Well, after months and months of utter neglect I have made up my mind.

 I’m sick to death of this blog.  It’s too damn ranty and doesn’t contain nearly enough gleeful female domination.  I’m a very different person now than when I started this two years ago, and I just don’t wanna write here any more.  So this will officially be the last entry.

 Stay tuned for the next phase in my evil plan to take over the world with kinky sex…The Kinky Courtesan

“The idea that sex is “natural” still has great sway - except, maybe, what one hears referred to as the “unnatural” kinds - so people do not need to be taught how to do it. This is barely correct, and even people who have figured out how to make babies via Tab A and Slot B do not necessarily have the elements of pleasure worked out.”

-Women Don’t Need a G-shot

by Dr. Carol Queen

Amen to that!

And you know what’s even more fucked up?  Lots and lots of folks believe not only that they themselves ought to “just know” how to get off well, but that their partners ought to somehow “just know” too.  I mean, have you paid your telepathy bill this month?  Like I have this friend who has the most godawful track record, sexually speaking.  She’s a beautiful girl, sensible and educated, and a freethinking lesbian to boot.  But for as long as I’ve known her she’s complained about her lack of satisfaction in the sack.  I never understood until I actually had sex with her a couple of times…I’d ask her how it was, did she like what I was doing, what did she want to try next, etc and so on, and get a resounding silence for an answer.  Truthfully, I don’t even know if she actually came!  Finally she told me that she didn’t think people should talk during sex - if it was the right person, it would “just happen”.  Needless to say our intimacy didn’t last long.  I found her downright boring (not to mention insensitive, since she was just as uninterested in hearing about my desires as she was in telling me about hers) and she no doubt found me as lacking as all her previous lovers. 

I went on to have great sex with someone who communicated with me…my lesbian friend is, not surprisingly, still complaining.  What I really can’t figure out is why anybody (well, anybody who wasn’t poisoned by religion anyway) would do that to themselves. 

I have been following the stories about Madrid’s recent ban on runway models with a BMI below 18 with great interest.  The ban has set off a furor in the world of fashion, with some folks (mostly, from what I can see, modeling agency bigwigs) crying out in furious protest.  My personal favorite comment came from Cathy Gould, the North American head of Elite (one of the world’s top modeling agencies) who exclaimed (I am paraphrasing here) that the ban was discriminatory to “naturally gazelle-like models”.  Yeah, right.  Like any of those girls would still be so anorectically scrawny if they weren’t forced to be so by folks like you, Cathy.  Here’s an idea - stop YOUR discrimination and let the poor girls eat already!

Now personally, I think this is one of those areas where government regulation is inappropriate.  But then again, if the industry had been acting with any semblance of sanity for the past, oh, thirty or forty years, the government wouldn’t have to step in.  If enacting such laws in one or two cities makes the willfully-deluded people who are trying to force starvation chic on the rest of us cut it out, well then I have to say go for it.

The ban (and Madrid’s fashion week) went into effect weeks ago.  I’m finally posting about it now because of this interesting development.  Jean-Paul Gaultier saw fit (I’m not sure why, as there have been ZERO news articles about it) to include this beauty in the lineup for his Spring 2007 show, held this week in Paris:

Hubba hubba - you go, Jean-Paul!  Makes me wish I could afford genuine couture.  Contrast this lovely lady with a typical model, this one from Guy Laroche’s Spring 2007 show:

 And just for reference, here are a few shots of Nazi death-camp victims:

{notice that the girl on the lower left in the second pic is probably about the same age - and not far from the same weight - as Guy Laroche’s model}

What REALLY gets my gall up is that for my entire life, the starved-looking stick woman has been touted as the ONLY possible type of beauty.  It has reached the point that EVEN THOUGH UNDERWEIGHT PEOPLE FACE JUST AS MANY, IF NOT MORE, HEALTH RISKS AS THE MORBIDLY OBESE, anybody who is larger than about a size six is deemed to be not only un-beautiful but unhealthy as well.  That’s just pure and utter bullshit, and I am relieved beyond words, for once in my life, to be able to look at a runway model without wincing and thinking ”please, please just go and eat a sandwich”. 

