Misc. Ramblings 2012
Since the original Misc. Ramblings was getting so long I decided to give it a chapter break.
Talk about over the top. An English seven-year-old girl who got a 6000 pound gift certificate for a breast enlargement on her birthday last year got a 7000 pound gift certificate in her Christmas stocking for liposuction. The fifty-one year-old mother has spent 500,000 pounds on her own body over the years. She spent another 6,000 pounds on the girls birthday party which included manicures, pedicures and make-overs for her daughter and seven of her daughter's friends. FYI - a British pound is roughly equal to $1.55 U.S.
This is rich. The Greek government explanded their list of the disabled to include pedophiles, exhibitionists, and kleptomaniacs, and pay them a disability allowance. Some Greeks have a problem with that. I wonder, do they get special parking slots too?
Slut shaming, I never heard the expression until I saw the video on You Tube. The practice has been around for a long time, it just never had a name. It was wrong when I was young and it is wrong today. We still live in the dark ages when it come to being labeled by our actions. A guy that has multiple sex partners is a stud while a girl who has multiple partners is a slut. We all know guys seduce while girls "put out." Someday equality may come, but don't hold your breath. This is a must see video made by a thirteen-year-old, braces and all. She speaks the truth, see for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXH2K7OC37s
A six-year-old boy was charged with sexual assault by the school principal when the boy accidentally brushed up against the groin of another boy in a game of tag. The boy was suspended from school and the sexual battery charge entered on his permanent school record. The parents had to hire a lawyer who pointed out there is no such law against a six-year-old in California. The sex charge was purged from his school record and he was reinstated at another school. Isn't it sad that people this dumb are put in charge of our youth?
Off topic. A fifteen-year-old autistic boy was shot to death by police in Chicago, Il after he threatened them with a butter knife. After an internal investigation by the police the shooting was ruled justified. Fifteen? Autistic? Butter knife? Justified? Aww, come-on now. Somewhat the same thing happened in my town when a man threatened the police with a knife and was shot to death. That verdict was even more laughable, it was ruled "suicide-by-cop." How's that for a made up justification?
The super bowl was this past weekend which brings to mind: Prime time TV. Serial killings, murder, mayhem, slaughter, buckets of blood, gore, evisceration, disembowel, decapitation, disfigurement, skinning alive and dead, all good clean American fun. And people wonder why our culture is so violent prone. Show one nipple and that's a fining offense by the U.S. Government. I guess they are afraid if thirteen year old boys see that they will immediately pull out their willie and pound the pud right in front of their parents and the local vicar, or perhaps run out and rape the first girl they see. One can only wonder how many children who saw Ms. Jackson's nipple will require psychiatric treatment when they are adults. There is a very good article explaining why we are where we are with the exposure of the breast in public at:http://sexhysteria.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/breast-shame-tradition-deception-and-the-money-trail/
For those of you who want a representation of naked youth without the hassle of Homeland Security kicking down your door I suggest you look into Llardo's fantasy series of fairy figurines. The model they used had to be twelve with the prettiest budding breasts you ever seen. I was pleasantly surprised to see them at Macy's.
Here is another site that caved into outside pressure concerning content of minors in possibly suggestive situations. I worry that some day ASSTR will also ban stories concerning minors in sexual situations.
At reddit we care deeply about not imposing ours or anyone elses' opinions on how people use the reddit platform. We are adamant about not limiting the ability to use the reddit platform even when we do not ourselves agree with or condone a specific use. We have very few rules here on reddit; no spamming, no cheating, no personal info, nothing illegal, and no interfering the site's functions. Today we are adding another rule: No suggestive or sexual content featuring minors.
In the past, we have always dealt with content that might be child pornography along strict legal lines. We follow legal guidelines and reporting procedures outlined by NCMEC. We have taken all reports of illegal content seriously, and when warranted we made reports directly to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who works directly with the FBI. When a situation is reported to us where a child might be abused or in danger, we make that report. Beyond these clear cut cases, there is a huge area of legally grey content, and our previous policy to deal with it on a case by case basis has become unsustainable. We have changed our policy because interpreting the vague and debated legal guidelines on a case by case basis has become a massive distraction and risks reddit being pulled in to legal quagmire.
As of today, we have banned all subreddits that focus on sexualization of children. Our goal is to be fair and consistent, so if you find a subreddit we may have missed, please message the admins. If you find specific content that meets this definition please message the moderators ofthe subreddit, and the admins.
