LGBT and A?

The Man Who Didn't Need Sex - Pic courtesy of Wikipedia

by Trebor Snillor
Caution: Today’s topic is another one that is frank and sexual. I was so enlivened by my Buck Angel blog entry, I had to do another sex topic. In fact, Netflix suggested “Asexual” to me after watching the Buck Angel story.

Asexual is a term that I’m long familiar with – a term used humorously to describe people having a sexual “dry spell” or to describe people with a sexless, neutral persona. I was quite surprised to see that there is actually a significant group of people (numbering in the thousands) who actually identify as asexual – having no active sex attraction to men or to women.

They have an organized support group called AVEN (Asexual Visibility and Education Network) founded by 25 year-old David Jay -- a charming young man who looks like he’d have no problem meeting the ladies (or the gents). In interviews, he dispels the ideas that asexuals are simply shy or disaffected people having momentary romantic issues. He insists that it’s a valid category unto itself.

The Netflix documentary showed several AVEN gatherings. There were things observed, some of which raised an eyebrow maybe two..

o A great majority of the members are women – say 80%.
o Many of the members have Asperger’s Syndrome – a condition already characterized by difficult social interactions.
o Many of the members previously identified as lesbian or gay.
o Members admit to still masturbating, although vague about their fantasy objects.
o Members admit to a need for hugging and touching – just nothing too orgasmic.

Just as you might say, “Case closed, nothing else to add..” you would be wrong. There are more asexual flavors than Baskin-Robbins ever offered. You have:

o Aromantic – A person who is truly stand-alone, no need for anybody around.
o Romantic – A person who can have innocent attractions, just none that leads to intercourse or deep kissing.

Got all that? OK – now you can pair these features with “conventional” sex attractions and have:

o Hetero-romantic
o Homo-romantic
o Pan-romantic

What’s that last one? It’s someone who has innocent (hand-holding) attractions to both sexes – maybe in other words bi-asexual.

In watching this documentary, there was a certain, nebulous squishiness to the whole thing. A couple of women participated in the group but wouldn’t commit to being asexual. Both ended up in sexual relationships later on. None of the people could be specific about fantasies even though they admitted to masturbation.

The leader himself (David Jay) seemed to vacillate on the cause when one of the objects of his hetero-romantic desire chose a sexual relationship with another man.

In a group session, David pointed out some truths we all would concede.. Sex is complicating to a friendship and can actually lead to destructive, defensive behaviors. His asexual world leaves less room for things like jealousy or turf battles. The problem is … Asexual World isn’t real. It has more in common with Disney Land than it does with a world that actually exists.

Most of the people in the documentary looked like they were nursing various emotional wounds and withdrawing to a safe, neutral zone. Others simply didn’t look ready to sign the dotted line. Much like the EXODUS group which touted its ability to turn gays into straights, AVEN seems like a group with its head on backwards.

If you have an hour to kill with a purely strange, alternate sex universe you might check out this documentary on Netflix. I’m willing to be educated on any topic, but I was unconvinced at the end of this.

© 2014 Snillor Productions

Porno Paradox

Sex Oddity? - Pic courtesy of Wikipedia

by Trebor Snillor
Caution: Today’s blog entry is fairly explicit and covers an adult topic (albeit an unusual topic). Proceed at your own risk! 

Buck Angel is a 42 year old man who might provoke no interest or curiosity were you to see him on the street. He has a shaved head, reddish beard, tattoos, and a compact, muscular build. You might figure he has an “alternative” life style due to a pierced nipple and profuse body ink, but you wouldn’t guess that he’s a star of adult videos. He’s even brought home several awards including one for “Most Outrageous Scene”.

Want some more surprises? Buck is a genetic female and still has a vagina. He underwent top reassignment to remove his breasts in 1992, but explains that a prosthetic penis would be unsatisfactory for his purposes. He considers himself to be a man in every sense and sees his clitoris (abnormally enlarged by years of testosterone injections) as a surrogate penis. Buck is married to a heterosexual female, Elayne, a nationally known body piercing expert. They live happily together in a Spanish style, middle income neighborhood – in a house with a pool and 5 dogs.

Buck grew up in a normal home – with an outdoorsy father, a mom and a sister. His father played football with Buck and liked having a tomboy daughter. Buck’s dad later had trouble accepting Buck as a transgender and faulted himself for playing so many rough-and-tumble games with Buck when Buck was young. (More recently, Buck said that this was nonsense – the football games were not a relevant factor in his gender identity). As a teen, Buck came out as a gay woman to his parents – but his gender odyssey was just beginning.

Buck was actually a pretty 19 year old woman and had a brief (2 year) modeling career as a glam, beautiful woman. He spiraled into drug and alcohol abuse during this phase. The modeling only created an internal schism and made Buck hate himself more – enough so that he started cutting himself. The substance abuse took Buck to another phase where he was unemployed and lived on the street.

Literally lying in the gutter, Buck decided to address his gender crisis by coming out as a transgender man. He quit drinking and simultaneously underwent breast removal. The rest of his story is like a really strange Horatio Alger success story. He became a porno icon – known as “the man with a pussy”. He’s acted with men and women. He’s also broadened his domain into public service and transgender counseling. He has appeared on TV Shows (eg, Tyra) and was also a panelist on Sex Week at Yale University.

I have to say I was reluctant to watch Mr. Angel – the documentary of his life. I was certain to be horrified by what was “down there” among other things. Buck’s voice is a little bit high for a man, but not so much that he can’t still pass as a man. His eyes are larger and more expressive than a macho man would normally have, but again it’s something fairly minor. If you saw him on the street, you’d think nothing about it and assume he was a man. Of course -- it would be another story at a nude beach.

I was somewhat flummoxed years ago when Cher’s daughter Chastity went from a pretty blonde to a stocky, portly Italiano man. It seems like an extreme measure to take one’s body to a “chop shop”. Even more extreme to do like Buck and step from there into porn. I won’t pretend to have the answers or know the wherefores. To borrow from the Kink’s song Lola, it’s a mixed up world. If you want to see how mixed it can all be, watch Mr. Angel on Netflix. You might not change your mind about anything, but you’ll have expanded your awareness of what can possibly occur in our mixed up world.


© 2014 Snillor Productions

Reconciling Venus and Mars

Did Mars need to moisturize? - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
It’s the third day of June, and already a sweltering 100 degrees with heat factor. Am hoping that this ice coffee helps to cool me down and wake me up all at the same time.

I came back from Krogers yesterday and as I put away the groceries I noticed a seldom discussed cultural bias in the items I was putting away. As a diet-aware 54 year old male, I buy a lot of low-calorie foods. I noticed that with almost no exception, these items are marketed to women. Most men would shy from buying “Lean Cuisine” -- the name rhymes and it uses a French word. Might be a little too cute for self-conscious males. Low-fat Yoplait has a pink ribbon for breast cancer awareness on the box. Virtually all of the low-cal cereals like Special K feature women slimming down in their box illustrations.

At the other extreme are commercials for Whataburger and Jack-in-the-Box. These ads are hawking double-meat cheese monstrosities that might clog your arteries in one meal. Invariably young men are shown chowing down, with grease dribbling down their chins. Beer commercials are much the same -- an adult beverage which might have equal appeal to both sexes is instead shown as a libation best-suited for frat-boy keg orgies. Women are featured as an after-effect, not sought as a customer base.

Entire categories of health care products are sold to women and men are somewhat excluded. Let me emphasize that men’s own sexist phobias play a major part in this situation. Moisturizer is a God-send for the skin -- it minimizes wrinkles and can even protect against skin cancer. Scientifically, what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander (and vice versa)... BUT … men and society at large seem to think that moisturizer is a girl thing. A Texas man would sooner buy L’eggs pantyhose than any kind of aloe moisturizer.

