.Teh sexwriting about the sex is teh eeevil.Teh sexwriting about the sex is teh scarrry.Social conservatives--when there simply isn't enough real shit to worry about in the world...
Posted by: Hank Fox | August 31, 2009 7:50 PM
A school board member writing porn?
All I want to know is:
Did her stories exhibit correct spelling and grammar?
Posted by: Captain Mike | August 31, 2009 7:50 PM
@ Olowkow @ 19:
If the "c*** word" you're talking about is cunt, then you are very much mistaken. Lots of people use it, including many women.
As for the boring, out of touch writing style, well...erotica and/or porno is like that. Any particular example appeals to a very limited slice of the population.
Posted by: amphiox | August 31, 2009 7:51 PM
"a person's private behavior, to the extent that it doesn't affect work performance, shouldn't result in people losing their jobs"
Agreed with one exception. Any democratically elected politician who wins his/her office by prominently presenting a certain kind of private life should instantly lose that position if it turns his/her private life is not as presented, regardless of how well he/she has performed in that office to that point. Or at the very least should be forced to stand for re-election.
I consider it a kind of informal fraud. Voter votes for X on the assumption that X is Y, as presented. If X is not Y then the whole unwritten contract of the vote is invalidated.
This applies to all situation across the spectrum, be it a supposedly upstanding Christian patriarch vote caught in an affair to a supposedly atheist liberal who turns out not to be atheist (though I don't foresee scenario two happening any time soon in this country).
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | August 31, 2009 7:51 PM
Nevermind the end of my post at @40.
If I ever go into politics and get caught, I'm going to hold a press conference and say, "Yes I wrote these deplorible works of sexual fantasy, which can be found for a reasonable price at www.politicalsmut.com, along with my new story soon to come, hehe come, out later this month. I resign from my seat now to start a new career..."
I'll make MILLIONS!
BTW... don't go to that URL. It's probably already a porn site.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 31, 2009 7:52 PM
@#36
My mistake.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 31, 2009 7:53 PM
The question is this: Will the person that is appointed/elected(?) into that opening be any worse? Is one of PZ's posts in the next two weeks going to harken back to this relatively minor event as a preface to new legislation or standards being offered there to dumb down the content of grade school history and science books?
Posted by: recovering catholic | August 31, 2009 7:53 PM
Glen D--thanks for calling out The Tentacular One on that bit of confusion. I'm always ascared to do that.
Posted by: Heidi | August 31, 2009 7:55 PM
*headdesk*
It's ok to be in charge of education if you're a whacked out homeschooling creationist, but not if you're a part-time erotica author? WTF is wrong with this country??
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | August 31, 2009 7:58 PM
See post #28.
Posted by: Captain Mike | August 31, 2009 8:01 PM
Wait a second...did you mean cock? If that's the case I retract my earlier statement and substitute this one: Lots of people use the word cock. Lots of women too.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 31, 2009 8:04 PM
And what Heidi wrote.
Posted by: Captain Mike | August 31, 2009 8:05 PM
I just read that and it implies that I don't think women are people. For the record, I do think women are people. In turn, I suppose that makes me a misogynist, because I frigging hate people.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | August 31, 2009 8:05 PM
"What is porn these days anyway? Media with sexual content is so pervasive it seems normal and routine."
That's what's so strange. I can remember when there was porn, there was erotica, there were artistic "nudes," etc.
Now people refer to a simple topless photo as "porn." I hate when they do that. It's schizophrenic... pornography has become more pervasive and extreme than ever before, but at the same time the term has grown to encompass the most tame things imaginable.
Like as a society we've simultaneously become more prudish and more perverse.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
August 31, 2009 8:06 PM
I always wondered what would have happened if, when first pressed on the issue of sex with Monica Lewinski, Bill Clinton had said, "Yep, it happened. My wife and I are now discussing our marriage and what this means."
I wonder if the whole thing would have just, uh . . . deflated . . . then and there, or if not, then shortly thereafter. Some outcry from the usual prudish suspects and radio klaxon commentators, sure, but for the most part, some people going home to *tsk* in private, some people to wonder how to make money off of it, and perhaps a not-insignificant number to figure that's Bill and Hilary and Monica's business and anyway what about health care or immigration or environmental policy or sound economic development or trade embargoes or marijuana legalization or education spending or budget surplus or gays in the military or . . . ?
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: pdferguson | August 31, 2009 8:21 PM
"More harm has been done to the collective human psyche by religion than by all the fucking and cocksucking since the dawn of time. By the way, many religious people (including the ordained) fuck and suck each other's cocks all the time."
--George Carlin
Posted by: Olowkow | August 31, 2009 8:24 PM
@54 CapMike
No, I meant the c**t word. As vagina, to me it is very vulgar, unlike pussy (la chatte) which is very common, and warm and fuzzy.
IMO, using it in a story would work only if it is meant to be vulgar, not erotic. Also, it is used to mean "bitch". In my circles, it is extremely rare to hear c**t to mean pussy, women don't like the word. The writer is either being vulgar or is quite out of touch with current usage, IMO of course.
As for "cock and dick", they feel pretty much interchangeable to me.
Posted by: --PatF | August 31, 2009 8:29 PM
Sort of on topic...
When I was in college, every once in a while someone would bring in some trashy novel not unlike Maguire's stuff. We would form groups for dramatic readings with one person reading and a Greek chorus supplying appropriate sound effects. Unless you have experienced this, you will not know how unreasonably funny it is. I still can't read this stuff without giggling.
I strongly suggest all colleges institute compulsory non-credit courses in dramatic readings of porn. It would probably spoil all of the undergraduates from wasting their time on this stuff and get them to study more.
Posted by: Captain Mike | August 31, 2009 8:30 PM
Really? The women in my circle use it all the time, and of course one person's vulgarity is another person's erotic usage.
Oddly enough, when I was in high school pussy was the word most likely to offend the maximum number of women. Cunt and twat were perfectly acceptable, while snatch was also forbidden. Nor was beaver acceptable. Maybe that last one is a Canadian thing.
I've always preferred snapper myself.
Posted by: Brg | August 31, 2009 8:31 PM
Could someone explain, the following, please:
"This source says that Maguire emphatically denied that the writing samples were hers, and that she and the governor’s chief of staff, Scott English, immediately set about to ensure that none of the material remained on the Internet."
If the writing samples are not hers, how then can she and the chief of staff ensure that none remains on the Internet? Can they just go and take down somebody else's intellectual property from the Internet just like that? Will they go and talk with the real author and ask him/her to take it down pretty please with sugar on top?
Brg
Posted by: DominEditrix | August 31, 2009 8:35 PM
As my significant studmuffin, the Biophysicist, just commented, when people start ranting against the evils of Martians, look for a saucer hidden in the back garden...
Speaking of lesbians masturbating with Bibles - has anyone here read Lynne Cheney's magnum opus Sisters? I managed to get through a couple of paragraphs when it was floating around the intertubes; it takes purple prose, throbbing pudenda and straining bosoms to new depths.
[Hmmm - d'ya think Columbia University would demand my degree back if I admitted I paid most of my tuition by writing porn? It paid a helluva lot better than TA-ing.]
Posted by: Olowkow | August 31, 2009 8:36 PM
@62 Interesting. Do you mean you are in Canada? Could be that is the answer.
I find most porn to be too mechanical these days, just not my cup of tea. The "vintage or retro" is somehow more interesting. Am I getting old?
Posted by: littlejohn | August 31, 2009 8:46 PM
I linked to her story and was disappointed. Apparently she thinks using vulgar language makes a story sexy.
I guess I'm getting old, too, but the language was jarring. The story would have been much sexier without every other word being "fuck" or "cunt." Is that how the kids talk to each other in the sack these days? If my wife started with that, she'd have to finish by herself.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
August 31, 2009 8:49 PM
Wow, literotica takes me back. I made the most money I've ever made off a story with something I published for one of the Halloween contests a ways back.
And no, no way, she should have gotten fired for bullshit like that unless she was writing it during work.
Posted by: senecasam | August 31, 2009 8:50 PM
The erotic writing is only part of the story.
Excerpt from www.fitsnews.com, a SC political news site:
"For example, several sources have related to FITS an incident involving Maguire and Scott English at a Columbia area bar at the end of the 2004 legislative session.
“She was giving him a lap dance,” says a witness at the bar. “There’s no other way to describe it.”
Another former Sanford staffer tells FITS that Maguire once unbuttoned her blouse and hiked up her skirt in front of him to show off her see-thru, light blue underwear. This incident allegedly occurred not at a bar, but inside the governor’s office – at the unoccupied desk of First Lady Jenny Sanford, no less."
Now roll that last little bit in with Sanford's admission of going further than he should have with other women over the last few years....it leaves me wondering if Sanford has a humidor on his desk? Hmmm, just wondering, that's all.
Above all, don't shed any tears for her. She was a terrible pick for any seat on the South Carolina State Board of Education, and a horrendous choice to be the chair.
Think Texas. Think Don McLeroy.
Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na Na. Hey Hey, Goodbye!
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | August 31, 2009 8:55 PM
re #68
now I'm starting to wonder if there's something in the water in SC to bring out these... interesting qualities... in people.
Posted by: j h woodyatt | August 31, 2009 9:00 PM
Even worse, it looks like what got her wasn't the erotic stories, but merely the plausibility that she was the author of the erotic stories. She denied writing them.
Posted by: Pablo | August 31, 2009 9:06 PM
and where can I get my wife some of that?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 31, 2009 9:07 PM
almost lost my whisky drink on that one
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | August 31, 2009 9:08 PM
Here's a conversation-stopper for this subject.