We understand that this might make some of you worried about the slippery slope from banning one specific type of content to banning other types of content. We're concerned about that too, and do not make this policy change lightly or without careful deliberation. We will tirelessly defend the right to freely share information on reddit in any way we can, even if it is offensive or discusses something that may be illegal. However, child pornography is a toxic and unique case for Internet communities, and we're protecting reddit's ability to operate by removing this threat. We remain committed to protecting reddit as an open platform.
The referenced article is absolutely scary. The FBI has arrested a man for possession of child pornography without any photos of naked or sexually explicit children. His offence was posting suggestive comments on Facebook. It reminds me of the quote by Martin Neimoller, "First they came for the...." First it was photos of children with emphasis on their genitals or sexually explicit poses. Then it was any photo of a naked child. Then it could be taking pictures of children at a playground. Now you don't even need a photo. Tis a slippery slope we are sliding down. When will "Lolita" by Nabokov be banned for being too suggestive?http://www.freep.com/article/20120229/NEWS03/120229035/southfield-child-pornography-FBI-Facebook
There has been a lot of talk about birth control in the news lately. There are some who believe any birth control is against gods will and are doing everything in their power to make it difficult to get. First, from what I have read, the U.S. birth control mainly uses The Pill. Why? I don't know, probably because there is a lot of money to be made. It is not the most effective method on the market. The best is the latest IUD prescribed extensively in Europe. Here is a chilling statistic. Teen pregnancy (Children 15 to 19 y.o.) for the U.S. is over 50 per thousand. For children in Italy, that mecca of Catholicism the rate is 5 per thousand. Either those kids sure know how to say no or they use birth control even if it is against their religion. I wonder which is correct.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079321
This article has haunted me since I read it. A sixteen-year-old Moroccan girl committed suicide rather then continue being married to the man that raped her when she was fifteen. How, in heavens, could a court condemn the teenage victim to live life with the man that raped her? What kind of screwed up law is that? Here is their reasoning, according to their thinking a woman who loses her virginity before marriage brings dishonor to her family. The answer is... make the girl marry the man that took her virginity...in this case the rapist. I guess there was no law against rape if he marries the woman because the man got off scot-free. And what kind of family would go along with that? I would be inclined to cut the man's genitals off and make him eat it. The article gets me so upset that it is impossible for me to give you the whole sordid details.
Will this insanity ever end? Now we have "gateway sex laws" Do you know what gateway sex is? Just like gateway drugs it is actions that supposedly lead to sex such as touching any erogenous zone. Teachers and educators are so hamstrung in the state of Tennessee (Yes, the same state that brought us the Scopes monkey trial.) that they might as well throw any kind of sex education out the window or face the possibility of a law suit from parents. I can see this not ending well. It is a proven fact that teaching abstinence only does not work with states that have these laws also have a higher than average teen pregnancy rates. Gateway sex laws will only keep the children even more ignorant of sex just when their hormones are running amok. What gets me is that Tennessee has the nation's highest teen birth rate and they think absence only teaching is the answer, not the cause. Read the entire story at: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/12/11668279-new-tennessee-law-aims-to-curb-teaching-gateway-sexual-activity?lite
I like to keep my stories as factual as possible with the background material. I went out on a limb with Servant Two-thirty-six in proposing the CIA had a drug to override free will. Well thanks to one of my readers she told me that there is a drug that will do just that, it is called Burundanga. You can read about it and the folk lore surrounding it at: http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/burundanga.asp
It is time to get up in arms again. As reported on the Huffington Report the five salons of Uni K Waxing in New York is offering fifty percent off their usual price for a bikini waxing in the month of July. The catch is that the sale is only for girls fifteen and under. Naturally some people have a problem with this, or maybe it was a slow news day. First off what's the big deal if a girl under fifteen gets a waxing to remove the hair that might stray out from under her bikini? You would think that the fundies would be more upset about the girls wearing itty-bitty bikinis on public beaches. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/uni-k-waxing-deal-young-girls_n_1653591.html
This leads into my second story:
In a study by Knox College in Galesburg Illinois, girls as young as six think of themselves as sex objects and would prefer to dress up in sexy clothes. The study blames this on the media and moms for hyping sexy images. The news report blames TV shows like Toddlers and Tiaras and clothing manufactures with products that promote adult style bra and panty sets for four to twelve-year-old girls. It is a very interesting read. BTW - note the picture with the heading "Newly single celebs" at the lower left of the article. They couldn't pick a better picture to prove the media promotes the sexualization of women.
