REPOST: "What's a woman?"

I'm not sure it's really the government's job to define a gender. But since that's where we're going, here's a relevant re-post from a couple of years ago ...

"What is a woman?"

Trans issues, for some people, have become a sort of "litmus test." Part of the so-called "culture wars." Asking the question "what's a woman?" -- asking it even of Prime Ministers, as a "gotcha" -- has become something of a popular test, a method to confront others in that so-called "war."

Which makes the whole issue tiresome.

And largely obscures the real issues.

What is the real issue? Answer: that everyone is entitled to pursue their own happiness in their own way -- as long as they don't force that on others. Everything else comes from that — including questions about sports and toilets.

In some ways, anti trans-activists are opposed to people pursuing their individual happiness.

In the same way, pro trans-activists are in favour of forcing some people's choices on others.

Both buggers are confused.

Yes, there are some legitimate issues involved here. Medicine can now transform people in some pretty fantastic ways, in ways that help some people see themselves better. It might take some time to get used to that. Some time for both sides and for our human institutions to get used to it, and to all the implications of it. (Sometimes sports and bathroom use might get more complicated because of that.) That doesn't mean shouting at each other about it; it might instead mean thinking about these things a bit more deeply.

Radical, I know.

I'd suggest both sides might think about it a bit more. A lot more. 'Cos both sides, as currently structured, are wrong.

Yes, there is a reliable definition of a woman: a woman is an adult female human being. So far so simple. Without that definition, we'd have no ability to define a girl (young woman), or a lesbian (a woman sexually attracted to women). But let's understand what a definition is: it's not a closed set with firm boundaries. It's a description of what exists in the world, identifying and describing the particular units subsumed under a particular concept, under a given label. But things change. If new things are identified, or created, we can create and recognise new and wider (or narrower) concepts, new labels, and new definitions. So much, so uncomplicated. (Or so you would think.)

Point being that definition comes after existence. Not before. So the definition (adult human female) doesn't thereby determine what that adult should do. Or become. In this context, individual adults themselves come first.

Let's recognise that each person, each adult, is an individual — an individual entitled to pursue their own happiness in their own way. [" ...full respect for the life project of others," as Javier Milei said in his inauguration speech.] Furthermore, let's acknowledge that modern life offers them more choices in that pursuit than ever before. That they might sometimes be mistaken, especially about something as deeply-seated as their sexuality, and they may even need guidance. And they might be wrong. But it is their right to choose — a right however that gives them no special right to force their choices on others.

Maybe we just try respecting each other. How about that, eh? 

How about we all try to act as adults.

"What is a woman?"

Trans issues, for some, have become a "litmus test" as part of the so-called "culture wars." Asking the question "what is  a woman?" -- asking it even of Prime Ministers, as a "gotcha" -- has become a litmus test, a method of confronting others in the so-called "culture wars."

Which makes the whole issue tiresome.

And largely obscures the real issues.

What is the real issue? Answer: that everyone is entitled to pursue their own happiness in their own way -- as long as they don't force that on others. Everything else comes from that. -- including questions about sports and toilets. 

In some ways, anti trans-activists are opposed to people pursuing their individual happiness.

In the same way, pro trans-activists are in favour of forcing some people's choices on others.

Both buggers are confused.

Yes, there are some legitimate issues involved here. Medicine can now transform people in some pretty fantastic ways, in ways that help some people see themselves better.  It might take some time to get used to that. Some time for both sides and our human institutions to get used to it, and to all the implications of it. (Sometimes sports and bathroom use might get more complicated because of that.) That doesn't mean shouting at each other about it; it might instead mean thinking about these things a bit more deeply.

Radical, I know.

I'd suggest both sides might think about it a bit more. A lot more. 'Cos both sides, as currently structured, are wrong.

Yes, there is a reliable definition of a woman: a woman is an adult female human being. So far so simple. Without that definition, we'd have no ability to define a girl (young woman), or a lesbian (a woman sexually attracted to women).  But let's understand what a definition is: it's not a closed set with firm boundaries. It's a description of what exists in the world, identifying and describing the particular units subsumed under a particular concept, under a given label. But things change. If new things are identified, or created, we can create and recognise new and wider (or narrower) concepts, new labels, and new definitions. So much, so uncomplicated. (Or so you would think.)