I spent the morning yesterday first taking my son to get blood drawn (his first time, and he was so brave!<--proud Mommy) then ferrying him to school.  Why should this take the whole morning, you may wonder?  Well, all kids are reluctant to go to school sometimes...but how many kids have to be carried in kicking and screaming?  Knowing he's an aspie helps some - at least I know where this kind of thing is coming from - but I'm still blindsided by the behavioral results.  What do you do when the kid (remember, he's six) is so set on not going to school that he’d run blindly toward the street, seemingly unconsious of any danger, rather than go inside?  And most especially (if you’re me), what do you do when a physical impairment (seriously bad knee, thanks to a car wreck a few years ago, in case you were wondering) very literally keeps you from being able to catch him?  What I did was a) spank him in the parking lot and b) have a meltdown of my own; but I waited until after I’d finally got him as settled in as he was gonna get at school and was alone in the car on my way home.

I am really, really grateful to be working in porn on days like this.  It is such a FUCKING HUGE relief to be able…no, more than able, to be required…to spend some time doing something that’s completley and utterly removed from children.

Which is not something I could articulate to my doctor when, later that afternoon, I went in for my annual physical and somewhat shyly requested that she order a complete STD screening for me.  I am not quite to the point of being ready to do partner shoots with men other than my husband but I can see that time approaching and I want to be prepared.  Not that I wouldn’t have sex with other men; I’m just not ready to take pictures of myself doing so and publish them on the internet. 

Working in porn is, in a very literal sense, good for me.  I am far more diligent about taking care of myself thanks to this career.  I wear sunscreen, eat better, exercise more, smoke less, take much, much, much better care of my skin…there’s so many things I do that I just wouldn’t bother with if I didn’t know I was going to be on camera next week, or doing a live panty mistress session tomorrow.  So when my doctor ever-so-gently suggested that there are better ways to make a living I was pretty amused.  Maybe there are ways of making a living that are better for other people, but for me this is the ideal job.  Which is why I continue doing it even though I’m not (yet) making a living at it.

And on the good side, I got my first package from Wetegg.com yesterday too, and have spent a little time getting acquainted with my new Venus vibrator.  I will need to do lots more testing before I’m ready to write my review, but I can tell you already that this one’s destined to be a favorite.

“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God.” - Pope Benedict XVI, at his inagural Mass, April 2005

Questions - and challenges - for the believers who agree with the Pope:

If each of us is planned by God, what about the homosexual?  The evidence does seem to be piling up that queerness is biological.  Therefore, is it not blasphemy to degrade and dishonor the gay man and the lesbian as you have done?

Or perhaps a less controversial subject…what about the acres of forests we humans raze each day, the thousands of animals slaughtered, the winds and waters polluted…are these not also part of God’s plan?  Is not defiling and destroying those things like spitting in the face of God?

Or are you really so arrogant as to believe that YOU, with your petty concerns and selfish human heart, are created by God superior to all else, entitled to rule over - and trample - anything you please?

And even the Sunnis and Shias do it.

Ever hear of Misyar?  Or Nikah Mut’ah?  These are varieties (each faction has it’s own version, tailored to suit the dictates of it’s own religious dogma) of temporary marriages, legally accepted by Islamic, sharia-based governments.  Marriages which, it has been argued, exist essentially to allow people to have sex without the traditional obligations of marriage.

I won’t make any comments on these institutions from a feminist point of view; that’s for the women who live in these cultures to do (try googling arab woman blog if you’re interested).  Suffice to say that from what I know I would rather be a whore in my world than married (or unmarried) in theirs.  The point is that even in societies where sex outside of marriage is punishable by death there is some allowance made, some recognition of the importance of plain old sex.

I once knew a man whose very strong Christian convictions included the idea that any sex apart from that with his wife was dreadfully, horribly wrong.  Any sex at all, we’re talking even masturbation.  When I met him, this man had become so obsessed with his own repressed desires that he was doing really stupid shit - the kind of shit that could have lost him his marriage and his important job in an organization which insisted on adherence to Christian dogma - to satisfy those desires.  He used to argue endlessly with me, insisting that sex was just not that necessary, until finally I pointed this out:  if sex wasn’t that vital to him, then why was he on the verge of throwing away everything else for the sake of it?  My friend stepped back a bit after that, began to allow himself some sensuality, but when I last spoke to him he was still (as far as I know) refusing to allow even such a basic satisfaction as masturbating.  It’s my guess (and I could be wrong here), that he continues his secret, shameful indulgences to this day…and continues to berate himself for them. 

The most ironic thing, in this case, is that the guy phrased all this in terms of love.  He felt that anything other than sex with the Mrs. was a betrayal of their vows of love.  Yet his insistence on toeing the dogmatic line caused twenty years of sexual dissatisfaction for both partners.  Harldly a testament to the glorious-ness of married relations.  If he had been willing to practice sex by masturbating (it’s not something you’re born good at, you know!), he might have found a solution to his problem of shooting off too soon.  Had he been willing to masturbate, he might have given her the freedom to do so, and hence given her the tools to teach them both how to have a better sexual relationship (a woman cannot tell a man how best to please her if she does not know herself).  Had he been accepting of his own sexual needs, of his own sexual fantasies, he could have had full and open communication for all those twenty years instead of the nest of secrets he held inside.  Without the rule of dogma his love could have been so much greater.