Thus we have it -- a grease dribbling lunkhead who eats Sugar Smacks at breakfast, chows on Quarter Pounders at lunch and then chugs Budweiser in the evening (possibly crushing the empty can against his head to impress his bro's). His wrinkles and skin tags are a manly badge of honor because “Real Men Don’t Moisturize”. In almost all things diet- or health-related -- it seems MEN R STOOPID.

Maybe the slanted expectations creep in because men are already more predisposed to danger in general -- wars, brawls, hunting, boxing and other forms of fisticuffs. Navy seals, first responders and bomb squad people are usually men. Maybe the “Fearless” approach applies with equal tenacity to food and medicine as it does to violent evil-doers at large. I would like to help dispel these stoopid notions with some new rules for Mars (and Venus can read along):

NEW RULES

1) Men should be as concerned with weight, cholesterol and carbs as women. Bad food is bad for both sexes.

2) Men should moisturize. Buy the off brand -- buy it late at night at the self-checkout if you must to maintain masculine credibility.

3) Extreme alcohol and substance abuse is bad for both sexes.  Mad Men loves to show Don Draper guzzling martinis -- don’t be fooled. All things in moderation.

4) In general, a man should not have to do anything that will cause 3^rd degree burns, concussions, blood poisoning or death to impress a friend. If your woman requires that, you’ve got the wrong woman. If your guy friends require it, find some new friends.

Don’t sacrifice common sense on the altar of machismo. Be a smart guy and do what’s right for you... be a man who is sensible and balanced. Live well and live to see tomorrow.  

© 2012 blogSpotter

Kinky Memorandum

Found a typo ... - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
As I write today, we are on about the umpteenth day of furnace-hot, 100+ degree temperatures here in Dallas -- 103 right now. This weather does a complete number on me -- it seems to make me unnaturally sleepy. I’m actually sitting in a KFC on NW Highway while Pep Boys tinkers with my car two doors down. I think my struts are worn and I hope the service advisor didn’t take me for a ride. Am not mechanically gifted so I have to trust in my fellow man.

Before embarking on my latest cinematic discovery, I’d like to comment on Rick Perry’s August public prayer session. Once again, the Tea Party and Religious Right (misnomer) have made a deliberate distortion of things. It seems an atheist group is suing because the prayer session is a violation of church-state separation. Perry’s team says, mistakenly, that the atheist group is against prayer and free expression. The atheist group is totally OK with prayer and free expression. What they dislike is an elected Governor using tax funds to promote and endorse a specific religion, Christianity. It’s not likely that Jews, Buddhists or Hare Krishna’s will be given an equal shake at this event. There is the objection.

THE SECRETARY

Let’s move along to our next, featured topic. I watched a movie on TV this weekend, which let’s face it -- it was kinky. The Secretary came to the Angelica Theater near me way back in 2002. I thought the topic looked intriguing (though I’m not into that kind of thing :-) )… my friends were appalled by it and would not go see it. This nine years later I finally watched it on a late Saturday night with my cousin Lizzie. We very maturely giggled through some of the spank sessions, it’s good to be an adult about it.

The movie features Maggie Gyllenhaal as an emotionally fragile young woman from a dysfunctional family. Her alcoholic father and mousy mother are unable to cope with her self-mutilating, suicidal tendencies and so she spends some time in a mental ward. Upon her release, she takes intensive typing courses and hires into James Spader’s law office where typewriters rule -- computers are not allowed.

Spader comes across as a wee bit prissy, perfectionist and obsessive-compulsive. He’s a lonely bachelor and clearly smitten with Maggie’s character. (Using the actors’ names here out of laziness)… It’s not obvious at the outset that either person is kinky. Rather they are lonely, injured souls who have miraculously made a cosmic connection with each other. Their dalliance begins when Spader (somewhat overzealously) points out Maggie’s spelling errors. The chemistry is sparked and she starts to introduce deliberate errors in hopes of a “reprimand”.

The interaction expands into a full-blown, kinky affair which has an obvious expiration date as far as a practical, functioning law office would be concerned. I won’t replay the exact plot or spoil the ending in case anyone wants to rent this filthy smut. ;-) It has a bit of a surprise, enjoyable ending albeit an ending that seems unrealistic to me.

If you watch this movie, you’ll identify Spader as the dominant and Gyllenhaal as the submissive. What’s interesting is that minus the kinky sex, it resembles many weird, convoluted, real world couplings. The irrational verbal assaults, groveling and rites of humiliation look like something you might see in an overly strict religious household, or any marriage with a domineering spouse. That some people seek after and like this arrangement is amazing to me but I won’t argue with someone else’s formula for success. Whatever blows your dress up, as they say.

If you’re bored some evening, The Secretary will definitely capture your imagination. Just don’t get any ideas. ;-)

© 2011 blogSpotter

Weiners and Supermen

Men behaving badly, and otherwise - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Here in Dallas we’re already having the dog days of summer and it’s not even summer yet! The heat has sapped me of all my energy but I’ll do my best to serve up some commentary. I’m in the Knox-Henderson Starbucks and all the cute people just got up and left. What is an old man to do? Hoping it’s nothing I said or did. ;-) It’s a Saturday twilight hour when any young person with “a life” is probably heading off to a date or a party. How well I remember...

But enough about me. Let’s talk about Obama for just a minute. Earlier on (circa 2009) I accused Obama of being tepid, timid and boring. Then he surprised me by: (1) enacting health care (2) repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and (3) taking out Osama Bin Ladin. He did three Herculean feats that several Presidents prior could not approach doing. He did them all in a relatively short period of time -- complimentary caricatures were surfacing with Obama dressed as Superman, and the analogy does spring to mind. Now having praised him, I’d like to ask Obama to please refocus on something else (I know he reads my blog!)…. His fourth feat of Hercules should be to bring unemployment down to the 6% range. A bad economy is what torpedoed George H. W. Bush in 1992, while his Gulf War victory should’ve made him a shoo-in. A similar thing could happen to Obama if he doesn’t quell this Economy from Hell.

Oman, I hate to borrow from the toolkit of Paul Krugman, a humorless crank who happens to be right about economics. Until we “prime the pump” with government enterprises (a la 1930’s WPA), there won’t be a significant goosing of the labor pool. TARP and similar bailouts did nothing but forgive existing debts and put money in the hands of corporate CEO’s -- no obligation to invest in jobs, factories or research. A WPA project would help repair the nation’s infrastructure while putting good people back to work. But don’t listen to us -- Krugman is a sourpuss and I’m not even an economist by trade. We only *know what we’re talking about*. I will say that Obama has pulled a couple of rabbits out of his hat -- let’s see if he can do it again with the economy.

WEINERGATE

I’m perennially single and fairly liberal in my outlook, so my take on Anthony Weiner’s Twitter pics will fall out of the mainstream I’m sure. Obviously, he shouldn’t have done what he did -- it shows a lack of judgment and discretion. That being said, I don’t think it amounts to a crime. It doesn’t really need a Congressional inquiry to fathom the intricacies of boxer briefs being strained by a Congressional member. Today’s news yields this info: Weiner has agreed to seek professional care and rehabilitation for what “must” be an out-of-control sex obsession… PUH-LEEZE. If sexting is a sign of mental illness then easily 25% of America needs to be institutionalized for Twitter Abuse and/or felonious Facebooking. All Weiner is guilty of is sleaziness and horniness -- traits which attach themselves easily to most of the under-age 60 Web-surfing world. I think Weiner should have his district 9 voters decide his fate in the next election. All of the people out there who harbor no sex fantasies or illicit thoughts -- don’t be too discouraged if he makes a comeback.