Point being that definition comes after existence. Not before. So the definition (adult human female)  doesn't thereby determine what that adult should do. Or become. In this context, individual adults themselves come first.

Let's recognise that each person, each adult, is an individual -- an individual entitled to pursue their own happiness in their own way. That modern life offers them more choices in that pursuit than ever before. That they might sometimes be mistaken, especially about something as deeply-seated as their sexuality, and need guidance. And they might be wrong. But it is their right to choose. A right however that gives them no special right to force their choices on others.

Maybe we just try respecting each other. How about that, eh? How about we all try to act as adults.

"The anti-abortionists’ claim to being 'pro-life' is a classic Big Lie."

'Flaming June' by Frederick Leighton

"[Nearly [fif]ty years after Roe V. Wade, no one defends the right to abortion in fundamental, moral terms, which is why the pro-abortion rights forces are on the defensive.
    "Abortion-rights advocates should not cede the terms 'pro-life' and 'right to life' to the anti-abortionists. It is a woman’s right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her pregnancy.
    "Nor should abortion-rights advocates keep hiding behind the phrase 'a woman’s right to choose'” Does she have the right to choose murder? That’s what abortion would be, if the fetus were a person.
    "The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.
    "We must not confuse potentiality with actuality.... That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman’s body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual.
    "('Independent' does not mean self-supporting–a child who depends on its parents for food, shelter, and clothing, has rights because it is an actual, separate human being.)
    "'Rights,' in Ayn Rand’s words, 'do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born.'
    "It is only on this base that we can support the woman’s political right to do what she chooses in this issue. No other person–not even her husband–has the right to dictate what she may do with her own body. That is a fundamental principle of freedom....
    "Abortions are private affairs and often involve painfully difficult decisions with life-long consequences. But, tragically, the lives of the parents are completely ignored by the anti-abortionists. Yet that is the essential issue. In any conflict it’s the actual, living persons who count, not the mere potential of the embryo....
    "The anti-abortionists’ attitude, however, is: 'The actual life of the parents be damned! Give up your life, liberty, property and the pursuit of your own happiness.
    "Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the 'right-to-life.'
    "The anti-abortionists’ claim to being 'pro-life' is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favour of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue.
    "Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life–lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings."

          ~ philosopher Leonard Peikoff, from his article 'Abortion Rights are Pro-Life'

“Rape culture”?

 

Protestors in Wellington today have “come out in force to denounce what they call rape culture,” says Newstalk ZB, demanding “the compulsory teaching of consent in all secondary schools.”

They may be on to something, but perhaps not precisely in the way they think they are.

Moral outrage is high, even as actual numbers of rapes have been diminishing. And not just here, but across the west. Writing at The Undercurrent, student journalist Josh Windham acknowledges that “rape and sexual assault are morally atrocious and profoundly evil. And the idea of a ‘rape culture’ does have its finger on an important issue: that this is a deep cultural problem which cannot be resolved easily by harsher penalties (or by louder protests).”

He argues that “the social factors identified by proponents of the ‘rape culture’ diagnosis are relatively superficial; to focus on them is to ignore the deeper causes of the rapist’s mentality””

Some feminists blame sexism. But while many rapes may be partially motivated by sexism, sexism is not the key element explaining their continued occurrence. There are plenty of sexists who would never dare commit the act of rape…
    It takes the mindset of a criminal to commit the act of rape—the attitude of someone with a one-track mind bent on satisfying his momentary whims, unconcerned with abstract hindrances like the “consent” of others. But why does consent matter?

This is the key, isn’t it. Consent acknowledges the fundamental human faculty of free will – respecting the sanctity of another individual – and clearly “consent is especially important to the value of sexual interaction.”

To rape is to deface a richly rewarding celebration of partnership and love. To rape is to mount another as unscrupulously and mindlessly as a dog would.

So why not teach consent in schools?

