Fascist Supes?

This week San Francisco had a bit of an identity crisis, I daresay.  The Board of Supervisors voted to ban public nudity (purportedly with carve-outs for festivals).  I suppose the one upside is that this is the first mention of the perineum in the codes of California.  And, admittedly, it's unclear how dedicated the police department will be to enforcing this, particularly in the days surrounding Folsom and the like, but, geez, supes, did you forget where you lived?

This is an atrocity.  I can see this sort of ban flying in St. Louis, but San Francisco is supposed to be the place where nudists and everyone else can come to fly the flag of whatever the fuck they are.  Why are we taking that away? Purportedly it's to draw "some line of decency," but that reasoning presumes that nudity is, by definition, indecent, including where the nudists does nothing but stand still.  Let me share an anecdote to display why that's insane:

A couple of months ago I was walking through the intersection of Castro and Market (I do this a lot).  It was a lovely day, and perhaps consequently three nudists were loitering in the sunlight near the concrete barricades.  Also standing nearby, consulting a map, was a young hetero couple with their three small kids, aged roughly 4-9.  I had a bit of hesitation at the thought of all that peen in such close proximity to children before I realized that the parents were not at all concerned by the presence of the nudists and their children hadn't even seemed to notice.  The kids weren't fixated on the swinging peens nearby in the least.  I realized that children have no concept of whether nudity is right, wrong, offensive, acceptable, grotesque, inappropriate, etc., until their parents or their community teaches them it is any of those things.  So why, after all this time, supes, have we decided that moral judgment is the city's to impose? It's pretty damn easy to avoid the two neighborhoods where the nudists play if you're one of our 75 year old citizens with some kind of Southern Baptist bent... so why can't the Castro continue to be a place that doesn't inflict moral judgements on personal expression?

This is a fail, supes.  A grotesque, small-minded fail.

At Last

The dearth of blogging over past months, surely a disappointment to both of my readers, can be attributed to my attempts to publish and distribute my novel, which has been described by my readers thus far with the following blurbs:

"A 200-page love letter to San Francisco"

"A raw coming of age tale set in a world of flexible sexuality"

"Voyeuristic"

"A modern Tales of the City" (my personal favorite).

Fortuitously, this publication celebrates the election of the very first openly bisexual Congresswoman.

Please check out the novel!  You can grab a Kindle version here or order a copy from Amazon.com here.

iBookstore coming soon.

Big Gay Animals

Spurred by a recent article unearthing an early 20th century study of debaucherous penguins, I feel compelled to reproduce a halfhearted survey of the gayness of animals documented in 450+ vertebrate species.

First, the penguins:  Adeile penguins, subject to the observation of a 1910 polar expedition, and very likely causing severe blushing in the ship full of horny explorers.  The explorers called them "hooligan" penguins.  I would die to get a hold of the 4 page pamphlet one of these guys wrote - about fucking Penguins - that was concealed for obscenity for a century.  In addition to "autoerotic tendencies," these little guys apparently occasionally engaged in "necrophilia, sexual coercion, sexual and physical abuse of chicks, non-procreative sex and homosexual behaviors."

(Note: the above penguins were deemed gay penguins circa 1910).

Then, the ducks. Homosexual Necrophilia in mallards.  Weird.  But the more I looked the more I found reports not only of some gay behavior in the animal kingdom (to which I'd say, "fucking duh"), but of predominately gay behavior in certain species, which blows my mind. Apparently 1500 species are known to practice some same sex sex, or at least coupling.  Highlights:

(1) Dolphins.  Dolphins are hoes, generally.  They behave homosexually and heterosexually in equal measures.  They regularly engage in gay oral sex and hump one another.  While most males are bisexual, they go through periods of exclusive homosexuality.

(2) Bonobos.   "Nearly all" bonobos "are bisexual," and "2/3 of the homosexual activities are amongst females."  Here is the highly amusing photo of the bonobos:

(Credit: Zanna Clay).

(3) Macaques.  Female macaques form serial monogamous relationships, of which they have several in a breeding season.  Males have homosexual one-night stands.