I do not expect my thoughts to ever have any credibility with the monotheistically-minded, because I will not pretend to believe that there is One True God when my doubts are so plentiful.  But I often wonder, of those who profess to believe that this planet and all on it are the work of a single benevolent Creator, why the fanatical clinging to dogma that flies in the face of the Evidence of Creation?  What is there that makes the Bible (or the Qur’an, or whatever Book you follow) a more authentic source for knowing God’s expectations than the earthworm, the slime mold, or the bonobo chimp?  Even for the True Believer the former may have been “inspired” by God, but the latter was indisputably made by God.  We’re talking the difference between genuine Chanel and a cheap knock-off here folks.  Why would you sell your soul for the rip-off, when the true gift lies all around you, free for the understanding? 

If I were to wake up tomorrow and find myself recognized as the Daughter of God, Messiah to the masses, I would propose a faith based on the “book” of Creation.  You want to see the glory of God?  Go spend half an hour watching the ants in their labours.  You want to give thanks to God?  Do something to nurture the world, to increase the diversity and health of life on it instead of cutting down more trees to print more holy books, or, God forbid, blasting huge swathes of landscape into lifelessness to prove the rightness of your views.  You want to know what God wants from you?  Well, God gave you a brain, didn’t He?  The capacity to reason?  If God wants you happy (the definition of benevolent Creator), and He gave you these tools, then it follows you ought to use them.  Study what makes people (and other animals, after are we humans ARE animals too) happy…then arrange for there to be more of it.  Don’t just unquestioningly accept the authority of anybody who claims to speak for God, and especially don’t accept the dictates of those whose advice demonstrably goes against the evidence of creation, and against the evidence of human happiness.

So I’m trolling through the Craigslist listings for my town in the “Services: Erotic” category, and I come across this little bit of inanity:

“I do not understand all of these “BBW” providers - and the prices they charge. BBW = fat - why would you pay to go to a BBW provider, when you can just pick up some fat drunk chick at a bar? Chances are the local dive has a fat chick that is cleaner, and free. “

Now this kind of crap pops up all the time, on every adult-oriented board, list, or forum I’ve ever visited.  And usually I just ignore it, figuring that the dimwits who post such nonsense don’t have the capacity for rational thought (or good manners!) so any argument would be lost on them.  I dunno what made me respond this time, it’s not even the most obnoxious fat-bashing post I saw that day on Craigslist.  Maybe I’m feeling a little extra bitchy cause my period’s almost due.  Anyhow, I felt compelled to respond:

“Because all the fat girls are so beaten down by attitudes like yours that very few of them have any confidence at all in their sexuality. Guys who like big girls are looking for the perfect passionate, sexy, adventurous playmate that you are - some drunken insecure bar dweller is not any more to their taste than it would be to yours. And, of course, this explains the high prices too - sexually confident fat girls are rarer even than real TS’s, and a whole lot rarer than dime-a-dozen fake-titted, bleach-blonde, scrawny bimbos.

What I want to know is why jackasses like you think it’s ok to go around in public places like this, posting idiotic and hurtful crapola like you have? Did you think you were doing anybody a favor, really? I mean, none of the fat admirers (and yes, FAT admirers is exactly what they call themselves) come around bitching about how the thin girls (whom you no doubt think of as normal) look like they just vacationed at Auschwitz and really ought to go and eat a sandwich, do they? Or wondering how any straight man can possibly be attracted to someone whose body (apart from the aforementioned fake tits) resembles a young boy’s more than a real woman’s? But it seems like every day there’s a new dickhead on any erotic board you visit who thinks it’s his sacred duty to tell all the fat girls to go starve themselves, and all the men who like them how stupid/abnormal/deluded they are.

Maybe it’s because they’re secretly attracted to fat girls, and hate themselves for it, so they make it all better by spewing vileness at the objects of their forbidden desires. Which, of course, is another reason why a guy might seek a bbw provider: it’s what he *really* lusts after but is too ashamed to be seen with as wife or girlfriend, thanks once again to the idiocy and just plain bad manners of people like you.”

And you know what the funniest part is?  Since posting my ad, my inbox has been flooded with responses from fat loving guys congratulating me for speaking up, and wanting to know if I do escort work.