Well, why not talk about a culture of consent – and, crucially, understand that consent is fundamental to all human interaction, and its violation has become routine and widespread across the culture. If these students truly wish to discourage what they call a “rape culture,” let them truly understand the vital importance of consent in all human interactions:

Sadly, sexual interactions aren’t the only cases where our culture undervalues the importance of consent. Ask yourself whether you always consider the consent of others in your everyday life. Do you care about the consent of the musician when you download his music without payment? What about the consent of the t-shirt vendor who refuses to sell shirts with your design? Do you consider the consent of the baker when he denies you the cake you would like baked? How about the consent of the restaurant owner whose facility you storm in political protest? Do you care about my consent, when you vote to force me (and everybody else) to buy health insurance, whether I desire it or not?
    To be sure, rape is far worse—far more repugnant—than any of these offenses. But is it different in principle? The dorm-room rapist who bypasses the consent of his intoxicated victim is entirely unconcerned with his victim’s most intimate personal wishes—it’s his will that comes first. And just as the rapist trivialises the mind of his victim by taking command of a body not his own, so does the demonstrator who takes control of a space that isn’t his to occupy, interfering with the lives and careers of others who have the right to use it. The same is true for the healthcare-mandators, the cake-demanders, and even the illegal-downloaders: to one extent or another, their victims are treated as objects to be owned, used, and commanded. The reasoning of the perpetrator in each case is simple and vicious: “I feel like taking this. I’ll take it.”
    If we hope ever to succeed in the battle against sexual assault, it’s this cavalier attitude towards consent that we must fight. For if we consistently permit the use of force in society to run people’s entire lives, how can we possibly expect to be taken seriously when suddenly stressing the importance of consent in cases of non-violent sexual assault?
   The way to combat behaviour like sexual assault is not to speak out against a “rape culture,” but to advocate and foster a culture of consent—not just about sex, but in every area of life. Each of us as individuals must internalize and practice a sincere respect for the lives of others. This demands recognizing the sanctity of the sovereign mind, of the fact that others are not mere fodder for our whims, and that they can never be of value to us if treated as such.

“A culture of consent,” he correctly concludes, “respects the idea that my end does not justify the seizure of your means.”

Yes, let’s all try to understand that, please.

Let’s place consent above compulsion in all its forms.

 

[Pic from The Undercurrent, from creative commons-licensed image courtesy of Flickr user Charlotte Cooper.]

.

Quote of the Day: On feminists and penis envy

 

“Commanding women to be equal to men, when they are not designed to be equal, has not and cannot result in equality. Anyone sending a woman on a journey to be “equal” to men is sending her on a damning journey. Men and women are different, and this is not something to be ashamed of. The male body is better suited for some things and the female body for others. The completion of an adult, morally achieved woman is not an eternal struggle to be like a man. Women are not deformed males: the female form is complete in and of itself, able to achieve moral completion in its own right. A woman who tries to be “equal” to men will find she can only (not) do it by denying, evading, and damning herself for being a woman. She will become frustrated with, jealous of, and hateful towards men. If you can name anything worse to cause a woman to lose her own sensuality, please do. The result will be that instead of revering men, she will be jealous of men. If any woman can be accused of penis envy, it is a feminist.”
~ Amber Pawlik, from her book Objectivist Sexuality: An Outline for Happily Ever After

.

In praise of older women

 

If you’re going to have an affair, recommended Benjamin Franklin in a 1745 letter, then you’d best have it with an older woman.

“… [you] demand my reasons. They are these:

1. Because they have more Knowledge of the world, and their Minds are better stored with Observations; their conversation is more improving, and more lastingly agreeable.

2. Because when Women cease to be handsome, they study to be good. To maintain their Influence over Man, they supply the Diminution of Beauty by an Augmentation of Utility. They learn to do a thousand Services, small and great, and are the most tender and useful of Friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an Old Woman who is not a good Woman.

3. Because there is no hazard of children, which irregularly produced may be attended with much inconvenience.

4. Because through more Experience they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an Intrigue to prevent Suspicion. The Commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your reputation; and regard to theirs, if the Affair should happen to be known, considerate People might be inclined to excuse an old Woman, who would kindly take care of a young Man, form his manners by her good Councils, and prevent his ruining his Health and Fortune among mercenary Prostitutes.