STARBUCKS TONIGHT

A second shift has strolled into Starbucks, not as A-List as the first crowd. Lots of jogging outfits and Mav’s fan tee shirts. I just happened by at a weird juncture; in two more hours the beautiful date crowd will hit. They’ll need to have lattes and brownies after watching Hangover Part 2. Unfortunately for me, I don’t even have the “virtual” dating life of Representative Weiner -- my big thrill will be a magazine and a couple of recorded TV shows later tonight. More power to the Weiners of the world; have fun while you can. If you’re a Congressman there is one minor suggestion -- learn the difference between a private message and a public post. Also keep it somewhere in the back of your mind that all electronic communications are traceable. ‘Nuff said.

© 2011 blogSpotter

News in a Barbie World

Miles and miles of Miley footage -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I’m still huffing & puffing to catch up with my blog – work is getting busy (uncomfortably so) just two days before Christmas. Today’s blog is inspired by tabloid overload from this morning’s Today Show – and I can probably present it without too much prep time.

What do Natalee Holloway, Chandra Levy and Amanda Knox have in common? Unless you've been living under sensory deprivation, you’ll know that the first two are beautiful women who disappeared under tragic, mysterious circumstances in Aruba and D.C. respectively. Amanda is a beautiful woman who is implicated in the tragic murder of her beautiful roommate in Italy. What all three of these women have in common is thousands of hours of news coverage. Not just tabloids, but “legitimate” news venues (Time, NBC News) have devoted mountains of pages and film footage to these events.

Not to diminish the sad and sorrowful nature of these happenings, their primacy is weird in a nation that is otherwise challenged with two wars, a great recession, cancer, pollution and probably a thousand topics that are more central to our well-being. That the stories are tragic gives them the aura of “newsworthiness” that can’t be garnered from the titillating exploits of Miley Cyrus, Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian. The news peddlers' fascination with beautiful women is out of proportion; they know that more ordinary women are gripped with envy and "what-if's?". Men are mostly lured by sex, albeit a glossy, unreal and unseemly aspect of sex. The observations go from the vapid (Paris Hilton sans underwear) to the lurid ("bones of missing woman found in park..."). The common thread here is that the dramatis personae are beautiful, young, generally affluent females. In fact, I’ve worked up a profile – you can compute how tabloid worthy you are...

AM I TABLOID WORTHY?

• Beautiful ...30 points
• Female ...30 points
• Young (under 30) ... 20 points
• White ... 10 points
• Affluent ...10 points

There’s no definite way of scoring this, but I’ll say you need an 80/100 to be on the front page of American Statesman. You need 90/100 for Nancy Grace to feature you obsessively.

Wanda Sykes has a whole comedy routine about the public concern over missing black prostitutes – there is no apparent concern. After a point, a john in the neighborhood might say, “Where’s all our ho’s?” A black woman can be abducted at a car wash, in front of witnesses, directly across the street from the Dallas Morning News. It will barely be a footnote under Metro events, page 7D. The above profile attributes taken together say a lot about our social values. It also has to be a fair damsel in distress, otherwise there is a marked loss of interest; a chinless woman with glasses will fall through the media cracks. Along gender lines, one supposes that men must know better or fend for themselves. There have been occasions where men have been abducted or tortured – it’ll have a better placement than 7D in the paper but not much. It certainly won’t give Greta Van Susteren material for a year’s worth of forensic expert interviews.

The victim doesn’t have to be affluent, but it helps. If the subject isn’t solidly middle class or higher, it may be seen as the necessary consequence of a squalid upbringing. The consequences are sad but not surprising. Advancing age is like masculinity – it confers a certain responsibility on the victim. “She should’ve known better .... she should’ve seen it coming”. If a 45 year old woman was abducted in Aruba people would spin it very differently ... “That old broad, she got in over her head”.

When King Kong scaled the Empire State Building, he didn’t hold a balding 35 year old man, a fat woman or a cleaning lady. He held Fay Wray, a terrified beauty with torn clothes. No detail of Fay Wray could be different – there would be no movie otherwise. Maybe society’s alter ego will someday expand beyond an idealized Blonde Venus and we’ll care about that bald-headed man. But not so much now.

© 2010 blogSpotter

The History of Porn

Selling sex -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Don’t worry, the title is just a teaser – no intentions of giving you a long history of anything. I’m too lazy. But I will talk about pornography (we all know it when we see it) and some of its historical underpinnings. Porn joins capital punishment and meat-eating as a disturbingly gray subject for me. I usually like to give black-and-white pronouncements and some matters defy that. With capital punishment, I wonder if we too often kill an innocent man -- are we killing to show that killing is wrong? In my final analysis, I’m OK with it if there’s overwhelming evidence of a first degree murder. We might even be doing the killer a favor, delivering him from a private Hell of violent, confused thoughts. With our carnivorism, I wonder if the animals don’t suffer diminished lives and horrid slaughterhouse deaths. At the end of the day, I’m a “flexitarian” who eats meat (mostly fish and poultry) along with lots of fruits and vegetables. To assuage my guilt, I give to animal charities and have even given to PETA.

Now as to pornography – it encompasses every shade of gray. Pornography is as old as civilization; some rock art and cave paintings have been interpreted as early porn. It seems our minds have always been in the gutter. Up until the 19th century though, pornography was centered more in the domain of “erotic art” and was enjoyed by privileged groups (e.g., clergy and nobility). Telegraph and railroad trains of the 1800’s brought about mass-marketing where books and magazines became inexpensive and generally available to the public. Photography emerged in this same time, and the world of smut was upon us.

Pornography wasn’t even coined as a word until the mid 19th century. The English Parliament rushed to protect the masses with the Obscene Publications Act of 1857. Victorian archaeologists of the 1860’s were so shocked by the lude Roman artifacts discovered at Pompeii, they were locked away in the “Secret Museum” of Naples, only to be unveiled years later. Many new layers of legal definitions and complexity have been piled on in decades since the 1850’s. If anything, we are probably even more confused as a people regarding things like legal age or what constitutes a sex act or pornography itself.

Pornography did have staying power, and it survived the Victorian instincts to stifle its nature. It could be argued that the stifling engendered more of porn’s popularity – the phenomenon of the forbidden fruit. A federal study of 1970 showed that pornography was a $10 million industry. Similar studies in 2001 put the figure at $4 billion. A more recent study by the Forrester group puts the number at $8-10 billion annually. Porn has ridden every technology wave, starting with the printing press and photography in the distant past. In recent years, pornography has been an industry leader in technical innovation. It was a deciding factor in the VHS-Betamax battle as well as the BluRay-HD DVD battle. Porn has been an active player, not just a sideline observer in all the recent developments: satellite TV, DVD, Internet and wireless communication.

So what can we make of all this -- is pornography friend or foe? Pornography has some entrenched enemies. Politics makes strange bed fellows because the most strident opponents to porn are militant feminists and religious conservatives. Feminists focus on the “subjugation of women” when it fact porn is an equal opportunity offender – it subjugates men, women, animals, sometimes children and even inanimate objects depending on the genre. We can draw lines obviously against bestiality, kiddy porn and snuff movies. But at the other extreme we can throw canvas covers over the photos of Robert Mapplethorpe or the naked Venus de Milo. Somewhere in that murky middle is where the porn-loving populace dwells. They derive tawdry thrills from (generally) young adults who don’t mind doing private things publicly.

As with capital punishment, I see both sides of the issue. Can’t help but think that misguided youths are trashing a future career as President or CIO when they frolic though these videos or photo spreads. On the other hand, I can’t claim to be innocent of seeing these exhibitions at length. There is no black or white delineation – just gray, gray, gray. It’s difficult to assume one strident side of these issues without alternately being seen as insensitive, intolerant, hypocritical, fanatical or unrealistic.

Thus I’ll continue eating poultry, contributing to PETA, feeling safer when an avowed killer is removed from our presence, and viewing or reading adult subject matter if it’s in my face and hard to ignore. A college roommate once said, “If they’re willing to show it, I’m willing to look”. There are too many people who feel that way (unfortunately including me :-)).