(4) Giraffes.  Frequent male courtships that include mounting.  Homosexual activity predominates in some cases.

(5) Bison.  Males mate with females only once a year and 55% of mounting males are mounting other males.

(6) Antelopes.  Females mount each other a couple times an hour during mating season and ~9% of sexual activity is homosexual.  One female "slides" up behind her partner, raises her foreleg to stroke the other female between the legs, and later they mount. 

(7) Swans.  This bit, I have to quote: "Homosexual couples account for up to 20 percent of all pairings annually. Almost a quarter of all families are parented by homosexual couples that remain together for years. At times, male couples use the services of a female by mating with her. Once she lays a clutch of eggs, the wanna-be fathers chase her away and hatch the eggs. Other times, they just drive away heterosexual couples from their nests and adopt their eggs."

(8) Walruses.  Males sleep cuddled up together, mate with males before maturity and after, year round, and only copulate with females during breeding season and after maturity.

(9) Gray Whales.  Regularly have up-to-five-male orgies, touching genitals with one another.

(10) Guinean Cocks. Almost 40% of the male population engages in some homosexual behavior and a "small percentage" don't ever copulate with females.

It sounds to me like this is saying that factors such as gestation period and time-to-maturity (in mammals at least) can lead to the practice of certain homosexual behaviors as more appropriate assuagers of sexual urges.  In all cases it seems that same-sex coupling is forming portion of their lifestyle.

Considering that there's also a suggestion that behavior of the X chromosome observing methylation dramatically correlates with the incidence of women with two gay sons, I'd say it's time for some comparative genetics.  Who's down for mapping the genome of the above animals and seeing what we have in common?

Threefail

When one builds an online dating profile identifying oneself as “bisexual,” the messages one gets are pretty remarkable.

Among the many requests for a booty call (which apparently assume “bisexual means” “will do anything”), I found that I also received multiple requests to date and/or screw couples.

Here’s the profile: happy (perhaps married) couple finds at some point in their life together that the woman is into women – though, of course, not to the exclusion of sexual attraction to her man – and they decide to seek out a third person for their couple, however fleetingly.  This prompted myriad curiosities for me: How do you “date” a third person?  Are there to be rules in bed?  What kind of strain does this put on a relationship?  How do people characterize this in their own heads?

Because of my love for both of my readers, I decided to investigate for, you know, journalistic ends, without really committing to the idea of following through all the way to the bedroom.

None of these couples is comfortable putting pictures up on a dating website, it seems.  They initiate the messaging, but upon response two different couples demanded additional photos of me.  It was actually rather laborious a pursuit to get pictures of them.  I selected the most attractive couple of research subjects and sent some public photos and a phone number.

The respondent to email claimed to be the female, and she told me about the illustrious service careers of herself (call her Betty) and her partner (call him Scott).  Yet the text messages I began receiving were from Scott alone.  The first round of requests were for more pictures, which I politely declined, giving the distinct impression, I fear, that I was the most uptight interested party they’d ever encountered.  Texting with Scott continued for about a week, me clarifying that our first meeting should be in a public place.

For public I chose a bar nearby, and discovered after a hefty delay and a late start to the meeting that Scott was actually unemployed, with designs on a more prestigious hourly labor that he sought with idle intensity.  He asked whether I’d been in threesome before, and I invented a couple.

“So…have you guys done this before?” I ask.

“Yeah.  We’ve had two ... no – wait – three girls before” Wow, dude, you can’t remember, really? “So two of them were really short, like, they were just weird.  And one we saw for a while and she was cool but then she had some family stuff go down and disappeared.”  Sounds like a bullshit story to get away from you, but okay.

“Ever with a guy?”

“No, I’m straight, I don’t wanna touch a dude. So tell me about your threesomes.”

I’d thrown in a standard two girls and a guy. I’d also invented a male-male threesome because it hadn’t occurred to me that I’d have to be more explicit.

“You were with two guys?  How did it start?”

“Well we were just hanging out drinking, and I don’t remember what one of them said – it was a long time ago – but it prompted me to tell them I wanted them to cooperate, not fight, sort of suggestively.  And then I kissed both of them and we started to remove clothing and made our way to the bedroom.”