Not Safe For Work if anyone's in earshot, even if you've got your computer's sound turned off.
H/T to Making Light, but no link because I don;t know how many it takes to trip the moderation thing.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 31, 2009 9:09 PM
what's the poison tonight, Rev?
Posted by: Cathal | August 31, 2009 9:11 PM
Captain Mike and Olowkow, vis a vis distasteful terms for the holiest of holies:
goul (pronounced gow-el)
A word guaranteed to ruin the mood of an evening
Posted by: Olowkow | August 31, 2009 9:12 PM
Where is this stuff coming from??Posted by: Epikt | August 31, 2009 9:15 PM
Sastra:
And please come back in a week with an exquisitely-detailed report.
Posted by: Olowkow | August 31, 2009 9:16 PM
@#75 Wow, that's a new one on me.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=goul
Not for Halloween? :)
Posted by: Epikt | August 31, 2009 9:18 PM
Olowkow
I hear intelligent and accomplished women use the c*** word all the time. I distinctly remember an old girlfriend saying:
"Cook? Fuck, no. I'm not your mother."
Posted by: MT | August 31, 2009 9:21 PM
That has to be some of the most horribly written "erotica" I've ever read.
I lost it at "My tits love for you to play with them."
Posted by: Monkeyman8 | August 31, 2009 9:21 PM
Oh come on it wasn't even good erotic fiction (read the first 2 pages) it switch between 2nd and third person on a regular basis (who the fuck uses second person to being with?) and it has the word in thrown in for no reason (it's not a sexy word). so I can understand her firing under these conditions if she were say an English teacher (I'm ignoring incompetence because that has never been an issue I mean they elected Nixon and he couldn't even cover up water gate properly), otherwise another big fuck you to all the republicans out there.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
August 31, 2009 9:22 PM
Well, I read as much as I could stand, and it’s obvious now that she didn’t resign because she’d been caught writing porn; she resigned because she’d been caught writing truly awful porn and was deeply embarrassed by it. Holy crap, that’s bad writing. It’s so bad it pissed me off. And it’s porn!
Posted by: Olowkow | August 31, 2009 9:24 PM
@#79 You've got me by the short hairs there! Glad for you she's an "old" girlfriend. Cooking is a terrific quality in a wife, when you can't. BTW the FITS stuff above is much better than the stories!!!
Posted by: BlueMonday | August 31, 2009 9:24 PM
I appreciate the discussion of euphemisms for "vagina." Snatch, twat, pussy, slot, box, slit, cunt, kootch, cooter--the list goes on and on. I've personally been responsible not only for incorporating many of these into a song, but also for requiring a group of unsuspecting women to have to publicly perform it in a beauty pageant.
Oh, and I was a preschool teacher at the time. (I didn't lose my job over it, either.)
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | August 31, 2009 9:25 PM
but I LIKE the c word :( I don't think of it as derogatory at all. :(
Posted by: Olowkow | August 31, 2009 9:27 PM
But it's so......Anglo Saxon.............
I'm really surprised that there seems to be a genuine split (as it were) on the topic of the c--- word.
Posted by: foxfire | August 31, 2009 9:29 PM
@ amphiox #47
Although I initially also tended toward sympathy for the woman (see Pteryxx #33), you have a very valid point that counter balances any sympathy. She needs to tough-up, start questioning her beliefs, and gain some integrity. Her resignation is because of concerns about her parents? Gutless, ignorant wimp. Good riddance.
@ MikeM #41 - Thank you(!) for the OT notice about Mt. Wilson. The webcam was working (red, smoky sky) when I started this comment and the image is gone now (problem loading). Bummer.
Posted by: Hank Fox | August 31, 2009 9:39 PM
Um ... Cuttlefish?
Are you busy right now?
Posted by: Bjarni | August 31, 2009 9:51 PM
Regarding euphemisms: there's an aussie song that uses a few..
Definately *NSFW*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBWAjn2a3rA
Posted by: foxfire | August 31, 2009 9:52 PM
Sorry, OT (#87 correct link)
Try this for Mt. Wilson webcam images
Posted by: Fred The Hun | August 31, 2009 9:52 PM
I hope this lady learns to loosen up in real life after this incident. We all have our strange little moments in life...
I remember back in the mid 90's I was doing a computer graphics gig for a gay oriented magazine in New York.
It was mostly Photoshop touch up work, my nickname at the time was, "the plastic surgeon".
One day around 2:00 AM, trying to meet a deadline the art director and myself, (both of us straight) looked up at each other from a computer screen and realized that for the last 8 hours or so we had been putting highlights on dicks to make them stick out better, (pun intended.)
Fortunately both of us had pretty well developed senses of humor and didn't take ourselves too seriously to begin with. However, We had to call it a night becacuse neither of us could stop laughing when it dawned on us that we had been having a serious technical discussion about these images. Hey, hopefully somebody out there ended up appreciating all our hard work...
Posted by: Akiko | August 31, 2009 10:05 PM
So this explains why South Carolina is bottom on the SAT scores every year and makes all the other southern states feel superior. What was a home schooler doing as the head of the state public education board? As usual teh biggest pervs are the GOPers. If it is a reluctant homosexual with a wife and kids, an adulterer, a freaker or a protitute then it is a Republican. You never hear about a Democrat being outed for stuff like this.
Posted by: Frank B | August 31, 2009 10:08 PM
@ #38. I don't know if you were trying to be accurate about that definition of Puritanism, but I have heard that it was "that haunting fear that somewhere, someone is happy". Both definitions say the same thing, so it doesn't matter.
Posted by: MJKelleher | August 31, 2009 10:12 PM
@foxfire #90
The Observatory has a status page here, with a link to the webcam. The cam is still up, though hard to get to, probably from traffic. (no flames visible in the current picture.)
The status page says the webserver is at the observatory, so will go down if the lines go down, but they're setting up a backup site on another server.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | August 31, 2009 10:13 PM
Yeah, the stories have a very "Ikea porn" feel to them.
The actual line from the Robin Williams special:
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | August 31, 2009 10:15 PM
(blockquote fail.)
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 31, 2009 10:18 PM
Ron Sullivan @ # 73 - yowsuh, that's one for the ages.
Queeb?
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | August 31, 2009 10:24 PM
Senechasm @ 68: Dang, she's the next Helen Chenoweth!
Posted by: Xia Momo | August 31, 2009 10:27 PM
Well! I'd better be damn careful about my fan fiction writing if I become a politician then.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 31, 2009 10:30 PM
Akiko @ # 92: You never hear about a Democrat being outed for stuff like this.
Uh, google John Edwards/affair, Eliot Spitzer/callgirl, Clinton/Lewinsky...
Posted by: nails | August 31, 2009 10:33 PM
I don't blame her for being seriously afraid of the consequences of this shit. Religion discourages healthy sexuality for everyone, but it is by far more harsh to women. Society in general is cruel to female politicians for doing things men do without question all the time, like having families and a career or not being conventionally attractive.
also, about the word 'cunt'- there is a book by that name that is pretty interesting, and is about the history/origin of the word.
Posted by: Stretch | August 31, 2009 10:36 PM
Aww, forget the trivia about the state's senior education expert being illiterate. The REAL news here is that she was trying to DEATH PANEL HER PARENTS!
On the other hand, damn, if I had known that religious dingbats were so kinky, I would have at least tried to pretend a little more.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 31, 2009 10:39 PM
Let me add my thanks for the heads up. I, too, tried to post a link to the webcam, but got the Problem Loading Page message. One can only hope the problem is excess traffic, and not that the cam itself is now a puddle of plastic and silicon!
Mt. Wilson (for the tiny fraction of you who don't already know) is where Edwin Hubble did his seminal (no pun intended, given the true topic of this thread) work, using the 100-inch Hooker telescope. Mt. Wilson was the second of three great observatories (Yerkes, Mt. Wilson, and Mt. Palomar), each the home in turn of the world's then-largest telescope (the 40-inch Alvan Clark refractor at Yerkes, the 100-inch Hooker [again, no pun intended], and the 200-inch Hale telescope at Palomar) founded by George Ellery Hale, who was also a pioneer in the development of astrophysics as a distinct discipline, the co-founder and longtime editor of the Astrophysical Journal, and one of the core group who turned a small California technical school into what we now know as Caltech.
IOW, that toasty mountaintop is linked to a whole lot of science history. Let's hope our socialized firefighting doesn't screw the pooch, eh?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | August 31, 2009 10:41 PM
When I was in college back in the carburetor and Brylcreme days, some thoughtful person furnished several scripts of a play titled "1601". Some number of us gathered together to take parts and read the play.
One early scene has luminaries from history gathered in a Victorian dinning room where, near the end of the feast, a foul odor begins to spread across the table. The resulting attempts to track the source is hilarious. (Possible inspiration for Steve Allen's "Meeting of Minds"?)
Later, the diners begin to discuss the possibilities of liaisons between the serving staff's youths and maidens. The suggested trysts are imaginative and explicit.
We howled! We roared! Water came from our eyes!
The author? Mark Twain.
There is nothing more human than the longing for intimate contact. It is the basis of the family unit after all.
Posted by: E.V. | August 31, 2009 10:46 PM
I have a wonderfully illustrated copy. I can't remember if they borrowed Beardsly's illustrations for it or someone had a wonderful time aping his style.Posted by: Crudely Wrott | August 31, 2009 10:53 PM
E.V., illustrated version?
Could you Xerox a copy and mail it to me? COD would be OK.