© 2010 blogSpotter

The Big Lewinsky

What blue dress? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I was a naïve 40 year old Democrat in 1997, when the first whispers of “Monicagate” hit the political airwaves. There was a lot of rumor and innuendo, but no proof that President Bill Clinton, serving his 2nd term, was having an affair with anyone at all. I was a Clinton supporter, and couldn’t imagine that the rumors had any credibility. Clinton was already confronting the Paula Jones accusations; in a Jones deposition he denied any rumors about the 22 year old intern, Monica Lewinski. That Clinton was willing to settle out of court with Paula for $850,000 should’ve clued me in. That’s a nice chunk of change even for a sitting president and ex-lawyer. To friends and anyone who would listen I’d say, “These accusations are ridiculous! There are cameras and people all around!”. I figured that Paula was just a gold-digger. And diehard Clinton-haters were behind Monica rumors and all the rest of it.

I was surprised and concerned when the Drudge report broke the story on January 17, 1998. Everyone in my Supply Chain class huddled around the TV in the lounge that afternoon, as the story played out on CNN. This was only Day One, and already the snarky jokes had begun. It seems that Monica Lewinsky, a college intern from an affluent California family, had “inappropriate relations” with Clinton from 1995 thru 1996. Lewinsky’s superiors, well aware of the situation, decided to place her at the Pentagon – well away from the President. There, the love-struck girl became friends with the (still) serpentine, evil Linda Tripp – a motherly, middle-aged confidante with book royalties and political intrigue coiled up in her heart. Lewinsky confessed all to Tripp, who dutifully recorded the conversations and handed them over to Ken Starr, the Independent Counsel investigating Paula Jones. Starr gave Lewinsky “transactional immunity” if she would spill the beans on Clinton. Very reluctantly, Monica did just that – otherwise she could’ve been prosecuted for perjury. She even turned over the infamous “blue dress” (kept at Tripp’s suggestion) to help seal the deal.

The blue dress became the watershed evidence – no longer was there any he-said-she-said. Clinton had to come clean (so to speak) and at the very least admit an “improper relationship”. The rabid Republicans in both houses of Congress were champing at the bit for any reason to take the rascally, popular president down. Imagine their delight when it looked like there was just cause. The House voted to issue Articles of Impeachment, and a 21-day trial ensued in the Senate. Clinton was acquitted of all charges and remained in office. His Arkansas law license was suspended from his earlier false testimony to Starr, but that was his only punitive consequence.

AFTERMATH OF A SCANDAL

Monicagate very nearly became the orbital center of our pop culture for the two years that it played out. Moralists decried the fall of American values. Comedians mined it heavily for a mother lode of jokes which produces gems to this day. Middle aged matrons wagged fingers at Monica – “That filthy tramp!” – without pausing to think that the 50-something Leader of the Free World might have had some control over his own situation. Tripp was easily vilified as the ultimate betrayer and portrayed by John Goodman on SNL. Republicans used Monicagate for “Holier Than Thou” posturing until Larry Flynt came calling, bringing down GOP Congressman Robert Livingston, aspiring Speaker of the House, as the sacrifice that comes of hypocrisy. The scandal produced catch-phrases that resonate to this day:

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
“This vast right-wing conspiracy has been conspiring against my husband since he announced for Predident…”
“It depends on what the definition of the word is is”.

Clinton later attributed his indiscretions to stress and pressure. “I cracked, I just cracked”. He since has rebounded admirably as political operative and husband to Hillary who herself has soared as NY Senator and then Secretary of State under Obama. As for Monica, she had a short-lived stint as a C-List celeb after Monicagate, publishing a bio, and attempting a purse line. She has since finished a Masters degree in Psychology from the London School of Economics and otherwise keeps a low profile, away from the glare of publicity. If she never does another noteworthy thing, her contribution to our historical and cultural lore will be inestimable.

ADDENDUM (Feb. 13, 2010)
I'd me remiss not to mention a possibly huge consequence of Monicagate -- the Year 2000 Election. In that election, Al Gore distanced himself from Clinton; Gore even nominated a Democrat running mate, Joe Leiberman, whose main claim to fame was voting to impeach Clinton. Gore ran a pallid, poor campaign by most measures and he delibrately refused any Clinton coat tails because of the "moral turpitude" involved. Clinton made note of this and said he pesonally could've delivered two states to Gore if he'd been allowed on the campaign trail. When one considers the awful travesty of the two W. Bush terms that followed, the seemingly shallow sexual antics of Monicagate had huge consequences indeed.

© 2010 blogSpotter

Family Stoned

Mackenzie Frenzy -- Picture courtesy of Imdb

by blogSpotter
Before I dive into the subject of Mackenzie, I'd like to talk about my weekend ...

Whole new worlds …

This has been a Lewis-and-Clark weekend for me. Searching for the Forest Lane Krogers, I came across a beautiful, bodacious new Wal*Mart at Forest and Greenville. It's been open 11 months! I grieved when they closed the Midpark store, not realizing they'd given us a nice replacement. That's what I get for ignoring newspaper inserts -- better late to the Wal*Mart party than never.

Then this morning, I channel surfed on my HD TV, only to discover that my basic cable is giving me music channels 80.5 thru 80.40. Does basic always include that?? We won’t ask questions -- we will just enjoy the beautiful music. Last but not least, I took the new DART Green Line to Fair Park for the State Fair. The train ran perfectly on schedule and we were packed like sardines on the way down. Deep Ellum, Baylor and Fair Park were all beautiful stations -- the Green Line is a smashing success if Saturday was any test.

Now to our fair Mackenzie

I loved Mackenzie Phillips on One Day At A Time back in the 70’s. I wondered why my favorite raspy-voiced, mouthy teen was kicked off of the hit sitcom midway thru its run. Now it turns out she was canned for her drug and alcohol issues in 1980. According to her latest bio, that is when the 18-year old began an incestuous relationship with her father, rocker John Phillips of Mamas and Papas’ fame. He apparently took advantage of her in a drug stupor and things snowballed from there. The on-again, off-again incestuous relationship continued “consensually” for the next 10 years.

She says that the relationship was because of drug-addled thinking on the part of her and her father. She did feel like she had been initially raped and emotionally coerced into the affair -- she also emphasizes that she forgave her father on his deathbed in 2001. You might think that Mackenzie’s confession would shed light on a verboten but relevant topic but judged on public reaction -- you would be wrong.

You’re as sick as your secrets …

The public reaction has been revulsion, outrage and anger -- all directed at Mackenzie. In looking at reader/audience responses from various articles and TV interviews, I see two general tendencies, both (I think) misguided and wrong.

“You should take this to the grave -- it hurts your family” -- She was never seeking revenge or vindication. She was trying to focus light on a deeply affecting, family and personal problem. Her aunt and Mother already told Mackenzie to take it to her grave, and mostly what that did was help to bedraggle the sick affair another 10 years. Nobody was suggesting that John should “do time” but family counseling was certainly in order -- circa 1980.

“It never happened -- Mackenzie made the whole thing up”. Total strangers presume to tell Mackenzie what happened in her own experience. The affair is so horrifically bizarre that small minds can’t wrap themselves around it. People who are not Mackenzie, or even related to her in any way have to insist that it never happened.

As someone from a dysfunctional family (albeit no incest), I can attest to lots of weirdness -- truth can be stranger than fiction. I don’t doubt her story in the least, nor do I begrudge her the freedom to speak her truth. On the Today Show, Mackenzie pointed out that many incest survivors were coming “out of the closet” to her, thanking her for the honest soul-searching and frank retelling of the events. Mackenzie isn’t writing Mommie Dearest -- she’s owning her part of the story. Let’s let Mackenzie be Mackenzie and let the truth eke its way out. If the truth hurts, sometimes we have to bear the pain.

