Friday, October 28, 2005
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Check out the link above--
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
I think Hamamoto is a really interesting character. He came under fire by a pretty well-organized conservative cabal this year --understandably, as he has some pretty provocative things to say about sexual desire and race...
"Darrell Hamamoto, a film professor, watches porno flicks like Rush Limbaugh pops Oxycotin--daily, but without a doctor's permission. He wants to know what 'gets you off' and what makes you 'hard' or 'wet.' From 'Debbie Does Dallas' to 'The Joy Fuck Club,' Hamamoto believes that Asian Americans must fight against the 'White Porno Supremacy' in mainstream U.S. porn. Forget Thursday Nights on NBC, Hamamoto could care less about the Perk Cafe crew; rather he wants to see an Asian American version of Too Live Crew on extra-strength gin seng. The larger implications of these questions are what type of faces and bodies are desirable and what are not (think: Jerry Lewis at Krispy Kremes)."
Friday, October 07, 2005
50 new ways to leave your lover | The Register :
From The Register over in the UK:
"There is a proven way you can catch a cheating lover by keeping your partner's dirty mails or even better - chat logs, at least in the state of Belgium.
Erotic talk with a virtual partner in chatrooms on the web can constitute proof of 'grossly insulting behaviour' and can be used as evidence in a divorce case, Belgium's top judges have ruled.
Belgian legal paper Juristenkrant cites a ruling by the Brussels Appeals Court, which recently accepted printouts of a erotic chat as evidence in an adultery trial."
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 21:02:29 -0700
From: Jim Kellogg <email@example.com>
Subject: [*M*] MI Senate passes resolutions to prevent same-sex
To: Marriage List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
States brief ~ MI Senate passes resolutions to prevent same-sex benefits
Rachel Felton at 5:33 PM ET
University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Jurist Legal News and Research
October 6, 2005
-------------- next part --------------
Note: See original for links to exact text
[JURIST] The Michigan Senate [voted to approve two resolutions today
that would prevent taxpayer money from being spent on same-sex
benefits until the state Supreme Court decides whether a lower court
ruling allowing public universities and the government to provide
same-sex benefits was correct. The lower court judge found that a
constitutional amendment passed last year, recognizing only a union
between a man and a woman as a marriage or "similar union for any
purpose," did not prevent public universities and governments from
providing same-sex benefits. Attorney General Mike Cox [ plans on
appealing the decision, and Sen. Alan Cropsey believes that the
status quo should be maintained until the Michigan Supreme Court has
a chance to decide the case. The resolutions are symbolic and have no
legal effect. AP has more.
Mark J. Harris
Communications manager, National Sexuality Resource Center (NSRC)
my only real critique is that it is maybe too problem/solution focused.... i wonder how these couples fair after their sex-docs have moved on...do they go back to their old ways or do they genuinely learn something usable for the long run? are their old ways "problems" that need "solutions"? that seems to be the underlying thought.... not sure i agree with it completely...
hmmm.... overall, i give it a thumbs up for effort! definitely worth checking it out....
Thursday, October 06, 2005
I read the following over on BoingBoing-does anyone have any knowledge if this is accurate? It seems rather scary to me.
"Tuesday, October 4, 2005
Bizarre proposed Indiana reproductive legislation
Stefan Jones says: A proposed bill (PDF of text here) by Indiana Republicans would limit assisted reproduction services to people who have a 'Gestational Certificate.'
'It's probably not a surprise that only married heterosexuals would qualify, but the other information the bill suggests be collected reads like something from Eugenics manual:
(a) Before intended parents may commence assisted reproduction, the intended parents shall obtain an assessment from a licensed child placing agency in the intended parents' state of residence.
(b) The assessment must follow the normal practice for assessments in a
domestic infant adoption procedure and must include the following information:
(1) The intended parents' purpose for the assisted reproduction.
(2) The fertility history of the intended parents, including the
pregnancy history and response to pregnancy losses of the woman.
(3) An acknowledgment by the intended parents that the child may
not be the biological child of at least one (1) of the intended parents
depending on the type of artificial reproduction procedure used.
(4) A list of the intended parents' family and friend support system.
(5) A plan for sharing any known genetic information with the child.
(6) Personal information about each intended parent, including the
(A) Family of origin.
(E) Employment and income.
(F) Hobbies and talents.
(G) Physical description, including the general health of the individual.
(H) Birth verification.
(I) Personality description, including the strengths and weaknesses of each intended parent."
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Wow, this seems a bit extreme. It's not unconstitutional, though. And note it was reported in The Guardian; you just know Europeans are snickering again at the prudish behavior of this Texan judge.