Posted by: Satcomguy | August 31, 2009 11:05 PM
Epikt @79:
Dude! Fresca burns the nostrils!
Posted by: Lynna | August 31, 2009 11:11 PM
Smoggy @35, who likes Anais Nin:
from "The Woman in the Dunes"
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 31, 2009 11:13 PM
Amateur. :P
Posted by: Cowcakes | August 31, 2009 11:16 PM
Unfortunalty getting sacked or resigning for the wrong reasons isn't confined to the US. This morning the Health Minister in NSW (Austalia) resigned due to some poor personal decisions, i.e. He had an affair with a 26yo woman, half his age. He should have been resigning for screwing the health system and the people of NSW, I couldn't care less about who who screws in his own time.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | August 31, 2009 11:16 PM
@89
This is the best song of euphemisms that I know:
Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-F16WoHO4A
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | August 31, 2009 11:26 PM
Wasn't it a pagan cult/religion or something and "cunt" was the start of the name of the the deity they worshiped, and so the followers were called "Cunts" or "Cuntians" or something?
And, eventually ended up getting slurred into a derogatory thing by some other religion?
Posted by: clarkcox.com
|
September 1, 2009 12:05 AM
There is, if you strive to deprive others of the same.Posted by: Dust | September 1, 2009 12:26 AM
"Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
H. L. Mencken
"The chief contribution of Protestantism to human thought is its massive proof that God is a bore."
H. L. Mencken
"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable."
H. L. Mencken
"Immorality: the morality of those who are having a better time."
H. L. Mencken
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."
H. L. Mencken
Quite the cynic he was.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | September 1, 2009 12:29 AM
ROFL!
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | September 1, 2009 12:29 AM
Pierce R. Butler #97: "Queeb?"
That wordoid has been a topic of discussion in our house for the past week. In the car, too, which has nearly led to unfortunate incidents where the hardest part would have been explaining myself to the insurance adjuster.
I'd say "to the cops" but, well, this is Berkeley; they've heard worse. Maybe.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 1, 2009 12:31 AM
Hilarious.
I can't help it. A lot of porn (even the non-lame) makes me burst out laughing. Not nervous giggles - real guffaws. Even (especially?) when it's stuff I would conceivably say. We really are a preposterous species.
Couldn't help but think of this:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris16.html
(With eternal gratitude to the Rev. for linking to it way back when.)
If I were developing materials for the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, I'd take full advantage of the double-entendre possibilities...
A classic, I agree.
Posted by: Jim B | September 1, 2009 12:39 AM
Back at comment #58, Desert Son said:
JFK was a democrat, and a notorious womanizer. Although this was apparently common knowledge to Washington insiders, there was simply a gentleman's agreement to not publish any stories about it. Bill Clinton was not so fortunate, as his private sexual activities are meat and potatoes to the modern press.
I do have a theory though. JFK's mystique was only burnished when he slept with Marilyn Monroe. In contrast, Bill Clinton slept with a somewhat porky intern. If he had instead bedded, say, Madonna, he wouldn't have become such a laughingstock and the issue would have died a lot more quickly.
Being a lying toad certainly didn't help him with the public and certainly not his legal concerns.
Posted by: SaintStephen
|
September 1, 2009 12:46 AM
"You drove your dick into me with even greater urgency, pulling me hard back against you, causing my tits to bounce toward my face with every thrust. I could sense the rapid approach of your climax."
Wow... a female who is a "technical" lover! Religious right? Naw...sounds to me like her god is named "DICK."
I want her. Complete with Rosary-bead waist-chain and a copy of Leviticus freshly xeroxed on the school copier. I bet she's a squealer, too...
Damn... I gotta go take a shower.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 1, 2009 1:19 AM
This part is funny in hindsight:
Posted by: F | September 1, 2009 2:05 AM
@ 120 Feynmaniac:
Nice! That is positively hilarious in hindsight. (So, thanks for the hindsight.)
Totally off topic, because Maguire can just bite me:
PLoS ONE: Emergence of a Code in the Polymerization of Amino Acids along RNA Templates
Model Suggests How Life's Code Emerged From Primordial Soup
Posted by: David | September 1, 2009 2:34 AM
All joking aside, and I *am* enjoying the joking, this is a sad story. Here is a beautiful woman (not that that's relevant but it made me enjoy reading her stories more) with a healthy sexual desire and imagination, who has no doubt been brainwashed her entire life. The result? She fights evolution in schools and promotes abstinence due to her brainwashing, while expressing her desires through a secret double life, one that no doubt shames her, but absolutely should not.
This type of extreme inner conflict is exceptionally common among fundamentalist types.
Posted by: felixthecat
|
September 1, 2009 2:43 AM
For all the wrong reasons" huh? Seems like you are stretching mightily here to provide this hypocrite with some absolution, and the usual bandwagon followed merrily along. For most politicians ans political appointees I would agree that sexcapades should not be a reason for losing a position, in this case she was not hired for her education acumen, but for her purity and for her perceived hatred of public education. Her resignation and public humiliation are well deserved.
"For all the right reasons" would be a better blog title.
Posted by: What | September 1, 2009 2:46 AM
Did she ghost write Nail'n Palin?
Posted by: skepsci | September 1, 2009 3:20 AM
As far as I'm concerned, the word "cunt" is perfectly acceptable in the right circumstances, as long as it refers to genitalia. I don't find it at all sexist, and I think it can play a role in pillow-talk. However, I find it extremely offensive when applied to a person, especially a woman - referring to a woman by the word of a particular organ seems like an attempt to reduce the person to that single organ, which is horribly sexist.
Posted by: MikeM | September 1, 2009 3:29 AM
I didn't want to read the two pieces Maguire had written while I was at work today, and I'm glad I didn't.
If there was a Bulwer-Lytton for porn, Maguire should enter it.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 1, 2009 3:45 AM
PS: who the fuck publishes non-commercial porn in PDF format, anyway? :/
Posted by: Hugo Rune
|
September 1, 2009 3:50 AM
Ahh, Literotica. I've been known to frequent that place myself form time to time, when the mood strikes. But can you say hypocrisy?
Posted by: MadScientist | September 1, 2009 3:58 AM
I wouldn't complain; the incident does suggest that since the enemy are so publicly hung up on anything to do with sex and yet happily engage in the practices which they condemn, one strategy for getting rid of 'em is just to dig up the dirt on them and expose them to their fanatic friends and supporters. It not only serves the purpose of getting rid of them, but there is nothing amoral about it either - everyone wins! Well, except for the hypocritical loser of course.
Posted by: SEF | September 1, 2009 4:04 AM
If it genuinely is the case that the anti-science, anti-education, creationist, fundamentalist types are much more likely to be involved in a (perceived) sex scandal than their opposites are, that might be an expedient route to exploit when trying to dispose of them from school boards etc. Just hire a bunch of private detectives to investigate and expose them.
Of course, it would still be entirely the wrong reason for getting them kicked out or forced to resign; and they wouldn't learn anything by it about the right reason they should be gone. On the other hand, the chances of them ever learning better are so slim anyway, especially before standards of education are raised, that the expedient route could be effectively the only route at the moment. If people really don't get fired (or not-hired) for incompetence, what else have you got.
However, has there ever been a serious study to determine whether these people are intrinsically worse in their other behaviours; or is it just that they make more laugh-worthy news when they do get found out and hence appear to be more prone to it than average. The closest things I've seen are the stats that murder and teen pregnancy etc is worse among religiotards. Not adult scandal per se. Though being found to have had a secret abortion in the past might be career-damaging among such types.
Posted by: SEF | September 1, 2009 4:07 AM
Amusingly, MadScientist seems to have been typing the same thing (although a briefer version) at the same time!
Posted by: Anida Adler | September 1, 2009 4:20 AM
As an erotica writer, I can comment that sadly, she was fired over writing that isn't even all that good. Now, if it had been fantastic writing and her newfound notoriety led to a wonderful career as erotica writer, that would have been better. As it is, it's just... sad.
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2009 4:29 AM
Yeah, I've been wondering about Sarah Palin. One of the strikes against her is that her family life is pretty sordid already. She has been described legitimately as an "Alaskan hillibilly". Teen age daughter pregnant from some guy she barely knows. Running feud with her sister's ex husband the cop who she tried to get fired with accusations of shooting a moose among others. Son was a juvenile delinquet who ended up joining they army. None of her older kids bothered to go to college. etc.
An ignorant Alaskan hillbilly and member of some way out there fundie death cults. The chances that she is a flaming hypocrit are damn high. And she did resign a governship without a clear explanation and no, it wasn't politically smart at all.
There have been persistent reports that both her and her husband have fooled around and they no longer like each other much. Well rumors, who knows if they are true? With a fundie kook like Palin, anything could happen.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 1, 2009 4:31 AM
All the power too her, though maybe now she's fired she can work on making the stories less sucky.
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2009 4:35 AM
There have been numerous studies of fundie death cultists. They are definitely worse than normal people in their behaviors.
Abortion rates of religious school graduates are higher than the general population.
Divorce rates among fundies are higher. Any social problem you care to name is higher. Ignorance and craziness carries costs. They are all hypocrits.
Posted by: B.B. | September 1, 2009 4:51 AM
PZ Myers:
There were unverified rumors of inappropriate behavior, but what really got her was that she has a history of publishing hard core erotic porn on the internet, under a pseudonym — ordinary stuff, of the sort you can find on all kinds of sites, like Literotica, all over the place.
Using google search on literotica.com reveals a whole lot of posts by her on that site under the pseudonym bridgetkeeney.