© 2009 blogSpotter

Do Ask, Do Tell

Tom Dooley, Navy M.D. -- Picture courtesy of Wikpedia

by blogSpotter
Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a term used for the 1993 Clinton-era policy which asserts that "Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service ....excepting individuals who engage in homosexual conduct". The law was the bastard child that came of Clinton's campaign promise to allow gays in the military and Senator Sam Nunn's dogged opposition to that same idea.

Throughout American history, gay men have been drummed out of the military based on accusations of "sodomy" or morals charges. LGB people were given discharges labeled blue, undesirable or dishonorable -- all with various degrees of censure and denial of benefits. There has always been some ambivalence within the military. Navy M.D. Thomas Dooley was a noted humanitarian hero of the 1950’s -- he was allowed to resign honorably despite a general knowledge of his homosexuality. The 1957 Crittendon Report was even ahead of its time in stating that gay people were no greater a security risk than heterosexuals.

Up until 1981, military personnel could choose to retain people suspected of being gay if it was thought that the behavior was a temporary aberration -- a basically straight person acted out homosexually. This was dubbed the “queen for a day” policy and points up major problems of fairness, enforcement and consistency surrounding these types of policies.

How has Don’t As, Don’t Tell worked? In years since it went in to effect, the number of gays discharged soared from 617 in 1994 to 1273 in 2001. The number has settled down some since then, but still -- no significant reduction in the discharge of gay people. The Government Accounting Office conservatively estimates that roughly $180 million dollars was spent recruiting and training the replacements of gays being discharged from 1994 thru 2003. In the Iraq War, highly valuable Farsi translators (among other critical functions) were sacrificed to the cause of "Heterogeneity".

If you’re not gay, you might wonder what all this has to do with the price of tea in China. It does tie back to things relevant in your own experience after all. President Obama pledged to allow gays in the military as part of his 2008 campaign rhetoric. After being elected, he promptly scuttled DADT discussions to 2010 and said that the Joint Chiefs of Staff would need to formulate any new ruling. Then more recently the Obama White House stripped the National Defense Act of a provision that would end funding for DADT enforcement. Effectively, Obama reversed his position. He didn’t just exhibit “weak sister” behavior, he did an about-face.

All of this is being said with an eye on the health care debate. Obama has already shown that he’s willing to concoct an unholy compromise as a way of conflict avoidance. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is already a monstrous political byproduct of the Clinton days -- a half-assed solution that arguably made things worse for LGBT’s.

What kind of fish-nor-fowl, half-baked solution will the Obama team give us for health care? If we’re lucky, it will be something so heinous to both left and right that it never sees the light of day. Sometimes a compromise is just that -- a hobbled hybrid that serves nobody’s purpose. Obama has shown us that he has the silver tongue of an Am-Way salesman. He needs to show us that he has the cajones to stand on principles and follow his ideas to fruition. Bush 1 (Herbert Walker Bush) was somewhat of a conciliatory man who looked for compromises; he was also thought of as a human weather vane and was a one-term President. We have to hope that Obama can help to shape our opinions with intelligence and clarity rather than simply react to them.

© 2009 blogSpotter

Sweet Little Sixteen?

A brat never looked so good -- Picture courtesy of A.A. Productions Ltd

by blogSpotter
TCM showed Stanley Kubrick’s Lolita (1962) last night -- a very black, splendid comedy about 20 years ahead of its time. Based on Nabokov’s novel, the movie tells the tawdry tale of Professor Humbert Humbert, a 50-something college professor rooming with a ditzy widow woman and her flirtatious beautiful teen daughter, Dolores (aka Lolita). He falls in lust (and even later into love) with the gum-chewing, hula hooping teen temptress. I’m not going to replay the whole plot line -- by all means rent this fantastic movie and wrap yourself up in the weird sequence of events.

There is so much to love in this movie, where to begin. Some misguided souls may see it as a drama or tragedy but it's very much the opposite -- it’s a smoldering, black comedy. The wordplay and names have double entendres that would shock and amuse David Lynch:

Cherry pie -- (Charlotte Haze bakes prize pastries, or is this what Humbert refers to?)
Camp Climax -- Where the bratty Dolores must go -- and why a camp with such a name?
Clare Quilty -- His strange last name is only one letter removed from “Guilty”
Charlotte Haze -- The ditsy 40-something has a last name that sums up her state of mind
Humbert Humbert -- A first & last name which may reflect upon the duality of Quilty and Humbert

The movie evokes Alfred Hitchcock in places. The road trip in the ‘58 Ford station wagon might call to mind Janet Leigh's character in Psycho, running from her embezzling crime, conscience in tow. The stark black and white photography also brings Psycho’s type of sleazy grittiness to the fore. Another great director who deals heavily in symbolism, irony and dream sequences is David Lynch (of Blue Velvet fame). He might have even gotten his Twin Peaks “cherry pie” pun from Lolita.

Here are a couple of interesting side notes about the movie. Pedophilia was such a forbidden topic that the novel was first published by a pornographer in France. In America, Lolita had to be advanced 4 years in age, from 12 to 16, so that the public wouldn’t be appalled (too much) by what it saw on screen. Sue Lyon played Lolita well and might even come across more as an 18 or 20 year old. Even so, the movie barely squeaked by the Hollywood ratings board and the Catholic Morals Council adamantly rejected the movie.

BlogSpotter has his own bizarre take on the movie. The Clare Quilty character played by Peter Sellers is portrayed as both a romantic rival and tormentor of Humbert. His character is most improbable -- throughout the movie he dogs Humbert and impersonates a state policeman, a German Psychiatrist and an uncle of Dolores. He shows up at strange but convenient moments when Humbert is feeling especially stressed and guilty. I think an argument could be made that Quilty isn’t even a real person -- he is in fact the guilty alter-ego of Humbert. The movie ends in suicide, not homicide. Discuss! OK, even the Nabokov screenplay has Humbert serving time for a homicide in a final note -- even he puts a literal take on his weird character(s). Movies like Fight Club and Sixth Sense have used “imagined” characters in years since Lolita was made; it might work in a rendition of this movie.

All said, the movie is excellent. I’m in a quandary as to whether I should ever erase it from my DVR, it’s that good. Please rent a copy of Lolita and see how far Kubrick had already advanced the state of cinema by 1962.

© 2009 blogSpotter

The Madman of Lacoste

Who was Marquis de Sade? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter

Marquis de Sade. The very mention of his name elicits laughter from some, and shocked disapproval from others. Sadism is a love that dare not speak its name, except maybe in the “alternatives” section of a singles web site. Marquis de Sade was in fact a French nobleman who lived from 1740 to 1814 – an aristocrat and also a prolific writer. His young life was unremarkable in some ways, promising in others. He went to Jesuit school as a young man and then served successfully as a Colonel in the Seven Years’ War. If only he had gone into the quiet retirement of a well-heeled Frenchman at this point, but he did not. He entered into writing and entertaining other libertine people instead.

De Sade’s first brush with the law was when he kidnapped an English prostitute, Rose Keller, and imprisoned her in the dungeon room of his castle at Lacoste (now owned by fashion designer Pierre Cardin). She escaped and reported him to police – they immediately placed him under surveillance but didn’t arrest him. De Sade was treated with kid gloves in many of his legal scrapes; it’s either a testament to his gentry status or his commanding people skills. De Sade (apparently bisexual) next took up with a manservant, Latour, with whom he had an affair. They were arrested for sodomy but successfully escaped to Italy. De Sade continued to rack up enough “debaucheries” that he was already a legend in his time.

De Sade was frequently incarcerated – in fact he spent 32 of his 74 years either in prisons like Bastille or the Charenton Insane Asylum. During his prison stays he wrote copious novels, novellas and plays. Many of these were destroyed by his own family hoping to avoid a black mark on the family name. His surviving S&M-themed masterworks are:

Justine
Juliette
120 Days of Sodom

His grandest work, The Days of Florbelle, was destroyed by his son upon de Sade’s passing. Justine and Juliette are more in the style of Voltaire’s Candide where they tell of young women’s travails and embarrassments (much of it sexual) in life. 120 Days of Sodom is truly gruesome – it crosses over “the line” (we all know it when we see it). It entails torture, murder and coprophagy among other disgusting things.