5. Because in every Animal that walks upright, the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part. The Face first grows lank and Wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower parts continuing to the last as plump as ever; so that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old one from a young one. And as in the Dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of Corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal and frequently superior; every Knack being by Practice capable by improvement.

6. Because the sin is less. The Debauching of a Virgin may be her Ruin, and make her Life unhappy.

7. Because the Compunction is less. The having made a young Girl miserable may give you frequent bitter Reflections; none of which can attend making an old Woman happy.

8. 8th & lastly. They are so grateful!!!

Thus much for my Paradox. But still I advise you to marry immediately; being sincerely

Your Affectionate Friend,
Benj. Franklin

Or as it’s now more popularly and pithily said these days ….

 

[Hat tip Stephen Hicks]

.

Sex: What Our Genes Have to Say

Guest post by Doug Hornig, from the Casey Daily Dispatch 

Human sexuality. It's complex and the subject of never-ending debate within our society. Could genetics help shed some light on the issue? Turns out, yes.

Specifically, it has something to say about what our "natural" pattern of mating behaviour might be.

Yes, I put "natural" in quotes because there probably is no such thing. Given human cultural variability, any kind of generalizing is about as useful as classifying flowers by stalk length. But there are a few things of which we are certain.

First of all, humans are unusual in that we're not slaves to an oestrous cycle, as most other mammals are. We get to choose when and where to have sex, with whom, how often, and for what reason.

We also bear children who cannot survive on their own for far longer than is the case with any other species, mandating the continued presence of one or both parents—or some other suitable surrogate—in their lives.

And finally, we are surely the only creature in this corner of the universe whose view of sexuality is so complicated that we feel compelled to make rules about it, frequently knotting it up with legal systems and religious beliefs.

It's that last (as well as the second) point that generally comes into play among people who contend we're biologically meant to form monogamous nuclear families, and the first is usually invoked by those who argue that we're innately promiscuous.

Now traditionally, when we wanted to theorize about how something evolved over the hundreds of millennia of our species' development, we looked at three sources of potentially relevant information: our closest mammalian relatives; the "stones and bones" evidence left by our ancestors; and present-day cultures that seem to most closely mirror prehistoric ones.

With regard to sex, we can study the behaviour of the other apes. The Lar gibbon, for example, has long been thought to be one of the only primate examples of monogamy. While it's true that they tend to form a strong pair bond and live in close-knit families, more recent research has shown mates occasionally philandering and even "dumping" the other. Orangutans are solitary, mate very infrequently, and then go their separate ways; it's kind of a wonder they've survived at all. Gorillas live in social groups, but sex is limited to contact between one dominant male and the females in his "harem."

Our closest relatives, the chimpanzees and bonobos, both have sex with multiple partners. But otherwise, they are very different (the two species are believed to have diverged about two million years ago). Chimps live in a hierarchical society with an alpha male at the top, other males below him, and females at the bottom. Sex is strictly about procreation. The alpha male may become aggressive—involving displays of, or actual, violence—about defending his sexual "rights." This does not prevent females from mating with other males in the group, though it is often done outside of his attention.

Bonobos are a real curiosity. Often politely described as "hypersexual," they engage in recreational sex—like humans and unlike chimps. They do it a lot. There is equality between the sexes and strong female bonding. Sex is used for conflict resolution and as a means of social communication. Bonobos practice both hetero- and homosexuality.

That's a pretty wide range. So not much help there in understanding who we are. The stones and bones don't add much either. They indicate people have lived in groups for a long time, and we can infer that there must have been strong bonds among them, due to the lengthy maturation process for humans and the need to protect them from predators until they could in turn reproduce. A strong male at the centre of things would help ensure survival of the species, but we don't yet know whether he was more likely to exert his influence over one or several mates.

Contemporary "primitive" cultures are likewise varied. Most are monogamous, a significant minority practice polygyny (one male, several females), a few practice polyandry (one female, several males), and a very few don't believe reproduction results from sex at all (the gods decide who gets pregnant and when).