Posted by: SEF | September 1, 2009 4:53 AM
@ raven #135:
Yes, I know that. I linked to it!
What isn't clear is whether they are more likely to be involved in this sort of scandal. They tend to admire each other for, or at least live down, various kinds of child-abuse and wife-abuse (I suspect it may mostly be one-way among them rather than a more egalitarian spouse-abuse) as well as positively lauding it for being anti-intellectual. However, are they also actually worse on the things for which they seriously disgust each other (rather than their betters) - trivial "porn", infidelity (especially homosexual for the closet cases) etc.
Eg are they more likely to have or to create bad porn than a non-fundy is? And so on, for each of the things which actually would get them kicked out, as opposed to all the things which should get them kicked out (ie incompetence at the job).
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2009 5:08 AM
SEF, the highest percentage of the population who pays for porn over the net is Utah.
Tells you all you need to know.
What is wrong with sex anyway? Nothing. On the west coast, there are widely available photos of our governor cavorting with some unusually "large" and completely undressed babes from his hollywood days. No one gives a damn. No one expects a body builder Hollywood actor to have been a boy scout.
I don't write hard core porn. For one thing, it bores the hell out of me. I've read too
much and how many ways can you say, he/she/it fucked someone or something. And I probably don't have enough of a perverted imagination to make it interesting. My porn would end up being "Suzy does it, a healthy mind in a healthy body."
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 1, 2009 5:13 AM
I think she got off pretty easy (no pun intended). Imagine being a minister, a friend of Jerry Falwell's and being found dead like this:
Then there was Ted Haggard.... I wonder how much of this lecturing on "sexual morality" is fueled by self-hared.
Posted by: SEF | September 1, 2009 5:26 AM
@ raven #138:
Strangely enough, that's irrelevant. Just as their being incompetent is apparently irrelevant.
What's potentially useful (in terms of expedient ways of disposing of the useless board members and other political types) is what they themselves find repugnant.
It should be possible to list all the reasons for which scummy political types have actually been forced out of office (rather than the ones for which they should have gone!) and then try to work out whether those things are more common among the worst kinds of people (as well as the genuinely bad things being more common among them). In which case such side-effects of their underlying trashiness become viable means of discriminating between the good and the bad when not enough people are paying attention to the real reasons the bad'uns should go. Eg/ie:
If porn makes them go away, and they really do have or generate more porn, then searching for their porn becomes worthwhile.
Whereas, sadly, pointing out their incompetence doesn't seem to work at all well among the electorate (for elected scum) or the powers-that-be who hire the unelected scum.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 1, 2009 5:28 AM
The one advantage to being found dead like that is that you won't ever have to live it down. Being publicly shamed however...
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
September 1, 2009 5:54 AM
136-
Holy shit, weirder and weirder, we were on the forum at the same time, she even posted in some of the same threads as me. Though, I didn't know her as well as the main group from the author's hangout that I fell in with.
Wonder exactly how she mentally dealt with the large number of lesbians and rants about abstinence education that were going on the forum back then? And if you think I'm kidding about the lesbians, nearly half the commenters were full-on or bi women and two separate pairs of friends ended up gay marrying through the site, though only one is official because Texas sucks and England doesn't.
Weird though.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
September 1, 2009 6:00 AM
Ok, I'm going to stop digging into that shared history, it's dredging up some painful memories of losing a member of the crew to a heart attack not more than a couple of years before the beginning of the giant tidal wave of change on gay rights that I had been promising her was coming any day now.
Death sucks.
Posted by: Walton
|
September 1, 2009 6:35 AM
I think everyone's pre-judging this somewhat. She has not admitted to having written the erotic fiction; her resignation cites a different reason, and it is not yet absolutely confirmed that she is the one responsible. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt, unless and until all the evidence is revealed. She might be telling the truth.
I don't personally care all that much if she spent her time writing erotic fiction; I don't doubt that I would find the work in question revolting (and I don't intend clicking on it to find out), but as long as I don't have to look at it, it's none of my business. However, it is nevertheless true that a politician who advocates "traditional values", while doing something like this, would be hypocritical and dishonest; and that's a pretty strong accusation to make without evidence.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 1, 2009 6:42 AM
If you don't find the content revolting, you'll certainly find the writing style that way ;)Posted by: Marc Abian | September 1, 2009 6:46 AM
This is so awesome.
Posted by: Marc Abian | September 1, 2009 6:59 AM
For a brief moment the crematorium manager was sure the urn containing Freud's ashes seemed to twitch, but he was quickly distracted as Jenny arched her back obscenely and said "my tits love for you to play with them." His fingers teased the nipples and Jenny lulled her head back and moaned softly. He should have been lost in those mounds but his thoughts kept returning to appearances on The Tonight Show that he particularly enjoyed, especially that uproarious interview with that upstart young journalist Bill O'Reilly. "Surely this isn't normal?" he asked himself.
His secretary Jenny, picking up on his distraction, gave him that tilted quizzical look that reminded him strongly of his own mother. The urn seemed to move again.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 1, 2009 7:09 AM
Some more goodies:
Posted by: Walton
|
September 1, 2009 7:18 AM
Marc Abian, please stop posting disgusting content on this thread without warning. I wasn't expecting it, and it really is revolting. There are plenty of other places on the internet for content like that; please take it away from here.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 1, 2009 7:27 AM
Walton, repeat that same thing in your head before you decide to derail a thread in the future with your disgusting masturbatory big L fantasies.
The disgust you just felt doesn't even come close to what I feel when I see you spouting your insane Utopian fantasies in nearly every fucking thread on this site whether it's relevant or not.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 1, 2009 7:29 AM
Sheesh Walton, you're giving English prudishness a bad name. If you are disgusted you have no one but yourself to blame. This is a thread dealing with erotic porn, what did you think was going to be here? If you really don't like it simply don't read.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 1, 2009 7:36 AM
Man I must be desensitised, I read that and didn't even bat an eyelid.Also, the thread is on hardcore erotic porn stories. What else did you expect to find in here? Just be glad that no-one here hides links to Lemon Party, Meat Spin or 2girls1cup, unlike other places I've posted at before.
Posted by: puseaus | September 1, 2009 7:38 AM
How nicely a story like this binds all sorts of threads together. Religion, politics, education, idiots, rumors, conservatives, market forces, the golden mountain. And leaves us monkeys standing outside the window in the snow... Someone must have a plan with this!
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 1, 2009 7:43 AM
Maybe Walton would get into it more if it involved Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden and a copy of Atlas Shrugged. Someone (who is better with erotic imagery than I), get on it...
Posted by: XD | September 1, 2009 7:47 AM
#19
Yeah, where's her whispy mound? Her sacred bean? Her honeyed lining? Her mossy cleft?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 1, 2009 8:04 AM
Atlas Shrugged pg. 104:
Posted by: heironymous | September 1, 2009 8:21 AM
"I always wondered what would have happened if, when first pressed on the issue of sex with Monica Lewinski, Bill Clinton had said, 'Yep, it happened. My wife and I are now discussing our marriage and what this means.'"
The problem with the Lewinski affair wasn't just the sex, it was the abuse of power.
@118 - the fact that she wasn't a super-model probably contributed to the notion that President Clinton was a philanderer
Posted by: JeffreyD | September 1, 2009 8:24 AM
Wow. Does this mean that if I write some enbaconed bible lesbian masturbation porn starring Ayn Rand and Ayn Coulter on this blog I will be able to make Walton's head explode? Oh, oh. My, my. The temptation.
Seriously Walton, this is a thread about erotic stories. And I know you fantasize about a naked Margaret Thatcher, well, naked except for boots. (grin)
Ciao y'all
Posted by: Teddydeedodu | September 1, 2009 8:36 AM
"Maybe Walton would get into it more if it involved Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden and a copy of Atlas Shrugged. Someone (who is better with erotic imagery than I), get on it..."
Oh my gawd! Ayn Rand is butt ugly. Any porn with her on it would only excite the Libertarians and the Randroids. Which makes me wonder...mmmm...do they shout out their own names during orgasm?
Posted by: bbgunn | September 1, 2009 8:42 AM
Here on the Prairie, at least in my high school and college days ofthe 70's, we used the "genteel" word 'muff' for the lovely 'va-jay-jay.'
Any of you 'youngsters' still using that euphemism?
Posted by: Walton
|
September 1, 2009 8:47 AM
Ewww. No. A world of no.
I'm going to leave this thread now and get back to studying for my administrative law exam. Congratulations, Pharyngulites: this thread has achieved an impossible feat, namely, making admin law seem pleasant by comparison. :-)
Posted by: Major Kong | September 1, 2009 8:56 AM
# 20 There's very little market for fat middle-aged lesbians in porn, though I suppose that everybody is somebody's fetish.
Rule 34 of the Internet. If it exists, there's porn of it.
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 1, 2009 8:56 AM
Y'know, I actually hadn't heard that one before...
(/Does this make me innocent? Or just lucky?)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 1, 2009 9:02 AM
Seriously Walton, this is a thread about erotic stories. And I know you fantasize about a naked Margaret Thatcher, well, naked except for boots. (grin)
Just reminded me of "Bedrooms and Hallways
"What's the least sexy book you can think of?"
"The autobiography of Margaret Thatcher."
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 1, 2009 9:04 AM
I guess I should stop too. Posting Rand/O'Reilly erotica and a description of a priest/friend of Jerry Falwell dying from autoerotic asphyxiation (while wearing two wet suits and a dildo up his ass*) is more than sufficient grounds for banning.
_____
* A dildo with a condom on it. Just because it's totally weird and against everything you preach about in public doesn't mean it has to be unsafe.