De Sade lived through the French Revolution period. He was a savvy man, and knew that his life was at risk as an aristocrat in such times. He renounced his wealthy status and changed his title to “Citizen Sade”. His good humor combined with his culturally rebellious nature endeared him to the Revolutionaries and they even put him in the National Convention, representing the far left. De Sade was appalled by the guillotine however and voiced his concern. He was then placed on death row for his “moderatism”. The Revolution wound down before he could be beheaded, and then he was eventually released.

Napoleon was shocked and outraged after reading Justine and ordered de Sade to be imprisoned again. His family was able to have him declared mentally unfit and moved to a mental hospital. This was where de Sade finished out his life. Even here, he wrote many plays that were performed by fellow patients and he carried on an affair with a 13 year old girl.

Some 250 years later, there is a mixed reaction to Marquis de Sade. His own family tried to suppress his works, and none would use “Marquis” as a title after he left his mark. Some (non-family) have hailed de Sade as a pioneer for personal freedom, existentialism and even Freudian analysis. Feminists have seen him as a dark force who tried to make acceptable the idea of possessing and abusing a woman.

Whatever one might think, he certainly lived an interesting life. Upon scanning passages from 120 Days, I can only say that this was a disturbed man whose dark visions made the world a far different place. In some ways he was a man way ahead of his time – whether that’s a good or a bad thing is left for the reader to determine.

© 2009 blogSpotter

The Tawdry Tale of Jack Ryan

Ryan on the campaign trail -- Picture courtesy of Illinois Channel

by blogSpotter
If you believe in chaos theory, you will have good fodder with the tawdry tale of Jack Ryan. Ryan is the 49-year old ex-Senatorial candidate from Illinois who lost to Barack Obama in 2004. Ryan is a model-handsome businessman who had much of the world handed him on the proverbial silver platter. A graduate of Dartmouth and Harvard, Ryan became an investment banker at Goldman Sachs where he earned hundreds of millions of dollars. Ryan ran in 2004 on a conservative platform, emphasizing tax cuts and tort reform.

Back in the 90's, the handsome Ryan had some pretty nice arm candy in the form of his beautiful blonde then-wife Jeri. The 40-year old actress is best known for her role as Borg Seven in Star Trek: Voyager, although she had other acting credits -- notably Co-ed Call Girl. Jack and Jeri had one son named Alex. Because they were both pursuing careers and traveling constantly, the marriage suffered -- it ended in divorce after 8 years in 1999. It wasn’t a particularly acrimonious divorce and both people agreed to keep the custody papers permanently sealed for privacy reasons.

If only the Chicago Tribune and a certain LA Superior court judge Robert Schnider had shared the Ryans' feelings about privacy .... The custody records were unsealed on June 22, 2004 and it was revealed that Jack Ryan had asked his wife to act out with him sexually, in public. He took her to various sex clubs in New York, Paris and New Orleans -- some with whips and chains, others with mattresses on the floors. She wasn’t interested, and felt weirdly pressured by these requests. Thus ended the marriage in ‘99. (Mind you, these are divorce allegations and not proven facts).

The rest of this is history. Ryan dropped out of the 2004 race and was replaced by Alan Keyes -- a loud and (by some estimations) obnoxious candidate who stood no chance against the practiced and honey-smooth Obama. Obama ran with the senatorial position and used it as the foundation for his Presidential quest. Ryan was already trailing Obama by 18 points in May 2004, but this was after an email campaign (started by Obama aides?) had already hit the internet. Apparently, Jack’s shenanigans were already public lore by this time. How might this have turned out if news media hadn't pushed to unseal the records? Ryan calls it a new low, and points out that similar privacy requests were honored for John Kerry and John McCain.

So a thorny weed takes root in 1999; it bends in the wind in 2004, and we have a different President in 2008. So goes chaos theory, and so goes the tawdry tale of Jack Ryan. Some might actually see this as karma, not chaos. After all, actions may have consequences. Whatever the case, Ryan is doing fine -- he now owns a company called 22nd Century Media in Chicago that publishes newspapers. Jeri is remarried to famous French Chef Eme and lives in Los Angeles. Obama is President.

© 2009 blogSpotter

Swinging with Swingtown

Twisting the night away -- Picture courtesy of CBS

by blogSpotter

What is America coming to? I’ve now caught 3 episodes of CBS’s new dramedy Swingtown, and I have to say we're headed in a shocking direction. Now, I couldn’t be too shocked or I wouldn’t have sat through 3 complete episodes. Swingtown is set in an upscale Chicago suburb in the mid 1970’s. The website summary talks about 3 couples exploring “new attitudes and choices” at the “precipice of change”.

In fact, the title tells it all – Swingtown is about 3 couples discovering that they can “swing” with each other. Yes, in the sexual sense of that word. Set against the polyester, disco backdrop of the 1970’s, this show purports to show the swinging attitudes that we had back in the 70’s. Bruce and Susan Miller move across the street from libertine couple Tom and Trina Decker. At a block party, the Millers get drawn into the Decker’s tawdry web. In last week’s episode, the web caught more victims of moral indecision – the Miller’s old friends, the Thompson’s, stumbled upon the Decker’s wife-swapping shenanigans at a vacation cabin. 

The only problem with the show’s concept is that this facile situation never existed – it’s a 70’s that never was. If anything, the freewheeling 2000’s with Craig’s list and Internet chat rooms would be much more an accurate setting for this debauchery. But I digress with this line of judgmental thoughts … the show is immensely entertaining. In some ways, it reminds me of soft core, woman-oriented pornography. All we lack is someone spilling wine on the lap of the pizza delivery boy. 

The show actually redeems itself a little bit (from the credibility standpoint) with the plot lines of the children. The Miller’s daughter has a nascent affair developing with her teacher and the Thompson’s son is helping a neighbor girl with a dysfunctional mother. The attitude of Swingtown is much like that of Desperate Housewives. It’s a wink-wink dramedy that’s much likelier to elicit laughter than serious critique. 

If your moral senses are easily offended, do not tune in on Thursday nights. The American Family Association and the Parent’s TV Council have both already moved to protest this show and boycott its advertisers. Swingtown is the creation of Mike Kelley, who’s already played with our moral compass in shows like Big Love and Rome. If you can enjoy something with about the depth and credibility of a Harlequin romance, (but heightened giggle factor), by all means tune into Swingtown.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Woolf Man

George and Martha go at it -- Picture courtesy of Warner Brothers Pictures

by blogSpotter
I just watched Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, a ground-breaking 1966 movie, with its frank dialog and sexual suggestiveness. The last time I saw it was probably 30 years ago, and there are many details that I've forgotten. Woolf is a black comedy, centering on the alcohol-fueled, dysfunctional relationship between George, a 40-something history professor and Martha his harpie, angry wife. Both of these people would be recommended to AA or the Betty Ford Clinic nowadays; for the purposes of this movie at least, their nasty invectives flow as freely as the ever-present alcohol. They have an innocent young couple, biology professor Nick and his wife Honey, over for cocktails. The middle aged George and Martha wage verbal war on each other and create collateral damage by drawing Nick and Honey into their bitter battle of wits. I won't give away what all happens, but I do think the movie is hilarious if you can get past some of the sad implications. The movie has inspired many knock-offs -- see if you can catch essentially the same couple on episodes of Will and Grace, American Dad and Seinfeld.