Where does genetics play into all this? In her recent book, Paleofantasy, Marlene Zuk—a professor of ecology, evolution, and behaviour at the University of Minnesota—explains.

First, Dr. Zuk dispels a common misconception, the use of "evolution" and "natural selection" as synonyms. Evolution is the change in a species over time, whereas natural selection is one of the four mechanisms by which evolution proceeds. The other three are genetic drift, gene flow, and mutation.

Genetic drift is the alteration of gene frequencies through chance events. Suppose a population has an equal number of big-eared and small-eared people, with no evolutionary advantage conferred by ear size. One year, while the big-eared people are having their annual conclave, a tornado comes through and kills them all. But the small-eared people, having their own party a mile away, are spared. Henceforth, just by chance, small ears will predominate. That's genetic drift.

Gene flow is just the movement of individuals and their genes from place to place, thereby altering the gene frequencies of the group they move in and mate with.

Mutations, in Dr. Zuk's words, are "changes in genes that are the result of environmental or internal hiccups that are then passed on to offspring." These alterations are "usually harmful, simply because random changes to complex machinery are rarely an improvement."

While the other three are important, it's natural selection that primarily drives evolution.

Another misconception Dr. Zuk notes is the widespread belief that humans are fully evolved, and that we are only trivially different from our cave-dwelling ancestors (an attitude that has given rise to the current fad for the so-called "paleo diet," which is supposed to be more "natural," in light of our history).

This is demonstrably untrue, Dr. Zuk argues. Evolution doesn't have a purpose, nor does it strive for perfection. It had no intent to produce such an amazingly adaptable species as humans. Evolution just keeps on keeping on. Natural selection decrees that traits that improve the likelihood of being passed on (or are neutral) tend to survive; any that diminish that possibility tend to fade away.

Moreover, the time frame for dramatic change can be significantly shorter than many people think.

As an example, Dr. Zuk cites lactose tolerance. As infants, we're raised on mother's milk, which requires the ability to digest lactose. That's accomplished by an enzyme called lactase, the production of which is genetically controlled. However, Zuk notes, "lactase production in all non-human mammals, and in most humans as well, grinds to a near halt sometime after weaning."

Thus the "natural" human state is to be lactose intolerant as adults. Which was inconsequential, until we started domesticating animals about 8,000 - 9,000 years ago. At that time, people began consuming the milk of cows, goats, and sheep, and later made fermented milk products like cheese and yogurt. To do that successfully, they needed lactase persistence, which results when "the gene responsible for producing lactase continues to be active because of a mutation in another genetic region that ordinarily curtails the enzyme."

How lactase persistence became widely established—it's exhibited by about 35% of the modern world's population—was a long-time puzzle that wasn't solved until this century, when we became adept at reading the messages in our genetic structure. The details of the research are a bit technical, but the conclusion is simple: it was an adaptation due to natural selection that favoured individuals who could already digest milk, rather than a chance occurrence of genetic drift. Genetic flow was also involved, as newly lactose-tolerant individuals migrated into areas where people didn't already use milk.

And it all happened in the merest blink of the evolutionary eye, which turns out to be not that hard. Anthropologists have calculated that as little as a 3% increase in the reproductive fitness of those with lactase persistence would result in the widespread distribution of the gene after only 300-350 generations—8,000 or so years—roughly the amount of time animal milk has been available as a food source.

But back to sex, and the eternal question.

As science historian Eric Johnson colourfully puts it: "Were our ancestors polygamists, monogamists, or happy sluts?" Disappointingly (for those who've been expecting a payoff), we still don't know for certain. But genetic studies provide at least a partial answer.

Some current researchers in the field have been looking at genetic diversity in human chromosomes. As most people know by now, a person's sex is determined by the interplay between X and Y chromosomes. (Precisely how that works is something that isn't fully understood to this day, but selection for males seems largely due to the action of a single male-directed gene, SRY, on the Y chromosome.)