Then a deluge began: “Wait, so you fucked both of them?” No, just one. “From what position?” He was behind me.  “What about the other one?” He was in front of me. “Did you blow him?” Um, sure. “Oh my god that’s so hot.”

And on and on he went, clamoring for details.  Not once did he ask about my (purported) threesome with a girl and a guy. He wanted to know every miniscule detail about our position, what I was touching, how the guy was fucking, what was simultaneous.  He appeared to be rather obsessed with the idea of two guys on me at once. Sure, dude, you’re TOTALLY straight.

Then he made me wonder if there was actually a girl involved here, or if he’d just used some old pics with his ex, when after an hour or so of conversation he revealed, “Yeah, I mean. I don’t know about me and Betty.  I mean, yeah, we live together and we’re still hanging out, but, I don’t know,” and slightly later, “would you have a problem seeing me alone sometimes, like, we could hang out with Betty too, but I think I’d like to see you alone sometimes, would that be okay?” Um, maybe?

I excused myself and delayed further substantive conversation for about a week.  Low and behold, when he reconnected, Betty and Scott were “on a break,” (for a whole week!) and he was hoping he could come over to my place.  I’d say there’s abut a 30% chance Betty is real.

'twas unfortunately not a Fluke

There is no absence of commentary on Limbaugh's ingraciously, hypocritically, and pigheadedly insulting Sarah Fluke. If somehow you missed the issue, check Jon Stewart.


I can but heartily agree with Mr. Stewart in each of his astute criticisms of the detractor(s) of Ms. Fluke. Yet something is strangely absent from her defense, whether by Stewart, Obama, or any other reasonable person:


Did I miss the part where we proved there was some fundamental problem with having sex? Sure, the logic behind arguments that more birth control is requested in order to have more sex are fundamentally flawed, but does no one see an issue with an argument against sex per se? Not the choice of timing or partner, but sex per se. Cause I do.


Let's recap how sex can be bad for people: (1) if done incorrectly, it can spread disease, (2) if done inopportunely, it can result in unwanted pregnancy, (3) if done indiscreetly, it can harm one's reputation. Contraception in some form fixes the former two harms, and the latter isn't an inherent problem with sex but rather a result of third parties' reactions to sex.


But, let's please attempt to list the benefits of sex: orgasms, stress release, happiness, orgasms, bonding, improved sleep, improved relationship dynamics (marital or extramarital) and capacity for intimacy, cardiovascular exercise, mental clarity, improved gluteal tone, improved abdominal strength, orgasms, calorie burn, (occasional) enhanced communication, the creation of offspring when desired, lower long term blood pressure, improved immunity, decreased risk of heart attack, decreased pain, reduced prostate cancer risk, decreased incontinence, better sleep, better skin and hair, improved sperm count, stronger nails, fewer zits, orgasms, improved circulation and hydration, fewer cavities (from semen absorption), improved self esteem, increased life span, stronger bones and overall muscle tone, looking younger, improved longevity, reduced breast cancer risk, improved pain tolerance, orgasms...to name but a few.


So, let me reiterate: right wing conservatives are worried that the availability of contraception will cause people to have more sex...and that will lead them to be healthier, better looking, happier people who are less likely to end up with at least three of the top ten causes of death in America?  It would be more logical to have government sponsored seminars to teach the game-disabled how to get out and get laid more often. 

Litquake and Crowdsourcing

Rolling to the Mission on a Monday, one can expect little but some urine on the sidewalk and a stiff drink that’s reasonably priced.  At Litquake I found more.  They prep for Valentine’s Day by reading a number of raunchy passages.  Their reading made me realize I probably only knew half the dirty words I need.  Danielle Steel, her predecessors, and her progeny came up with so many words for the sex organs, I feel compelled to produce a comprehensive list.  Yet I find myself in need of crowdsourcing assistance.  What have I missed?