Since the original play came out in 1962, critics have suggested that Edward Albee, an openly gay man, really intended this to be a play about two gay male couples. Part of this comes from the fact that both couples are childless, and the fact of Albee's own admitted sexual orientation. Part of it I fear is an undercurrent of phobic preconceptions that still exist 46 years later. You see, George is an acerbic, witty snipe -- nearly the equal of Martha for vitriolic insults and comebacks. Most people have trouble seeing a straight man in this mode although I've encountered several such men thru the years. The Seinfeld spoof even picked up on this by implying that their "George" character was in a secret love affair with another male novelist.

Elizabeth Taylor nailed the role of Martha, and I've always wondered if the role wasn't pretty close to her real persona. In fact, she and Richard Burton had a pretty rocky relationship thru the years -- George and Martha might be an apt metaphor for the relationship of the actors portraying them. Some people have looked for some kind of symbolic meaning in the protagonists' names -- George and Martha. They happen to be the names of our first President and his wife. I have to say it's a bit of a stretch. The movie was filmed in black and white which seemed edgy at the time; I'd like to see it now in color, to better appreciate four of the industry's finest actors in their prime.

If you happen to catch Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf on the TV schedule some night, make time to watch it. Aside from stimulating discussions about denial and bitchiness, it's damn good cinema.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Kristen and Client 9

Ashley catches some rays -- Picture courtesy of Myspace.com

by blogSpotter
As I read more about ex-NY Governor Eliot Spitzer's affair, it seems to invite more questions than it answers. The buxom 22 year-old that he was caught with was known as "Kristen" at the Emperor's Club agency. Her "real" er, stage name is Ashley Dupre. She's an aspiring Manhattan singer, who had to pick up some extra money to make ends meet. Now, she's caught in a whirlpool of lust, legislators and liaisons -- she's already been subpoenaed to testify on what she knew and when she knew it.

Poor Ashley! Or is she so poor? At $4300 a tryst, she was doing well even if her pimp received 75% of the cut. What on Earth could she possibly be doing that justifies that kind of rate? Some people in my office speculated that they chose the wrong line of work. At Ashley's rates, you could hook for 10 years and then retire for life. Am curious to know if Emperor’s Club has 401K and medical benefits. She's now at the center of a storm (flashbacks to Donna Rice and Monica Lewinski). What is next for this aspiring singer? Donna Rice went on to model for "No Excuses" blue jeans; Monica Lewinski developed a signature line of hand bags. For Ashley, this may be just the spotlight she needed -- her American Idol moment. Yes, the closing of Spitzer's political career can have a positive aspect. His toppling could propel Ashley into being the next Madonna. Or not. Her page on Myspace.com is now getting more hits than Foxnews.com.

On a semi-related topic, I'm tired of people saying that Spitzer's wife should have ditched him when he announced his resignation. Figure this -- she's already going thru pain and upheaval. She doesn't need to feed the news sharks anymore with speculation about divorce settlements or vindictive behavior. It might just be a civilized thing to do, to accompany the man while he faces the music. She might still dissolve the marriage later, but it's a private matter and it's up to her. Marriages and particularly political marriages are institutions as much as they are romantic couplings. There might be pragmatic concerns (children, money, property, in-laws) where all the loose ends need to be dealt with nicely and neatly. One thing at a time -- and later.

OK, I don't want this blog to turn into a tabloid. I will try to refrain from anymore such trifling articles or gratuitous pictures of women with ample bosoms. Unless somebody has something royalty-free. Signing off for today.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Spitzer gets his own Spritzer

The bigger they come, the harder they fall... -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Unless you've lost all of your five senses, you must know by now that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has been brought down by a sex scandal this week. It appears that he solicited prostitutes from an elite NYC service called Emperors Club VIP. His last "encounter" cost him $4,300 (not counting the governorship, his career or his credibility). The dalliance was traced by wire transfers -- the very type of sleuthing he did as NY Attorney General.

Spitzer was known as "the enforcer" as AG, and he had several noteworthy cases:

o Computer chip price fixing case involving five chip companies
o Investment bank inflating of stock prices involving @ 10 banks
o Gambino family domination of NY garment trade
o NYSE excessive compensation for Dick Grasso
o Unlawful insurance "override" commissions

Looking at his track record, he actually did a great deal of good. Short of being Batman or Superman, he brought down greedy institutions in all their many manifestations. Spitzer is a died-in-the-wool Democrat and as such has supported many liberal causes. He worked for immigrant rights, same sex marriage rights and he was even a super delegate pledged to Hillary Clinton. An irony in all of this is that Hillary loses another delegate when Spitzer steps down (which is speculated to be today).

More on the down side, Spitzer received bad publicity for sending home style maven Martha Stewart up the river for a year. Martha's infraction was miniscule compared to the cases above, and many people thought that the prosecution of Martha's case was very heavy handed. Martha's embarrassment pales next to Spitzer's as it turns out.

Much along the lines of Bill Clinton, Spitzer became foolhardy and careless in his rambling ways. My own take is that each of these men was so fueled with ego and arrogance that he mistook himself for a "God" of sorts -- like Icarus who didn't believe his wax wings would melt by flying too close to the sun. In a final analysis, we come back to Lincoln's quote: "You can't fool all of the people all of the time". Now Lincoln, as the charter member of Log Cabin Republicans probably had first hand experience himself with that quote. And Spitzer can probably recover some of his lost credibility in private practice, as long as he is willing to retire his rambling ways.

© 2008 blogSpotter

A View to a Pill

Enovid turned 50 this year -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
The oral contraceptive known as “the Pill” came on the market in 1960. The Pill is a combination of estrogen and progestogen and taken on a daily schedule it creates a hormonal condition similar to pregnancy and the woman taking it quits ovulating. Taken correctly, there is a less than .3% chance of a woman becoming pregnant while on the pill. The Pill has been blamed for various things such as weight gain, acne and cancer although various types and dosages are said to eliminate or reduce those side effects. The Pill has also been blamed for causing decreased sexual desire and depression; women using it must also consider those potential side effects.

The Pill had a long and tortuous development; as far back as the 1930’s, scientists were aware that steroid hormones could inhibit pregnancy but European companies had a lock on the source of those drugs and they were very expensive at that time. In 1953, physiologist Gregory Pincus created an early birth control pill, but it resulted in bleeding and was only 85% effective. By 1957, Searle labs had corrected the bleeding problem with a better combination of estrogen and progestogen. Enovid was first marketed as a drug for menstrual disorders in 1957. In 1960, it was reintroduced at a lower dosage per pill, as a birth control pill. The drug had wide acceptance in Europe and the USA; Japan was less taken by it. To this day only 1% of Japanese women use the pill. Japanese drug approvers feared cancer side effects and speculated that such a drug might contribute to venereal disease (due to abandonment of condoms).

The Pill met with more obstacles than Odysseus in Homer's Odyssey. It wasn’t approved for married women in all states until 1965 and wasn’t approved for all unmarried women in the USA until 1972. It’s incredible that our government intervened so recently in such a personal, private matter. These were not the only slings and arrows aimed at the Pill. The Catholic Church in its 1968 papal encyclical “Humanae Vitae” declared that all artificial contraception distorted “the nature and purpose of sex”. The Pill had a huge influence on our popular culture – it made sexual conduct and reproduction separate considerations. Many people have attributed the sexual revolution of the 1960’s to the Pill alone. It is true that women were soon “less chaste” after the Pill came out. In fact, the women’s movement (then termed “Women’s Liberation”) also emerged in that same momentous decade. Women were reading The Female Eunuch or going to see The Chapman Report at the theater. These actions might fall between purchasing a plastic miniskirt or a copy of the Rolling Stones’ hit single “Satisfaction”.

There were actually many other things afoot in the 1960’s – civil rights unrest, the Viet Nam War, nascent Rock’n Roll music, presidential assassinations and whatnot. It’s a stretch to hang everything on the Pill, and by the way – when we say “hang” do we subconsciously mean “blame?” It is true that Japan has had a much lower HIV rate; that’s been attributed to Japan’s preference for condoms over pills. There could be other things at play; some European countries have comparatively low HIV rates while still embracing oral contraceptives. The fact that women now have more career choices has definitely made them more “uppity”. The quality of being uppity is probably an advancement and no justification by itself for going back to the days of yore when women were to be kept barefoot and pregnant.