Saw this in the news today:

JACKSON, Wyo. - Every year, as the sun sets on the Teton County Fair, the moons come out: as many as 10 streakers at the demolition derby on the fair’s last day. This year, law enforcement officers are pledging a crackdown.

Teton County Attorney Steve Weichman said a growing number of people have told him they didn’t think that “drunk, crazy and naked streaking” is a “great, normal, fun thing.”

Opposition to the streaking has grown since last year’s derby, he said, when a deputy used a Taser to apprehend John Chase Rogers, 21, dropping him to the dirt as he streaked with a fire extinguisher before a crowd of 3,500.

Posters at the fair office warn that at this year’s fair, any public nudity will bring a charge of misdemeanor child endangerment, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Attorney David DeFazio spoke out against last year’s Taser incident and questioned the need for a crackdown this year.

“I just question whether a couple of streakers at a county fair in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, is objectionable to accepted standards of decency,” he said.

But Jackson Police Chief Dan Zivkovich said streaking doesn’t have to be tolerated. “We just think it’s time to take control of the event again and say this really is intended to be a family event,” he said.

OK now, which of these sights do you think is most likely to be disturbing to a child:  the sight of a drunk naked guy running around in public, or the sight of a drunk naked guy being tazered by cops?

Hint:  how likely do you think it is that the average four year old will embarass you by dropping his drawers in front of anybody and everybody?

Gay marriage is a moot point.  For all the arguments and fuss, the truth is that the entire concept of gender as an opposite-and-clearly-divided-poles thing, the very foundation of the religious right’s “traditional” marriage, is dying out.

It’s not only the way in which the social roles of men and women have merged either, though there’s been an awful lot of that about.  Medical technology has progressed to the point where it is virtually impossible (at least without medical tests) to distinguish between the born male or female and the made one.  What becomes of the sacred cow of traditional marriage, when one of the partners goes from being the opposite sex to being the same sex?  Is that union suddenly nullified, never worthy of having been blessed in the first place?

The transexual population is growing, and a substantial number of people are choosing to become neither male nor female, but another gender entirely.  This will, I believe, ultimately turn out to be the larger population as these sorts of transformations do not necessarily require the radical and expensive medical procedures which are typical of full sex reassignment.  Furthermore, as the field of genetic manipulation becomes commercialized (as it inevitably will), I believe we will see things that we can only begin to speculate about now.  How can you frame the debate as marriage = 1 man + 1 woman vs. marriage = 2 committed lovers when the people in question are as likely to be a feathered biped and an ocean-dwelling furry thing?  Requiring such fanciful beings to adhere to strict notions of “male” and “female” seems downright silly.  

This, of course, is what really terrifies the fundies.  All their public bluster right now may be about gay marriage, but they’re trained to work in steps, to sneak their Jesus-based version of Sharia law in while regular folks are looking the other way.  Interesting though, isn’t it, that the folks who claim to speak for God have so much less imagination than God does?  I mean, whatever being created this planet had no problem at all with oddities of gender and sexual expression.  This is the being that created earthworms (bisexual hermaphrodites), anemone fish (change their sex so they can mate with whoever happens by), and slime molds (500 different “sexes”).  God obviously doesn’t have a problem with all this stuff, so why do “his” people have such difficulty with it?

You ask me, it’s because organized religion isn’t really the voice of God - it’s the voice of the other guy.

I know I rant all the time about porn, sex work, etc, but you know what I actually think is the number one problem with American governmental policies?  The so-called “War on Drugs.”  We insist on paying lip-service to an ill-thought-out and ineffective policy of prohibition which has the exact same results as prohibition did the last time we tried it - skyrocketing crime and corruption.  What makes it worse is that we (or at least those of us who’re blinded by faith) delude ourselves into thinking the policy is working, because the murderous gangs have not (openly) taken control of *our* towns.  No, we’ve managed to outsource the problem to Mexico and South America, where the death toll on a daily basis rivals (and perhaps exceeds, anybody know for sure?) that in Iraq.

 I have a radical solution to at least part of the problem.  Legalize marijuana…but only for those who grow it themselves.  Voila!  The stoners can legally get what they want, and those who imagine themselves fit to dictate everyone else’s moral standards get uncontrovertable proof that the stoners have paid for their high with the kind of committment and hard work that is allegedly the goal.  Not to mention the respect it would engender for the concept of private property.  Seriously, imagine what a pisser it would be if my idea passed and you spent four or six months caring for your closetful of plants only to have all your primo bud ripped off by your no-good roommate.