We all have one pair of sex-related chromosomes, called allosomes, along with 22 pairs of non-sex-related chromosomes, called autosomes. The smallest chromosome contains about 300 genes, while the largest contains about 8,000—for approximately 25,000 genes in total. And within that genetic makeup lies our diversity. There are differences between any given individual and the next, and among groups. Natural selection acts upon this diversity, with characteristics appearing and disappearing according to how likely those who inherit them are to make it to reproductive age.

Women have two X chromosomes (XX) and men have XY, so mothers always pass an X on to their children, while men pass one only to their daughters. Thus, women contribute disproportionately to the genetic diversity on the X chromosome, and what they do contribute will remain relatively stable, no matter their mating behaviour. On the autosomes, however, the genetic diversity will vary according to the number of men contributing. More men mating with a given female population = greater diversity; fewer men mating with that same population = reduced diversity.

So, one way of determining who was doing it with whom, historically, is to examine the genetic variability of autosomes as it relates to that of the X chromosome. This involves complex mathematical analysis, the gist of which is: If they track each other closely, then that means people were mating either monogamously or promiscuously, i.e., in both scenarios any given male had a roughly equal chance of producing children, compared with any other male. If guys made it to sexual maturity, they probably reproduced with someone.

But when the researchers picked our chromosomes apart, what they found was a relatively lower level of diversity among the autosomes, as compared with diversity among the allosomes.

This means that fewer men were contributing to the pool, which means that many were shut out entirely, which means we now know that some variation of polygyny has been a very common form of mating behaviour. It's written in our genes.

It doesn't mean, however, that prehistoric social groups were the gorilla-like beings of popular mythology, with alpha males hauling more than their share of available mates back to the cave.

Keep in mind that research in this area is very new, and at the moment it only extends back 10,000 years or so. That time frame marks the dawn of the agricultural revolution, fixed settlements, and the stockpiling of food and material goods. These are developments that favour polygyny, as the more affluent males accumulate the means to support multiple wives or mistresses and the power to keep them, while other men are left childless.

Delimiting what sort of sexual behaviour prevailed before that time will have to await further research, as we decipher the genetic code of ever more ancient humans. It could go either way. It's possible that the strong genetic evidence for polygyny only emerged since the invention of agriculture—as we saw with lactose tolerance, changes can happen quite fast—and that, prior to that time, we were mostly monogamous. But it's also possible that the genetic remnants of our polygynous past have actually declined over the past 10 millennia, as more and more groups began to adopt monogamy, for whatever reasons.

We're left with an intriguing mix of fact and speculation. But whatever the case, overall, the science of genetics is booming like never before…

Doug Hornig is the senior editor at the Casey Daily Dispatch, where this post first appeared.

Quote of the Day: On Marriage

I liked this observation on marriage made by a character in Philip Roth’s novel I Married a Communist, discussing the alleged excitement of adultery. “‘He didn’t let on to me,” says the character about his wandering brother, “because he damn well knew my thoughts on adultery. I’d already told him more times than he liked to hear,

 ‘The excitement in marriage is the fidelity. If that idea doesn’t excite you, you have no business being married.’”
                  - Philip Roth, I Married A Communist

Is this photo grounds for death? [updated]

Should this photo be grounds for death?

It is in a Moslem country:

Two weeks ago, a young Tunisian woman known only by the name “Amina” posted political self portraits to Facebook to protest the continued oppression of women in the Arab world’s first democracy.
    Posing topless, one photo (right) featured Amina smoking with the Arabic declaration “my body belongs to me, and is not the source of the honour of anyone” scrawled across her chest; the other showed Amina standing defiantly, her middle fingers raised to camera, and the English words “F--- your morals” blaring out from her body

What happened next explains why religion must be separated from the state—and why “democracy” is just another word for mob rule: the young lady was arrested, denounced by her “dishonoured” family (“Amina does not exist anymore for me,” said her aunt; “I hope she pays for her actions,” said her father), and thrown into a psychiatric hospital, where her fate now rests on the decisions of folk like the outraged Wahhabi Salafi preacher who heads the sharia state’s “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, who declares“Amina”

should be punished according to sharia, with 80 to 100 lashes, but [because of] the severity of the act she has committed, she deserves be stoned to death.