Posted by: XD | September 1, 2009 9:07 AM
@163
In retrospect, I think it was "sacred vee".
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 1, 2009 9:07 AM
Is anyone at all surprised that Walton is in the "easily freaked out by porn" category? Lighten up, man, think a little less about the Absolute Wrongness of Coercion and the Fundamental Right To Property You Kids Get Off My Lawn, and a little more about, you know, warm flesh, and you'll feel a lot better.
The irony of complaining about the posting of erotic story excerpts _in a thread about the writing of erotica_ is huge. Also throbbing, presumably.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | September 1, 2009 9:08 AM
DesertSon:
Oh, that's easy. The Gingrich Republicans would have . . .
(a) impeached him for the affair anyway, creating some dubious argument about how the nature of the relationship endangered the nation; or
(b) impeached him for something tangential to the affair, but no less incidental to his job description; or
(c) regrouped and funneled all the money they were spending to investigate the affair to investigate something else, for which they would have impeached him.
;)
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 1, 2009 9:17 AM
And also:
(d) Continue to cheat on their own wives.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 1, 2009 9:36 AM
And 25 years the senior of Branden. Makes the affair seem all the more disturbing... She was in her 50s, and he was a tool. I am, but that's because I've been on the internet for more than 5 minutes. How the hell has Walton survived this long without falling into the pits of absolute depravity that only value-vexing vicarious voyeurism (i.e. the internet) can do. Personally I blame Net Nanny.Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 1, 2009 9:41 AM
*reads this*
*reads Marc's comment*
*rereads this*
I think we need to re-start that fund to get Walton de-virginized... or at least have someone help him remove that giant stick up his ass. I mean, seriously, that comment was hilarious, wtf was in there to be revolted about...?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 1, 2009 9:42 AM
* A dildo with a condom on it. Just because it's totally weird and against everything you preach about in public doesn't mean it has to be unsafe.
There's also ease of cleaning.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | September 1, 2009 9:42 AM
"Oh, that's easy. The Gingrich Republicans would have . . .
(a) impeached him for the affair anyway, creating some dubious argument about how the nature of the relationship endangered the nation; or
(b) impeached him for something tangential to the affair, but no less incidental to his job description; or
(c) regrouped and funneled all the money they were spending to investigate the affair to investigate something else, for which they would have impeached him."
Perhaps, but Clinton played a game of chicken with Gingrich on closing down the federal government and lost hard. If Clinton got out in front of the Lewinsky thing, my guess is he would have been more likely to surmount it in the media than he did the way he went in reality. I think Clinton could have gotten beyond Lewinsky if he owned it and moved on because presidential dalliances were not a new thing at all (think JFK) and the scandal would've burned bright for a couple weeks and then gone away. Hindsight is 20/20 though and there's no way to know if the other alternative would have been the right way.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | September 1, 2009 9:42 AM
Yeah. You gotta give it to Gingrich. He makes the most pimpin'-est pimp look like an alterboy by comparison.
How many people can say his wife was his high school geometry teacher? Then he cheated on her and divorced her while she was in the hospital with cancer. Married the mistress 6 months later, then cheated on her and divorced her to marry a third mistress/woman.
AND, while all this was going on he was leading the investigation against Clinton for having an affair with Lewinsky.
AND, all the affairs never made him resign from political office.
Gingrich = the pimp every player wishes he was.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 1, 2009 9:50 AM
Gingrich = the pimp every player wishes he was.
IOKIYAR
Posted by: E.V. | September 1, 2009 9:51 AM
It's like cooking with Reynolds Wrap foil then?Posted by: Sleeper | September 1, 2009 9:52 AM
@Raven (#138)
It's far too expensive!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 1, 2009 9:55 AM
It's like cooking with Reynolds Wrap foil then?
exaaaaaaaactly.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos | September 1, 2009 9:55 AM
Some people need to sort their priorities.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 1, 2009 10:01 AM
Maybe... but maybe he's just creating a plausible context for a stout caning. You know those Brits.... ;^)
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | September 1, 2009 10:01 AM
So that's all it takes to make him leave.
If only we'd known before. ;)
Posted by: E.V. | September 1, 2009 10:03 AM
Attractiveness is subjective and affected by knowledge.I thought Zooey Deschanel was a major hottie until I heard her sing on a TV ad and learned she's a radical vegan (via Top Chef). Now all I think of when I see her is earplugs and Beano*.
*(anti-gas aid)
Posted by: Notagod | September 1, 2009 10:06 AM
Walton@149, did your itty bitty dickie get really hard while you were reading it?
If you feel that strongly about it just don't read it dumbass. You have no one to blame but yourself.
It would be a bigger improvement if you would quit posting your disgusting christian fantasies in blog comments.
Posted by: E.V. | September 1, 2009 10:07 AM
is/are *sigh*
Posted by: Walton
|
September 1, 2009 10:10 AM
Erm, I'm not a Christian; I used to be, but I deconverted some time ago, as you would know if you had actually read my comments on other threads.
Posted by: Birger Johansson | September 1, 2009 10:11 AM
If you are interested in the intelligent combination of Science and sex, try some of the better SF novels by the recently deceased Philip Jose Farmer (of Riverworld fame). His early novel "The Lovers" is practically puritan by today's standards, but was controversial in the fifties. He often had religious thugs featured as baddies in his science fiction novels, but he failed to anticipate the scale of hypocricy we have seen in the last few years......
Posted by: E.V. | September 1, 2009 10:19 AM
(that's muuuuuch better)If that doesn't do it for Walton perhaps visualizing Sir John Major stuffed in a speedo and black socks w/sandals is more to his liking.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 1, 2009 10:22 AM
Walton, it's your libertarian fantasies that annoy people most. But complaining about erotica in a thread about erotica- and worse yet, actually telling other people what to post and not post in a thread ON PZ's BLOG so as not to offend YOUR precious sensibilities- that's really pretty ridiculous. Can't you see that? OMG there is SMUT on the INTERNET!
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 1, 2009 10:24 AM
Just because she's ruined for you, it didn't mean you had to ruin her for the rest of us...Posted by: AJ Milne | September 1, 2009 10:26 AM
Re #166:
The good news is, I'd put my coffee down first...
(/The bad news is, after this, the rest of the day is bound to be a letdown.)
Posted by: Epikt | September 1, 2009 10:27 AM
Feynmaniac:
Free markets! Free markets! Ohgodohgodohgod! Free markets!
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 1, 2009 10:27 AM
The discovery that John Major and Edwina Currie were having an affair did serious damage to the English national libido; ye gods, what a mental image THAT was.
Posted by: Epikt | September 1, 2009 10:32 AM
E.V.:
And a sock stuffed into the Speedo. In front, I mean.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 1, 2009 10:37 AM
E.V.:
Don't second-guess yourself; you were right to begin with:
"Now all I think of when I see her is earplugs and Beano.
All is noncountable, and thus takes a singular verb; the compound object doesn't change the number of the main verb.
Or at least that's what my data says! <grinning, ducking, and running>
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 1, 2009 10:41 AM
(Cheapshot warning...)
Erm, the 'English national libido...'?
(Checks UN figures...)
Oh... right... here it is...
(Right next to Burundi's GDP...)
Caveat: okay, actually, I have had excellent sex with persons of English extraction... It was just a cheap, easy joke... Honest... Please don't start sending me hot, English strumpets demanding an opportunity to prove what a calumny this is...
(/Also, please don't throw me into that briar patch...)
Posted by: Fred Mounts | September 1, 2009 10:41 AM
I don't think Walton has a stick up his ass; rather, it's a hard cover copy of Atlas Shrugged. Explains a lot, yeah?
This message brought to you by FUCK Walton. I can only imagine he posts here for sexual kicks; why else persist in coming around where he isn't wanted by so many people? And think of him getting his jollies from picturing all of those empty shells of people left by the violations of the free market. All hail capitalism!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 1, 2009 10:42 AM
And not one of those promiscuous altar boys who have been to every confessional in town.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 1, 2009 10:54 AM
Sleepy:
Dude, you're totally shopping in the wrong part of town!
BTW, E.V., regarding...
...I can see where the vegan thing would be off-putting (though candidly, the fantasies she stars in in my head don't have much to do with what she eats... OK, y'all just stop thinking what y'all are thinking: you know what I meant), but "heard her sing"?? My first awareness of her as a hottie was her singing "Baby, It's Cold Outside" in the ladies' locker room in Elf. I don't know what ad you're talking about, but I've never seen anything not-hot about her singing.
Also, how 'bout her sister Emily (aka )? Maybe, if we're lucky, she's a good FSM-fearing carnivore? In any case, there's some kick-ass genes in that family, no?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 1, 2009 10:59 AM
Wow! HTML FAIL of undiagnosable nature @198. I can't figure out how the link survived, but managed to disappear the text that was supposed to host it. To fill in the missing words...
"...(aka Dr. Temperance "Bones" Brennan)?"
Posted by: Ray Ingles | September 1, 2009 11:44 AM
Re #64: You know, it seems to me if there's anything in life that deserves to be described with 'purple prose', it's sex.
Posted by: ohara | September 1, 2009 11:47 AM
The reason she left is because FITS news of SC, a blog run by the former press secretary to Gov Sanford (2001-2005) was handed the documentation of impropriety by one of the governor's staffers. It was not improper for her to have her hobby, but it was for the governor's office to try to bury the story.
When the governor's office found about about it 6 weeks ago, the chief of staff & his office attempted to scrub everything off the net-not real bright. In bible-thumpin' SC, she never would have been elected to chair the SC Board of Education if she had listed her hobby on her resume. . . Probably not anywhere else in the country either, considering the teabagger mentality that prevails.