The male organ may, form time to time, be referred to as a:

Penis, peen, cock, shaft, member, phallus, dick, prick, Johnson, anaconda, bone, boner, bratwurst, chub, choad, ding dong, one-eye, general, kielbasa, dipstick, hard-on, helmet, manhood, main vein, popsicle, peeter, salami, joystick, pecker, peter, pole, rod, schlong, stiffie, tentpole, third leg, throbber, tool, wang, wanker, weenie, wood.

The female organ, form time to time, may be referred to as a:

Clit, cunt, vag, pussy, clam, slip, pink velvet sausage wallet, lady boner, hoo-ha, twat, snatch, cooter, box, vulva, beaver, camel foot, chach, cha cha, cherry, gash, ham flap, kitty, meat wallet, pink canoe, muff, pink taco (why are these all pink instead of red?) poon, punani, slit, vajayjay

Please help.

Thanks,

Lost Bacchus.

Homo-homophobia

LGBT persons (hereinafter "gays") are no strangers to homophobia, of course, as its object, but I'll wager they rarely consider what strikes me as the most egregious and offensive homophobe on Earth: the "former" gay.

If you are not one of the two people who has been reading this blog thus far, you might ask "But Bacchus, as gay is an orientation, how could anyone be 'formerly' gay?!?!?!" I've said before that the idea of gay as an "orientation" was spawned less than 200 years ago and no one before that really categorized themselves as "heterosexual' or "homosexual." I'll say now that these bullshit categories also spawn a whole new reason for gays to feel they should hate themselves.

I don't blame the "formerly gay," necessarily, but I do think it miraculous that they so fully embrace the "formerly" that they seem to forget what it is to be marginalized. I don't blame the FGs because they have probably never heard anything but that gay is an inexorable orientation, so it is not surprising that upon feeling an opposite-sex attraction an FG feels compelled to switch "identities" as well, to get a grip on that attraction. "Oh," the FG says to himself/herself, "I find that vagina/penis suddenly seems less offensive. I might even want to fuck said vagina/penis. Oh my god, I want to fuck said vagina/penis! I must be straight!" Well, FG, I was almost with you. I totally understand your desire for the opposite sex; I have it too. That desire for the opposite sex is to be expected. But, you say, suddenly, in this moment where you have realized one attraction, you feel a simultaneous extinguishing of the same sex attraction?

I call bullshit. Of course, I recognize why you, FG, would be thrilled at the prospect of fitting into all the many stereotypical norms accessible only to the straight. But how has it happened that in the space of one week this lowly blogger has had multiple friends, formerly out as lesbians, tell her they refused to attend a lesbian event because they did not belong there in light of their respective desires for men? This all before these women have managed to be happy with a man. Let's be clear - I believe they could be. I know happily married, now straight FGs. I'm not upset that they chose to pursue their interest in men. I'm upset because I get the distinct impression the friends I chose partly for their open-mindedness now seem meaner than the most fundamentalist Christian in Mississippi.

Let's imagine, for a moment, that Gay A and Gay B have Straight Friend C and all are hanging out together. One day Gay A and B ask Straight C if he would like to accompany them to Trigger (Gay Bar T). Gay A and B know C is straight - this is no effort to turn him and they are all good friends. C would presumably have the same experience at Gay Bar T as Gay A and B have at all straight bars where they follow C: free to drink and socialize but not finding anyone to go home with. If C declines their one-time invitation to Gay Bar T because he doesn't feel comfortable amongst gays, C is a homophobe, at least on some level. Maybe he's selfish and won't bother dragging his ass to a bar where he can't get laid. But assuming he's not a nymphomaniac, not too tired to go out, just declining expressly because he's uncomfortable in a gay environment - well, then he's a homophobe, even if he has gay friends.

Now let's replace C with FG in this scenario. In my experience, FG ALWAYS declines this invitation. In fact, they go one step further than Straight C - they say expressly that they do not wish to visit Gay Bar T because "they no longer belong there" or something along those lines. Seriously, I've gotten two variations on this line in a week.

