Human behavior

Ambrose Bierce defined "telephone" as:

An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance.He defined "telescope" as:

A device having a relation to the eye similar to that of the telephone to the ear, enabling distant objects to plague us with a multitude of needless details. Luckily it is unprovided with a bell summoning us to the sacrifice.
These "Decider Ringtones" are a funny way to be summoned.

[Disclosure: I have no financial interest in this site or its promotion whatsoever.]

Relevant Devil's Dictionary entries:

• finance - The art or science of managing revenues and resources for the best advantage of the manager. The pronunciation of this word with the i long and the accent on the first syllable is one of America's most precious discoveries and possessions.
• president - The leading figure in a small group of men of whom -- and of whom only -- it is positively known that immense numbers of their countrymen did not want any of them for President.
• decide - To succumb to the preponderance of one set of influences over another set.

Or is this another earth bound finding from the patriarchy?

So many people insist god speaks. Jimmy says Jesus ''does not want all of these abortions''. I dunno Jimmy. Could Jesus maybe have helped with the rescue that crashed in the desert, all those years ago? Maybe, Jimmy, you could ask AND get an answer...

The Fifth US Circuit Appeals court has indeed upheld a MS lower court finding that the right to privacy does not extend to purchasing sex toys. Further, the MS high court ruled that there is ''no fundamental right of access to purchase sex toys''.

Not to get too serious... because, really, this is a laughing matter... but only if you live outside LA (seat of the Fifth Circuit, right there in wild and pagan New Orleans, now destroyed as an act of god against the abortion clinics - and whatever else!) and outside GA TX MS and AL wherever else the men (and women assists) love to deny humanity.

Made in China FOB Ningbo seaport.
Minumum order 10 dozen.

That is right, surely god filed an amicus brief with the court. Surely there is a passage of bible screed that prohibits... TOY-GASMS !?! and pink fluff handcuffs, dildos that light up... cock rings... butt plugs - and whatever else.

I wanna see the amicus brief. Otherwise it is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Or should be, in a half-way decent world.

That's the spirit of this Tennessee legislation being proposed by Democrat Charlotte Burks:

HB3798 and SB3794
Abstract: Obscenity and Pornography - Creates Class A misdemeanor offenses of distributing unlawful sexual devices and wholesale distributing of unlawful sexual devices.

Thou shalt not take pleasure from sexual relations aside from that offered by the Penis. Thou shalt not masturbate if thou art female.

Note that there's no mention of prohibiting the Holy Work for Idle Hands.

egalia has more.

Media girl posted a blog topic So what's wrong with a little objectification, anyway? As science fiction writer, J. F. Rivkin once complained, the cover of the novel (and even the title) often is not under the control of the author, so I have no arguments with author Marrit Ingman, unless she disabuses me of that presumption, about the "babes" cover of her article about Blogher.

Perhaps Second Wave Feminists have no sense of humor about their political struggles and trivializing women's topics is grist for the mill.

I was a young activist and I recall the cover of Ms Magazine - we called it "M" "S" in those days - which had an article about "why we aren't laughing." Like Polack, black, Jewish, Italian, Irish, and other ethnic jokes, jokes about women are legion. In 1973, I framed this picture and hung it on my office wall as "protest" against the "Rad Libber," (Radical Female Liberation) jokes that were making the rounds. It did not stop my boss from making his own jokes about the woman in the drawing and exactly what "movement" she would be making.

About 15 years ago, Andrew Dice Clay drew jeers for his jokes that demeaned women - women as bimbos and airheads.

Women tend to laugh to hide discomfort and mask embarrassment or even anger.

Make a racist joke to a minority, and chances are the person will call you on it. Make a sexist joke about females, the woman is expected to laugh. If she gets annoyed, then it means she has no sense of humor.

I am sure no one meant any real harm in putting up that cover and were it the Onion, I might think it was trying to make a satirical point, but the cover seemed out of place given the rest of the article.

I hope that this is not part of the post-Roe world.

Like "Lois Lane," "Clark"s" jokes aren't funny any more.

As I write this, there is an ad running here -- and on many other blogs in what is possibly the largest Blogads buy ever -- for an MSNBC show that has raised some hackles.

All the ads do if you click on them (you'll have to find them on an advertisement-running blog like Kos or Political Animal to do this) is take you to the MSNBC homepage. If you click on Rita Crosby's "Live & Direct" link captioned "A unique look inside the valley of porn" you get taken to this completely stupid article. I have no idea what Rita has in store for her audience on Wednesday, but judging by the blog ads I'm guessing scantily clad women will be involved.

And from the comments:

Overall, it seems we're slowly sliding down the hill back to the bad ol days, in more ways that I care to count. Way too many (mostly younger) men and women see nothing at all wrong with this kind of image of women being projected all over the place.

I know these women online and very much respect their opinions. So in the interest of transparency, I thought I'd try to offer up my thinking for accepting this ad buy and see what you all thought about it.

When the ad buy was made, a representative of the ad buy sent a message out to publishers to warn of the ad content. The email said, in part:

The blogad creative will be changed daily. Because one of the shows on Wednesday night is about porn (hosted by Rita Cosby), a couple of the ads this week might be considered edgy, though obviously nothing a major TV network wouldn't show its own viewers. I'm attaching the curviest ad -- if you are not comfortable with your readers seeing this, please reject the ad today.

Okay, I admit I went back and forth on this, unsure what to do. And then I thought that the show isn't porn, it's about porn -- a topic that falls well within the realm of feminist debate and discussion.

And so the show itself -- or what I can glean from the scant descriptions available -- does not itself necessarily offend me so much as to prohibit their ad. But then there's the matter of the ad itself.

If you saw the ad yesterday, or are looking at this today (Monday), you'll see what the big deal is: a neon silhouette of a naked woman, not at all unlike what you might see on the outside of a strip club or the mud flaps of an erection-minded trucker's rig.

Too much? I don't know. I do feel that perhaps worse than the popularity of pornography in this country is the shaming of nakedness and sexuality throughout our culture. Uptight sexual attitudes, sexual insecurity and denial of true sexual natures of people I feel results in a vast percentage of violence -- and probably most of the violence perpetrated against women. On television, a bare breast is enough to get a show fined by the FCC, while movies with people getting machine-gunned in gory detail get glowing passes. A naked body is deemed "offensive," while a thousand dead bodies is considered "some violence." Fucking someone up is A-OK, but fucking is labeled pornographic.

How fucked up is that?

Ostensibly, the show addresses this. I don't know how well, or in what detail, or with what tone -- and odds are I won't have time to tune in and watch it. But since the ad is for the show, and since the ad is representational -- albeit with sexist overtones (which seem to be a deliberate provocation) -- rather than explicit, I accepted the ad.

So there it is. I'm sorry if it offends your sensibilities. It will be replaced tomorrow with another topic, they tell me. (You can see the images in question at the Our Word link above.)

But if you have something to say about it, I welcome your comments here. (Open exchange of thoughts is encouraged. But please refrain from sexist, misogynist expression. Pie-inspired epithets and remarks of disparagement against women or stereotyped subgroups are discouraged.)

--

Update: Atrios has some thoughts about the quality of MSNBC's implementation of this strategy.

More updates: A little sarcasm (I think) from Lindsay at Majikthise and a dismissive yawn from Amanda at Pandagon