Instead of simply letting her resign & go back to her hobby full time, they tried to bury it.
This is about quid pro quo. They covered her back, she covered Sanford's. She sits on the executive committee of the SC GOP, which made the decision to censure Sanford & not to call for his resignation. She was the roadblock in the committee's decision to keep Sanford in office. The main reason the GOP did not want Sanford to leave is because, & no one could make this up, the religious right in SC fear the LT Governor Bauer (Sanford's replacement)may be gay. That was her argument. Better to have an incompetent heterosexual governor in office than a competent log cabin Republican.
This is what the SC GOP has done to the state-put in absolute idiots & morons who have basically burned the place to the ground in educational standards (see Corridor of Shame) the 4th worst economy in the country, with unemployment at 17% in some counties, and a governor who cares more about his extra curricular activities than the state. Hypocrisy at it's best, all under the name of "God."
The joke in SC is that we will be the only state in the union that is ASKED to secede.
Go to FITS News to read the whiole sorry story-this is SC politics at its best.
http://www.fitsnews.com/2009/08/31/sex-education/
Posted by: Michael | September 1, 2009 11:57 AM
I just quickly read through the two "erotic" fantasies. How pedestrian and unimaginative. Anais Nin or Anne Rice this is not.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 1, 2009 12:10 PM
Me (@198):
No, dammit, according to unimpeachable sources (well, wikipedia, actually), she, like her sister, is a committed vegan. I blame the parents!
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 1, 2009 12:16 PM
What exactly is Walton's problem with Marc Albian's post? It's not very graphic. Even I thought it was funny, and it implied that I suffered from castration anxiety.
For the record, I prefer snapper because it sounds funniest at the end of the phrase "I can see your..." Go ahead. Try it out.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 1, 2009 12:34 PM
Cap'n Mike:
As I hinted @180, I don't think he had any problem with it at all: I think he's just whining on purpose to create a reason for some stern-but-sexy older woman1 to bring out the cane or the crop and show him what naughty boys get.
1 Not, IMHO, Maggie Thatcher, as some have hinted. In fact, I had to seriously restrain myself from the temptation to cast this little scenario from among our fellow Pharyngulans. What? OK, I'll go quietly now....
Posted by: SC, OM | September 1, 2009 12:36 PM
I posted something fairly graphic about lesbian sex months ago that similarly gave him the vapuhs.
Honestly, I always just liked the sound of it (c--- makes me scrunch up my face like I just bit into a lemon*), and it makes me think of fish**, which are sexy. But I looked it up when you mentioned it and from Authoritative Internet Sources I learned that it's about active control over muscles, which has a powerful-woman quality to it. Makes me like it even more. Not to mention the photography connotations...
*No sourpuss jokes, please. :)
**No comments here, either.
[BTW, oddly, I've never heard "muff" as a stand-alone - outside of "muff diving."]
Posted by: Laura | September 1, 2009 12:40 PM
Yay eroticism!
Booo anti-climactic feeling suppressors :(
Posted by: SC, OM | September 1, 2009 12:49 PM
*shudder*
I would thank you for your restraint, but vaguely alluding to such a scenario is probably worse (but you know that, don't you? ;)).
Posted by: bbgunn | September 1, 2009 12:53 PM
Kristin Maguire...porn-again Christian.
Posted by: Ted Herrlich | September 1, 2009 12:55 PM
I think I have to start reading your blog before posting my own. I know I like to toss in my own $.02, but when we say practically the same thing it's scary :-)
I agree that Ms Maguire should have been canned as soon as she messed with the textbook approval process and brought in a couple of ringers to push her own point of view. But to lose her job like this? Nuts!
Have you heard about the Band Tee-Short issue in Kansas . .oh never-mind, I see it there. Yup, gotta read here before I post, it might save me some time :-)
Ted Herrlich
tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.com
Posted by: amphiox | September 1, 2009 1:27 PM
It's kind of like getting Al Capone on tax evasion.
Of Saddam Hussein for "weapons of mass destruction."
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 1, 2009 1:34 PM
OK, so any time Walton threadjacks in future, all present should immediately respond with a few sentences of heaving bosoms, ramrod dicks, copiously lubricating snappers (that's a new one on me, BTW), or whatever your personal preferences might suggest! At the least it should bring a halt to the threadjacking, and with any luck, the association of ideas will either disgust Walton with libertarianism, or remove the stick from his arse.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 1, 2009 1:48 PM
"I'm so hot and wet. I have a fever that only Dr. Ramrod Single Payer can cure..."
***
"Copiously lubricating"? Not British at all. :D
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 1, 2009 1:52 PM
Well, Jebus, SC! Here I am trying to be discreet, and you go raising your hand and waving it like you were Hermione Granger in Potions class. ;^)
Sheesh! It's not like there aren't others here who are self-proclaimed "sluts" — and who've hinted at a bit of a taste for the dark side — to whom I might've been referring.
This reminds me of a girl I dated (all too briefly, to my regret) in high school: I used to say sly little things to her in front of her mother, things that could have naughty meaning only to her, thinking she'd be amused by the coded, hide-in-plain-sight game. I had to stop doing that, though, because she would invariably get all flustered and shush me... and in the process get us totally busted for whatever non-mom-approved shenanigan's I'd been hinting at (all pretty tame by grownup standards, if memory serves, but you know moms...).
Posted by: SC, OM | September 1, 2009 2:06 PM
Dude, I never assumed you were referring to me. Indeed, in this particular scenario that would be absurd.
;)
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 1, 2009 2:11 PM
KG:
I'd heard the term before, but not, as it's being used in this thread, as a general slang term for vagina. Rather, I've always heard it used to refer to a peculiarly talented (or well trained) sort of vagina.
And while we're on the subject of genital euphemisms, and since I set the wayback machine to high school in my last post, I've been reminded of one euphemism that we boys used all the time back then, but which (to my great relief) I haven't heard in decades: furburger <shudder>
There used to be (maybe still is, in the South) a chain hambuger restaurant called Fuddrucker's, and for years I had to stifle an adolescent giggle every time I saw one. And to make matters worse, they sold a line of take-home desserts called "Mother Fuddrucker's Pies." The stupid schoolboy in me nearly asplodes just thinking about it!
Posted by: SC, OM | September 1, 2009 2:20 PM
Oh, yeah? Try, um, pulling in and out of one of these :):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kum_&_Go
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 1, 2009 2:29 PM
Furburger is pretty bad, and so is goul from upthread. But there are some that really, really, REALLY turn my stomach, not just for inherent grossness, but also the way they were used.
#1: While moving into a new apartment, another tenant got me aside and asked if I was moving in. When I replied that I was, he confided in me that, "There's a lot of good gash in this building."
Ignoring for the moment how incredibly sexist it is to refer to an entire person by the contents of their pants, this is just gross. Sorry to say I never called the guy on it. I was literally struck speechless, and I was no fainting youngster at the time.
#2: At a dorm party, I once heard a young man refer to a female classmate's appearance in a very complimentary manner, ending with, "And I bet she's got a great, gaping axe wound!" while using his hands to indicate genitalia.
I'm pleased to report that this time everyone in the room was struck speechless except me. I paused, and then replied with a gentle "You've never actually had sex, have you?" Bravado turned to blushes in under a quarter-second.
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 1, 2009 2:37 PM
I've always been a little sad that Mother Tuckers changed their name to Tucker's Marketplace.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 1, 2009 2:41 PM
SC:
To be fair, it was an absurd fantasy no matter who I was referring to! But perhaps we've [ahem] flogged this line of banter as much as it can take, eh?
Walton:
I hope you'll forgive the teasing. Speaking for myself, it was only meant as playful fun: Your sexually conservative reaction to a thread about an ostensibly sexually conservative woman who's been outed for writing porn and giving lapdances was just too target-rich an environment to ignore... but no offense was intended.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 1, 2009 2:50 PM
Revolting.
Now I'm curious as to who it was, but agree that dropping it would be best (though feel free to email me with clarifications :)).
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 1, 2009 3:04 PM
Cap'n Mike:
Yikes! Thanks ever so much for reminding me of those! Just as I think using genital slang (of any gender or type) as a personal insult demonstrates contempt for sexuality itself, any slang that metaphorically equates the vagina with a wound is horrific. Slit and slash, which I've also heard used, have something of the same connotation, though it's not quite as on-the-nose in those cases. Furburger, as stupid and objectifying as it is, is at least nonviolent, and the metaphorical equation of sexuality with food/eating is fairly conventional.
SC:
I had seen the Kum & Go sign before, too, though I'd forgotten about it 'til now. I find absolutely hilarious the benign neglect with which the wiki treats (or rather, doesn't treat) the suggestiveness of the name: "What? Double entendre'? What double entendre'?? Nothing to see here...."
Posted by: Holydust | September 1, 2009 3:05 PM
Bill: I go to Fuddrucker's all the time. :) Yes, we still have them. Awesome burgers. They even have ostrich and buffalo.
Posted by: Brian X | September 1, 2009 3:08 PM
You know, if anything this reminds me of any number of male closet cases in the ranks of Republican politicians. It seems like we have a highly sexual woman who's been shamed into painful public denial of the fact and hides behind conservative politics and religion. If she was willing to come out and disclaim the shame (the way people wanted Michael Phelps to after he was caught smoking pot), she'd have a shot at being a hero, but she's just another venal right-wing opportunist.