Stoned to death! For what?  For “giving ideas to other women.”

And even if her life isn’t made forfeit by barbarians who demonstrate the very point made by her protest, she still faces two years in prison.  For what? For rejecting the barbarous cultural mores of her society and demanding her rights.

Is this photo really grounds for death?  It is in any place ruled by the Moslem religion.

UPDATE: A relevant book recommendation:

"Infidel is an inspiring story that should be read by everyone in the West. Those who do not yet understand how backward the world of Islam is will gain crucial knowledge in this regard, and all readers will enjoy the rare spectacle of a true heroine in thought and action—a heroine who concretizes clearly what we are fighting for." 
            – Heike Larsen, “Book Review: Infidel”

Sexual Consent in the new world

Simon Power’s been watching films like this one:

Funny Videos | Funny Cartoons | More Video Clips

Get your  sexual consent forms here. Even if it does ruin the sex.

Sexual ethics

I’m just overhearing a discussion on Leighton  Smith’s radio show that encompasses teenage vaccines, teenage sex, and the importance of being a virgin at marriage.

Most of the callers, not to mention the host, seem to have the lemon-sucking idea that abstinence is some sort of moral virtue; that sex outside marriage is wrong: that non-married persons must avoid promiscuous sex because the act of sex is bad – an idea derived largely from bogus religious morality, and promoted by Puritans everywhere.

Uuugh!

I’d like to contrast that with Objectivist morality, which suggests that one shouldn’t be promiscuous because sex is so good.

I’d like to point you to a good discussion of Ayn Rand’s view of monogamy.  And I’d like to point you to a good Objectivist fisking of the idea of virginity.  So I will:

• Ayn Rand on Monogamy
• ( Second) Virgnity

Hot female candidates

Not, I'm sure, that any of you will be interested at all, but I feel obliged to point out that Cactus Kate and UnPC Lesbian have ranked the female candidates at this election for hotness -- from two different perspectives, of course. 

A few surprises in both lists.  The most surprising to me is seeing Nanaia Mahuta appear on such a list. 

I'd always thought she was a man.

And since there's another election next week, and I point this out purely as a public service you understand, why not check out the hottest candidate for President: Paris Hilton. 

Paris for President.

Let's do it.

In case you were wondering what all those athletes get up to in the Olympic village once their events are over ... the answer is yes, they do.  A lot. It's all here in the Times story: 'Sex & the Olympic City.'

As 'Joe' says in the comments, it should be all the news teenagers need to take sporting success more seriously.

Now *this* is what I call sport ...

I freely confess I couldn't give a flying fig for soccer's Euro '08 competition -- in my book, soccer is only beaten out by golf for the accolade of world's most boring ball game -- but this definitely looks  eye catching (if not, considering the cold, eye threatening): the topless women's Euro soccer match between Austria and Germany.

This really must be what they mean by 'the beautiful game.'  [Hat tip Dave Gee.]

Something in the English beer?

Something must be in the beer in England. Notes Fleshbot (sometimes NSFW):

In the last few months, men in England have been arrested for attempting to have sex with a bicycle, a fence, a vacuum cleaner and now ... a lamp post. We don't know what's going on over there, but maybe a certain governor could recommend some alternative forms of entertainment for these fellows?

Perhaps if any travelling English cricket supporters could tear themselves away for a moment from rending their garments and checking out the household appliances, they could let us know what's going on here?  Cheers.

Politics is broken...

...and apparently the cure could be more totty.  Fleshbot figures that if recruiting candidates like Alina Kabayeva (right) whose chief qualifications for candidacy are that they are sexy and female worked for Vladimir Putin, then surely it can work for "Libertarian or Green parties" they say.  "If Libertarian or Green parties had thought of this tactic," they say, "we wouldn't be in the state we're in now." 

Suitable libertarian candidates for this year's elections might like to contact me for an interview.

[Thanks to GP for the link.  Moderately NSFW.]