We have the power to revoke the Pill and say it was all a big mistake. Why haven’t we? We love everything retro, but guess what – some things really are an advancement. No need to fondly reminisce about abstinence or the rhythm method. For the Pill, we need mainly to reduce risks for cancer and depression and “Vive la Pill”. It’s here to stay, for all the freedom it gives to women and indirectly, their men.

© 2007 blogSpotter

American Prude

Can Americans ever be this free? -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Why are Americans so prudish? There are many reasons to wonder. Europeans are more relaxed in every respect with regard to body image. They have topless beaches and the European men are much more inclined to wear skimpy Speedos, regardless of body shape. When I was in Europe, I watched a bit of "Euro TV" in various hotels -- sometimes late at night, or during the day between museum forays. I was amazed that they showed what we would consider R-rated movies for general audiences after 10:30PM. Even the daytime TV commercials showed more than Americans see at a peep show. The same relaxed attitude also extends to print media, where Europeans flaunt what they have in weekly news magazines aimed at the general public. In Amsterdam, one of the nicest most historic canal streets is in the "red light" district. They don't see a need to set aside any other area for “the world’s oldest profession”.

Americans are prudes by any measure. American men wear boxy, down-to-the-knee swim suits. Women have even flirted with a return to one-piece suits -- Hello Miss America 1923. We fastidiously put V-chips in every TV and have several agencies that enforce censorship and movie ratings. America has a few nude and topless beaches, but they're more the subject of silly jokes than serious sunbathing. Magazines with adult content are in wrappers or covers partially concealed and proof of age is required to buy one. Red light districts are usually in a bad, physically remote part of town -- somewhere near docks or warehouses.

That people might "have needs" is seen as a heinous evil that should only ever be met with monogamous, marital coupling and prayer sessions if needed. Particularly the American South (the "Bible Belt") has a problem with things like sexually oriented businesses, massage parlors and condom stores. Mind you, the presence or need of such things hasn't gone away -- America simply chooses to indulge its appetites privately, furtively, under the cloak of darkness. A part of the American psyche says, "It's not a sin if I don't get caught". The very concept of "getting caught", that sex is a crime -- is American as Apple pie. When you think about it, we’re not much better than the Communist Chinese, who claim to have eradicated all sexual promiscuity in their country with Socialist ideals. We’ve just done it with Jesus (and as effectively, which is to say not at all).

How did we get to be this way? We were founded by an assortment of chaste religions -- Puritans, Amish, Shakers and Quakers. The irony is that our nation was founded on secular principles but the secularity was more to protect religions from each other than to banish them per se. We were and still are an amalgam of strongly-felt religions, where Europeans are becoming bored and blasé with their own monolithic and traditional religions. In America, Christian soldiers have forged onward with crazed determination while in Europe, sophisticates have become cynical and agnostic; they give alms and say prayers more to satisfy cultural expectations than to satisfy a burning spiritual need.

Will America ever be less uptight about sex? Can we ever “get real” about human nature and the human condition? It may well come to pass, but we will probably have to be as old as Europe and as burned by religion as they have been. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and the Church of Rome did not lose its glorious patina all in a day. Can sex and spirituality coexist in the same philosophical plane? I think so, but Americans will have to learn to “think different” to borrow from an Apple commercial.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Piecing it Together

New dimensions in Boomer lit -- Picture courtesy Scribner

by blogSpotter
Two months ago, Newsweek magazine ran an article called "Boomer Literature". In it, they talked about books written in the 50's, 60's and 70's that are now considered modern classics: Catch-22, Slaughterhouse 5, A Separate Peace, Lord of The Flies, Confederacy of Dunces, etc. There were easily 50 titles on the Boomer list, only a handful have I actually read. Feeling very sadly deficient, I've purchased about 10 of these books and intend to buy another 30 or so from Audible.com if I can be disciplined enough. The thing is, these books are now being assigned to high school kids and I can't "be there" to discuss a hallmark of my own generation if I haven't read the book. Toward this ambitious end, I just finished A Separate Peace and now I can share my own viewpoint of John Knowles' poignant tale.

Set in 1943, Separate Peace is the story of two teenage boys who are roommates in a northeast prep school, Devon. They are both popular and out-going but one of them, Gene Forrester tends to be more quiet and academic while Phineus (aka Finny) is a popular, accomplished jock. The boys become best of friends while at the same time developing a fierce competition between them to see who can be the most popular well-rounded athlete. Warning -- something of a plot spoiler follows. The love-hate spirals out of control when the two boys undertake a dare devil stunt together -- diving off of a high tree limb into a river; Gene deliberately undermines Finny and causes him to have a serious accident (a crippling fall from the tree). The rest of the book examines the way all the young men at Devon deal with this tragedy and other life traumas, all against the backdrop of World War II which looms large for 16 and 17 year old boys. The book's title partly comes from the fact that Devon is an insular environment for these young men, not old enough to be drafted into war.

Do not bother to get out the Cliff Notes -- blogSpotter will give you the two major themes of this book.

RELIGIOUS OVERTONES

Devon has been likened to the Garden of Eden and the jumping-off tree has been likened to the Apple Tree with forbidden fruit. Gene and Finny have been directly compared to Cain and Abel from the Bible. The fall of Finny has even been likened to the Fall of Man. These symbolic connections probably played some part in the author's subconscious, but they weren't to me the predominant theme.

SUBTEXT

Some reviewers have said that the book might have a "homosexual subtext". To these people, I say "Oh, please". It's not even a subtext, it is the text. This book is soft, gay pornography circa 1959 when the book was written. How gay is this book? Let me count the ways...

First of all, the book has virtually no female characters. There are brief mentions of a night nurse and one boy's mother, but the characters are overwhelmingly male. The author speaks through the character of Gene, and gives extremely precise descriptions of other boys' clothing and anatomies. Much is said of pink shirts, khakis, gym shorts and tee shirts. More is said of long arms, lanky legs, stocky builds and certain shapes of buttocks. A story being spoken through the vantage point of a straight man would give nary a mention to these things, much less paragraph-long elaborations.

The description of the boys' feelings toward each other is more telling than anything. I may paraphrase a bit from the actual text. Each day together is a joy, a victory, a rebirth. Gene cannot imagine a life more exciting than with Finny as his room mate. This culminates in a spur-of-the-moment bicycle outing to the beach where the two boys play in the sand and "sleep" under the stars. The studious Gene even skips studying for a Trig test he knows he'll fail to do this outing with Finny.

Much later in the book, after Finny has recovered from his accident and returns to school, Gene puts off his plans to run away and enlist in the navy. His heart beats faster and he is elated that Finny is back in his life. He changes his whole course of athletic training and physical development per Finny's instructions. At the very end of the book, Finny finally realizes that Gene deliberately pushed him from the tree, and he speaks harshly to Gene. Gene walks around the Devon campus in a daze and sleeps under a bridge, he is so distraught. Now most straight boys, however much they like a male friend do not experience "joy and renewal" from each day of togetherness. They don't sleep under the stars or go into a tragic tailspin over harsh words. The behaviors and feelings described in the book are those of love-sick puppies, deeply in love.

Some of the comments made by other characters such as classmate Brinker are rather pointed and insinuate more than just a jouncing of the tree limb. The end of the book features a mock trial which some people have described as an "outing" of the relationship between Gene and Finny.

CONCLUSION

A movie was made of Separate Peace in 1972. Movie critic Leonard Maltin rated it as a bomb and then dissed the novel by saying it was overrated. Mr. Maltin is probably letting his phobias show through. The book is still a good read, though it is a little chaste as 1950s soft porn goes.

© 2007 blogSpotter