Posted by: Walton
|
September 1, 2009 3:09 PM
Bill,
That's OK. I realise that I have a tendency to be rather prudish, at times; and I apologise to Marc Abian, of whom I may have been needlessly critical. I'm honestly not as prissy in real life as I sometimes appear on this site - some of my comments have a tendency to appear more serious and less sardonic than I intended, when committed to writing - and I will take the joke in the spirit in which it was intended.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 1, 2009 3:13 PM
Beaver Liquors
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
September 1, 2009 3:25 PM
Though, overall I feel really bad for her. I know a few women recovering or still trapped in the uber-patriarchy of conservative christianity. It's really something most can't fathom to be told that any sexuality whatsoever is the equivalent of the devil. Not, no "wrong" sexuality, not no sex acts, but no sexuality in general and then accept a lifetime of marital rape with someone you're father approves and we'll make that extra creepy by telling christian dads to straddle the molester line in the amount of "ownership" they should take in their daughter's sexuality.
These women have to become creative during puberty in order to have complete deniability for every wank, be ready to deny any fantasy, avoid checking out anyone who turns their fancy for fear of being called a slut and completely shut it down as much as they can until it oozes out in one big ugly problematic mess.
It sucks that she had this little outlet for her sexuality (much like Stephanie Meyer does with her Twilight book series) where she could release it without the internalized guilt complex crashing down on her and now that it's out and she's been let go, that'll be the take-home message. Instead of learning something about hypocrisy or the importance of coming out or not supporting vile political parties or religions that hate women, it'll all be a lesson on how she should have listened to her god-husband and purged it out of her mind like a good christian wife.
The one avenue she had to allow herself to feel, to connect to the human, to remember she was human will now be severed by guilt complexes too deep to ever face.
It's frankly kind of heart-breaking.
What we do to female sexuality in this country, our grandkids will look at with the same mix of horror and contempt we give marital rape today.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | September 1, 2009 3:26 PM
PZ Myers:
Thus facilitating more "random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal"?
Ithangyew.
Posted by: E.V. | September 1, 2009 3:27 PM
Zooey is singing the "cotton - the fabric of our life" jingle in the reediest whisper thin unfocused voice known to mankind. (AAAAugh, back of the throat)
My gripe with vegans who eschew wheat products summed up - YOU pick the damn restaurant that suits you, I'll drop you off and pick you up after I've finished at Morton's (or even Fuddruckers). Did you know bean sprouts have a nasty proclivity for E. coli?
Posted by: SC, OM | September 1, 2009 3:28 PM
Gotta love how the 'Women's Apparel' consists of "Beaver Liquors Thong Red" and "Beaver Liquors Thong Black."
Posted by: E.V. | September 1, 2009 3:30 PM
Rev. BDC owes me a new flat screen!
Posted by: E.V. | September 1, 2009 3:32 PM
And how does a woman hold her liquor?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 1, 2009 3:33 PM
And how does a woman hold her liquor?
In a glass?
Posted by: Ben in Texas | September 1, 2009 3:34 PM
by the ears
Posted by: Epikt | September 1, 2009 3:38 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
Got one of their t-shirts as a present. Never got up the courage to wear it to work.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 1, 2009 3:40 PM
And better than some men, who shall not be named.
*"You pace yourself blah blah blah..." ;P
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 1, 2009 3:44 PM
Whisker biscuit is my probably my favorite term for the vagina.
Posted by: Ben in Texas | September 1, 2009 3:49 PM
truthspeaker, are you a bowhunter?
http://www.trophyridge.com/arrow-rests/whisker-biscuit/
Posted by: Rick R | September 1, 2009 3:56 PM
Captain Mike- When I replied that I was, he confided in me that, "There's a lot of good gash in this building."
Yeah, that one is just beyond vile. Now I'm no prude, and in the right context, some potty mouth can be quite stimulating for both parties, but that one just crosses the line. And says much about the person using it.
Posted by: JackC
|
September 1, 2009 4:49 PM
Dude - there is one in your state, three in mine and a bunch in the state above you and to the right of me. They're Everywhere!
I used to go to the one in Wayne, NJ (I think) after computer fleas of old.
Oddly, I do not recall seeing a single one on my recent grand tour of the US (dammit, didn't get to meet up with RBDC.) I did see (and my 13 year old son got the greatest fun out of) the Kum-n-Go signs. I did that already here though. Not to mention the odd "In-n-Out". Shades of Alex and his droogies.
JC
Posted by: JeffreyD | September 1, 2009 4:56 PM
Bearded clam and taco are two vaginal euphemisms I remember from my younger days. Both are kinda icky to me. I like the word muff, but an old girlfriend and her roommate got me started on that one. (Moment of nostalgic reverie)
Walton, you have responded to the teasing with some grace and humour. Good on ya.
Ciao y'all
Posted by: JackC
|
September 1, 2009 5:01 PM
Of course, Beaver Liquors reminded me of the dirtiest words ever said on pre-mid-70's television... and somehow, all the rest reminded me of This. Hey - it's been a long time since we have had a musical reference, hasn't it?
JC
Posted by: JackC
|
September 1, 2009 5:16 PM
The strangest old memory just came over me. Way back in '73, while in bootcamp (Navy), we were having the usual "hygene" lecture - only this one was dental. The "instructor" (if I had to guess at the time and now, I probably would say he MUST have been gay) goes on about the obvious stuff (to me anyway - I am a Dentist's kid) regarding dental hygene and flossing.
Finally the kid next to me wants to ask a question. In the absolutely straightest face that can be imagined, he says this:
"If someone is eating pussy, and gets a hair caught in the teeth, does that count as flossing?"
JC
Posted by: Marc Abian | September 1, 2009 5:39 PM
Posted by: Piltdown Man | September 1, 2009 5:54 PM
raven @ 135:
You think abortion & divorce are social problems & examples of poor behaviour? Interesting.
Posted by: DominEditrix | September 1, 2009 7:38 PM
You think abortion & divorce are social problems & examples of poor behaviour?
Given that fundies proclaim loudly that abortion and divorce are major taboos, the fact that those behaviours are more prevalent amongst the fundie population than the general population is indicative of systemic problems conforming with their own "good behaviour" social standards. Nor does it appear that Raven was necessarily conflating those specific issues with "any social problem"; it is equally as valid to take that latter sentence and infer it refers to such things as child abuse, spousal abuse, teen pregnancies, etc. I interpreted "worse than normal people in their behaviors" as "suffer a higher rate of behaviours they decry", not that the behaviours themselves were being judged by Raven.
Posted by: John Morales | September 1, 2009 10:30 PM
Porn in the USA: Conservatives Are Biggest Consumers.
Posted by: Bob King | September 1, 2009 10:41 PM
Hm. I just posted to this myself. Unlike PZ, I don't think it wrong to fire her for her porn. I think her porn comes from her values, from the special happy place, her private Thinking Spot, and from there floweth every stupid thing that PZ THINKS she should be fired for.
The irony is that all of the stuff she actually did to people, that's ok - but the expression of her base motives, out loud - well, that's taboo.
Might make people start thinking about whether or not one can, or should think that other people actually OWN or have the primary responsibility for controlling significant portions of one's anatomy.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 1, 2009 10:55 PM
He was citing them as examples of hypocrisy, not 'poor behaviour'. The behaviours themselves are morally neutral; that the people committing them spent their lives (or, in some cases, continue to spend their lives) adhering to a belief system that considers these things evil and verboten is a good indication that the belief system is flawed on one or more levels.
Funnily enough, if religions didn't try to stop people using contraception there'd be fewer abortions. If religions stopped telling people they needed to be married before having sex - a natural inclination for most - then they wouldn't be getting married as much; obviously, you can't get divorced if you aren't married, can you?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 1, 2009 11:49 PM
JackC:
Cool; who knew? I note that the CT one is in Mahsantucket. While I haven't Google-mapped it to be sure, I'm guessing that's within one or the other of our casinos.
My Lovely Bride and I tried to go to Mohegan Sun once, intending to feed a few slots and then take in dinner and a show... but the place was so utterly smoke-filled we couldn't stay. I think casinos must be the last place in the U.S. where food service and smoking coexist!
Posted by: MikeM | September 2, 2009 3:23 AM
Oh, cripes, I found a bad-porn contest:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/nov/27/awardsandprizes.badsexaward/print
Maguire's stuff fits right in. Really, it does.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 2, 2009 4:21 AM
We would rather neither were necessary. Both frequently are.
Posted by: JackC
|
September 2, 2009 8:53 AM
Bill
It took me a bit to get over the Fuddruckers in Mashantucket thing... it was just too good ;-) Any of those "~ucket" places just beg for inclusion in a thread like this one!
Talking of which - well sort of - was watching Food shows last night and understand there is a place that has a mean fried hot dog in Fairfield. I may have to make a small road trip! (I don't even want to mention the place that had deep-fried bacon....)
I can't go to casinos any more for exactly the reason stated. Long ago in Carson, NV, I used to have quite a nice time, but they weren't as polluted then, the drug abusers having other places to apply their fix and not requiring a casino for the purpose. I would indulge in an occasional cigar myself; no longer. That's OK though because gambling is merely taxation on those who refuse to understand statistics.
JC
Posted by: Heidi
|
September 2, 2009 11:57 AM
I'm a little disappointed that someone who writes such literate erotica may now be discouraged from continuing. Most erotica is unreadable because of being poorly written, and she's quite decent.
Posted by: JackC
|
September 2, 2009 12:40 PM
Hmm... Let me try....
"His firm hands caressed the leather binding. He shivered slightly at the touch. Gently, he laid the book on the table and slowly folded the pages back. Licking his lips, he softly ran his hands across the pages, his hands slipped to the binding and pressing slightly...."