Tell me, FG, how is this not homophobia? We're talking about single-instance invites here, not consistent trips to only gay bars. Your gay friends are going to have a mirroring experience every single time they go to a straight bar with you. This diatribe is not about you wanting to visit more straight bars in your life, it's about how you respond to your still-gay friend's offer to socialize by saying "I want nothing to do with your type of people." Yet if the FG looks not-so-far back into her memory, she will likely find immense pain at some point when such words were spoken to her. Imagine if they were spoken by a close friend, what pain you might feel then. It is a curious sensation, to say the least.

May all the FGs out there consider more heavily the words they intend to speak. You're not absolved of the scarlet letter of "homophobe" forever just because you used to fuck gay. If you're going to continue along those lines, you're going to lose the right to use the words "fag" and "dyke" any minute now.

Fisting

I was hunting for porn for you, and this is what happened to me:

Sometimes a sex act that sort of scares you can motivate an entertaining discussion, one for which I am in fortunate possession of ancient lascivious images as context.  Thanks to Number 1, the 4, who I'll call "Jackson" (he's Southern), I have this delightful (albeit somewhat misguided) analysis of an "illegal" sex act: Fisting.  Assuredly some women like to fist.  Jackson pointed out immediately that the article doesn't even address the significant population of gay men who delight in fisting as well.

In Latin, the active lady in fisting, a fututor, engaged in futuere, and her female recipient was a puella engaged in futui or her male recipient was a cinaedus engaged in pedicari.  Get all that?  There are just as many for a man fisting another man or a woman.  If there was a word specific to penetrating with the hand as there is for penetrating with the mouth, perhaps historians have neglected to translate it because it was difficult for them to understand or they didn't think that was what the author was getting at. I feel fortunate to have copious words:  I once (accidentally) ran across a video of a white or olive skinned couple, with the man a cinaedus to the woman's futuere throughout.  At times she used a giant black dildo on him, at times her fist.  She penetrated him halfway to her elbow, no shit.  At first, I was so awed that I thought I'd watch it for the blog, but after a minute it made me uncomfortable.  It just looked painful, but clearly it was not painful to the parties involved.  I think I got the gist.

Then I dawdled, and lost the video, so I jumped on Xtube to find it again.  Man would my grandma not like to see the search results for the word "fisting" on Xtube!  Five thousand thirty nine videos.  That's not to mention the selection of Free HD anime fisting video offerings.  Sorry kids, no modern demonstrative today.

The point of the fisting article was that she makes lesbian porn and she can't film fisting because it's illegal in some states.  As a result, her contracts with her producers prohibit her from including it in movies.  She bemoans the "I know it when I see it" law of obscenity, particularly noting the role of a "community standard."  When this became the Supreme Court's controlling precedent, the intention was in fact to have those charged with obscenity to have the truth of that charge assessed by local peers, and even to have appeals courts apply that local community standard.

There was no Internet then. If porn is to be distributed on the Internet (and certainly by now the vast majority of it is), the community standard is "those who opt-into watching porn." Pretty sure that community's okay with fisting, at least if its presence is disclosed in advance. That's not to mention that someone out there has to want to spend their time charging you with obscenity.  The moral: if you want to make fisting porn, move out of Alabama and distribute it yourself on the Internet.  Apparently there are at least 5039 interested people.  I'm not that worried about it.

Geek out after the jump.

I'm more worried about the fact that humans have apparently been censoring lesbian sex for millennia:

This here is one of the original wall paintings of a room in the Terme Suburbane of Pompeii.  We know that it appeared in a bath with seven other images of sex acts, we don't know why it was made or really what purpose it served.  At one point, it was painted over with an image of a green curtain (I photoshop-dodged the figures).  All of this was before Vesuivius froze Pompeii in the first century AD.  The other images include male-female, male-male, and group sex.  Based on the skin color of the figures across images (long story), these are both women.  I can't see their hands, but they could be fisting.  They could also be fucking clit-to-clit.  Latin needs no word for this, in part because a formal writer wouldn't recognize its existence - no penetration.  But, I mean, there's some penetration.  And it's happening enough to paint it on the wall.

I can't figure out if the archaeologist just left this somewhat covered or the covering was oddly stronger at this point, but it makes for a fascinating image. Fist away, ladies.