Safety clothing essential

A man on the job is a man in need of some serious workwear.  This spicey, satirical commercial [moderately NSFW] got Britain's Daily Mail readers all hot and bothered when, 'twas reported, pupils at a private school discovered their English teacher Sarah Green was featured in the "'shocking soft-porn" ad for hard-wearing workwear.  Fortunately, exposure such as this from the Mail has meant inattentive pupils and blog readers like yourself who hadn't yet seen the clip won't miss out.

The nude top twenty

For everyone who's been wondering about the top twenty nude scenes in 2007 -- and frankly, who hasn't -- then here's your answer. And here's the worst, in fact the ten worst nude scenes ever. (Here's a hint: Borat scores well.)

I wonder which link will prove more popular.

Beer O’Clock – Good News, Bad News

Neil Miller from Realbeer dishes out brickbats and bouquets to two of the countries biggest brewers...

First, the Bad News: Speight’s have apparently decided to discontinue their Pilsner, Pale Ale and Porter. These three beers in their craft range were fine examples of what big breweries could do when they put their expertise to good use and the Speight’s Porter, in particular, was technically a fine drop.

Quite why the craft beers have been discontinued and are now disappearing off the shelves rapidly is unclear. I have heard stories of poor sales, brand confusion or even an infection in the trademark kauri gyles.

I fear it was because the craft beers were hard work to make and less profitable for the company – real ingredients cost real money after all. It is unfortunate that these beers are being quietly dropped at exactly the same time Speight’s is investing heavily in promoting their “Shipping a Speight’s Ale House to London” campaign. Unfortunately, by the time the Speight’s Ale House arrives, there'll be little worth pouring out of the taps.

With the sad demise of the Pilsner and Porter, it is perhaps time to unveil my (unwitting) role in their launch. I have this story from an impeccable source in the liquor industry though I can not obviously verify it entirely.

At one of the first Brew New Zealand beer shows – held in the Victoria University Staff Club, no less – I was an eager young acolyte being schooled by my Beer Mentor Dr Girven.

At the end of the show, the organisers said people should finish their drinks and leave. We carefully manoeuvred ourselves in front of the unguarded Speight’s taps and cunningly continued to fill up our cups behind our backs. I drank the Pilsner, he drank the Porter. We continued to pour until both kegs were finished and we politely took our leave.

Unbeknownst to us, the beer show was apparently a test run for the beers. If they were finished, the beers would be added to the permanent range. So, our surreptitious consumption – which I’m sure everyone noticed – may have played some part in getting these products to market, for five years at least.

And now, the Good News: Kudos for Tui for putting their considerable marketing support in behind the Movember campaign. This includes new billboards (“I can grow one, I just choose not to”) and the new Mo Trimming teams.

Tui says Movember

has afforded Kiwi lads a unique and irreverent way to comfortably communicate and support a charity that addresses a serious health issue for New Zealand males – Prostate Cancer.

Obviously Tui was stoked to be given the nod to partner Movember in 2007 as an official sponsor, building on the previous success of raising awareness and funding. And in more good news, the Tui Brewery Girls are so fired up they've offered their Mo trimming services for the month as the Official Tui Mowing Service -- similar to 'Jim's Mowing' but equipped only with hair trimmers and little in the way of protective clothing.

“Joking aside,"says unusually serious Brand Manager Jarrod Bear, "I believe it is fantastic that the conservatism that surrounds a serious men’s health issue in NZ can be broken down through the innovative, irreverent Movember campaign. And if Tui can add value to this campaign, that is bloody brilliant!”

Movember is huge this year. My inbox has been weighed down with invitations to sponsor guys looking to emulate Tom Selleck or – heaven forbid – Michael Laws. These include noted beer scribe Cam Williamson and hardened Radler drinker Mike Heine. My friend Grant takes every opportunity to grow dodgy facial hair so this charity was made for him. However, I worry that my mate Goldie will spend all month growing his mo… and no one will be able to tell.

Cheers and best of luck lads, Neil

No rooting on Singapore-Sydney route

Isn't asking people not to have sex in Singapore Airlines' new Airbus, newly fitted out with double beds in first class on the Singapore-Sydney route, sort of like a making a public statement that if you want to join the Mile High Club in comfort then 'The Singapore Girl' is the airline to book with?