I don't know - that just doesn't do anything for me.....
OH!! Literate!! Not Literary.... Sorry!! Nevermind.
JC
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 2, 2009 12:44 PM
'I could stand to hear a little more...'
(/Jayne.)
Posted by: Piltdown Man | September 2, 2009 1:32 PM
DominEditrix @ 246:
Wowbagger @ 249:
mr raven really should strive for greater clarity. Otherwise he looks a bit foolish when he sneers at "ignorant hillbillies" who never "bothered to go to college". (By the way, raven, it's spelled H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E.)
Wowbagger @ 249:
Logic fail. If every social conservative in the world failed to live up to their ideals, or even turned out to be a shameless hypocrite, that wouldn't prove their moral code was false. (Of course failure to live up to one's ideals and hypocrisy are not synonymous.)
John Morales @ 247:
Far be it from me to impugn the disinterested rigour of Mr Edelman's research, but I was puzzled by his observation that "Church-goers bought less online porn on Sundays a 1% increase in a postal code's religious attendance was associated with a 0.1% drop in subscriptions that day. ". It's not immediately apparent how a study of "anonymised credit-card receipts" reveals anything about the frequency of church attendance.
I think one should take such surveys with a pinch of salt. (This gets thrown around a lot by secularists. Read my beetle-crushing response here.)
Azkyroth @ 252:
If you wish they weren't necessary, that suggests you disagree with Wowbagger's description of abortion and divorce as "morally neutral" ...?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 2, 2009 4:24 PM
symptoms of problems are generally morally neutral, yet still undesirable, because the problems that cause them are undesirable.
getting pregnant when absolutely not ready for it, and having a marriage (or any equivalently committed relationship) collapse are very unfortunate things that happen, and that most people would like to see happen less. But just as banning alcohol is the single worst way of trying to prevent alchoholism, banning abortion and divorce doesn't prevent unwanted pregnancies or collapses of marriages; it merely results in the problems becoming invisible and forcing people to stew in misery* because you've taken away their ability to resolve the problem safely.
The best case scenario is a society where abortion is perfectly legal and easily accessible and yet very rare, because people have maximum control over their bodies to begin with (i.e. the knowledge, ability and resources to prevent pregnancy, as well as the self-confidence and social support to be able to insist on whatever method a person has decided upon) which is what we evil liberals are trying to achieve; the worst case scenario is a situation where abortion is illegal yet very common because people have no control over their bodies (because of ignorance, unrealistic and often conflicting social pressures, and lack of resources and rights to self-determination to be able to insist on not being impregnated), which is a world that results when sexually repressed authoritarian moralizing assholes like you get to have a say.
The same applies to divorce: a world in which individuals are supported in discovering and deciding for themselves what kind of relationship they want to have, and with whom, and the confidence to not be pressured otherwise, is a world where people are less likely (though unfortunately still somewhat common) to commit when they shouldn't commit, to the wrong people, at the wrong time, and thus prevents the pain that comes with the dissolution of such a strongly involved and committed relationship. On the other hand, a world where there's only cookie-cutter scripts for how everybody needs to live their life, and people are pressured into making these decisions while being too ignorant (because of youth, ignorance, or repression) of themselves and/or those they're making this commitment to, is a world where sooner or later these mismatches blow up in one way or the other, be it generic misery, in divorce, or in domestic abuse.
*ah, but I forgot: in your universe, stewing in misery because of one's past is a feature, not a bug. bah.
Posted by: Seam | September 2, 2009 10:39 PM
Sex is a natural and beautiful thing. I have never understood why religion has always made it out to be evil. Sex for procreation, fine, sex for enjoyment, even better. Why is it evil? Because it is the most deeply rooted and influential urge/act that any human being is capable of. What better means of control.
Posted by: John Morales | September 2, 2009 10:55 PM
Piltdown:
It's likely statistical data analysis for correlation: take a postal code, plot the two variables "church attendance" and ""anonymised credit-card receipts", then compare the rates over time. I suspect that's why the term 'associated with' is used, rather than 'caused by'.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 2, 2009 11:15 PM
Analogy fail. The difference is that conservativism isn't contingent on the existence of a pantheon of magical beings who (it's claimed) can influence the behaviour of humans - Christianity, on the other hand, is; 'Amen, brothers - I was tempted to do EVIL but God/Jesus/One of the vast number of Marys/Saint-so-and-so appeared and told me not to so I stopped. Praise Jesus.'
Posted by: JackC
|
September 3, 2009 3:55 AM
Drat. The problem when threads get hot like this (um... no pun intended??) is that I don't ever get to find out if anyone liked the Tull roll. (see #242)
:-D
JC
Posted by: Piltdown Man | September 5, 2009 11:32 AM
Jadehawk @ 258:
If you really thought abortion & divorce were morally neutral, you wouldn't call them "symptoms", you'd call them "solutions".
I agree banning drink is no way to reduce habitual drunkenness. A better solution would be to reduce the number of habitual drunkards. And one of the best ways to do this is to create a cultural ambience in which the evils of habitual drunkenness are taught to people from an early age and social disapproval is clearly manifested. In the same way, a cultural ambience that strongly discouraged promiscuity would help reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and a a cultural ambience that inculcated the true meaning of marriage would help reduce the number of failed marriages.
PZ is quick to brand the various abstinence movements in the US as "worthless" and no doubt he can pull a bunch of statistics out of his hat to prove their ineffectiveness. But does he really expect such isolated campaigns to have any efficacy in a culture otherwise saturated with pornographic imagery and deviant individualistic ideologies of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"??
A fantasy. We've had decades of legal abortion, contraception & sex education aimed at ever-younger children, decades of lying liberal propaganda that sex and childbearing are matters of personal autonomy -- and still the abortion figures rise.
Another fantasy, based on the similar assumption that a successful relationship is a matter of autonomous individuals being empowered to discern and choose their ideal partner, all set in the context of maximizing self-fulfilment. Liberals often mock sentimental notions of "romantic love", which they wrongly associate with the traditional view of marriage. In truth, the fatuous liberal ideal of self-fulfilment through a freely-chosen relationship is very much akin to "romantic love" -- and equally unrealistic. The traditional Christian view of marriage is that it is primarily a means of mutual assistance in providing the necessities of life and raising children. If these helpmates also turn out to be soulmates, well, that's a happy bonus.
Few things have done more harm to the institution of marriage than the hopelessly unrealistic expectations disseminated by romantic liberals.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 5, 2009 11:44 AM
As usual, Pilty, you're lying. The following is from Induced abortion: estimated rates and trends worldwide
"An estimated 42 million abortions were induced in 2003, compared with 46 million in 1995. The induced abortion rate in 2003 was 29 per 1000 women aged 15—44 years, down from 35 in 1995. Abortion rates were lowest in western Europe (12 per 1000 women). Rates were 17 per 1000 women in northern Europe, 18 per 1000 women in southern Europe, and 21 per 1000 women in northern America (USA and Canada)."
Now, will you apologise for your lie? Is the pope a Buddhist? Do bears have flush toilets installed in their caves?
Posted by: strange gods bless 'merica | September 5, 2009 11:50 AM
How simple minded. Some women would like to have a child but cannot afford it. Some women would like to have an abortion but cannot procure it. Both of these incongruities are symptoms of systemic problems: poverty and patriarchy.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 5, 2009 11:55 AM
For more detailed abortion trends over a longer period (1975-2005) in the USA, see:
http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/trends.pdf.Posted by: Carlie | September 5, 2009 11:56 AM
Also, it is possible for a procedure to be morally neutral yet undesirable. It is a surgery. It is painful. It would be preferable for women not to have to go through them. That doesn't make them bad. Root canals are morally neutral, yet I wish life was such that people wouldn't ever have to get them done.
Posted by: Walton | September 7, 2009 5:35 AM
FWIW, Piltdown, I certainly do not view abortion as "morally neutral". Abortion is a bad thing, and should be avoided where possible. However, it is sometimes also necessary. To quote a common catchphrase, it should be "safe, legal and rare".
IMO, the best way to reduce the incidence of abortion is to reduce the number of unwanted (especially teenage) pregnancies. Empirical data shows that the best way to do that is by providing better sex education in schools, and making contraception widely available with no stigma. "Abstinence only" programmes demonstrably do not work. In the US, figures consistently show that "red" states have higher rates of teen pregnancy and abortion than "blue" states do. Ultimately, some young people are always going to have sex, regardless of the values which their society seeks to inculcate in them; it's a natural instinct which is more powerful than social conditioning. The most practical approach is to accept this fact, and to ensure that they can do so safely and without becoming pregnant.
Unfortunately, most "pro-life" activists also oppose free contraception and effective sex education, and support "abstinence only" programmes. Considering the empirical evidence that these policies lead to more unwanted pregnancies, I can only conclude that most pro-lifers want the world to be full of unwanted children.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 7, 2009 5:54 AM
In the US, figures consistently show that "red" states have higher rates of teen pregnancy and abortion than "blue" states do. - Walton
Quite true. These same statistics, of course, also show that US states with higher income inequality have higher rates of teen pregnancy and abortion. But when it comes to facts that undermine your glibertarian nonsense, you are just as impervious as Pilty.
Posted by: ADAMSTONE | December 4, 2009 4:16 AM
great post!! would any of your readers be interested in, a professional, quality, DIVERS TORCH ?
Posted by: dzzzz
|
December 17, 2011 11:00 AM
Amazing how often school boards remind us of the need for better quality education, isn't it?