When I read a blurb on Reddit about fetus masturbation I thought for sure it was a spoof, but then I Googled the subject and found several articles describing just such an act. Some say yes it is happening and some say no. If true, this forms our sexuality long before the sixteen to eighteen that our politicians like to think is an appropriate age for sex and predates Freud's observed orgasms in children as young as eighteen months. Hopefully someone will bring sensibility to preteen sex like they are to gay sex, oral sex, and racially mixed sex.
After reading that the last abortion clinic in Mississippi is fighting to stay open I thought that if instead of saying that a baby is God's gift to humanity and must be born under all circumstances they should turn it around and say all unwanted pregnancies was the work of the devil. I bet there would be an abortion clinic on every street corner down south. One of the worse things that ever happened to humanity was mixing sexuality with religion. I recently read that only eleven percent of U.S. brides are virgins. Thankfully they are not enforcing Deuteronomy 21 and 22. There would be a wholesale slaughter of our unwed female population.
Also in the news recently was the plight of the twenty-two-year-old man caught having sex with a seventeen-year-old. They could not charge the man with rape of a minor because the state in which he was in the teenager could consent to sex when she was seventeen, but they threw him in jail for having a picture of her in the buff. Such are the screwy sex laws in the US.
An interesting take on the age of consent copied from:
The current debate on age of consent falls into roughly four camps (note that these are very loosely defined and much overlap and tangled line-drawing occurs):
The conservative position (not the political term "conservative" but rather, conservative meaning in favor of the status quo or minimal change) holds that current age of consent laws are appropriate and should be enforced as they stand. This would segue into a radical conservative position holding that jurisdictions with lower ages of consent should bring themselves up to parity with jurisdictions with higher ones.
The revisionist position holds that, while age of consent in itself is a valid and desirable concept, the current numbers are too high or unrealistic and should be revised downwards.
The radical position holds that the concept of age of consent should be eliminated completely.
The replacement position holds that the concept of age of consent is not valid for its purported purpose and should be replaced with another system of determining capability to legally consent. The replacements most typically take the form of some type of preparation or education, examination or empirically gradable "test" to determine whether an individual is ready, sometimes coupled with licensing schemes.
It's that time of year again, Christmas toys are being promoted. For I think the third year, a toy manufacture has come out with a doll that suckles on a fake breast. Because U.S of.A. parents are so concerned that their snowflakes not learn what breasts are for the doll will not be sold in America.
In "Mail Online" of Nov 21 the headline read:
"Sex therapists call for legalisation of 'virtual' child porn to 'relieve paedophiles' urges"
The therapists urge legislation to allow drawings of underage children to give pedophiles an outlet to reduce their interests in actual child nudity. The current legislation was passed in 2002 because they felt virtual representation was becoming too realistic. I seem to remember that child pornography was outlawed so that the children were not abused into displaying themselves so I could never understand why they outlawed virtual images also since no child was abused.
To read the whole story go to:
One of my readers sent me a URL to a Wikileaks site entitled "An insight into child pornography." It is a long, and at time technically over my head article. The author has explained a heck of a lot better than I can what is wrong with the current state of legal and illegal affairs covering child sexuality. By making nude child photos illegal the legislators have taken it out of the hands of artistic photographers such as Jock Sturges and David Hamilton, and sent it underground into the hands of the underworld and gangsters who really don't give a damn if the child is sexually abused as long as they make them money. I find it ironic that the laws made to protect children turn them into criminals by prosecuting them as adults while they are as young as 14 for sexting nude picture of themselves to friends. It is well worth the time to read the whole article and I thank the reader who sent me the URL. If you know of articles on the Internet germane to the subject of child sexuality, please drop me a line. To read the article on Wikileaks go to:
When you care enough to send the very best
Hallmark card came out with a birthday card for a thirteen-year-old in Britain. The verse reads:
"You're 13 today. If you had a boyfriend he'd give you diamonds and rubies. Well maybe next year you will - when you've bigger boobies!"
I thought it funny, but then again people say I have a strange sense of humor. The parents of the thirteen-year-old snowflakes didn't and complained loud and clear to Hallmark who took it off the market with an apology. You can read the whole story at:
To wrap up the year there was an article on Yahoo, thirty-five things banned this year. It was a year to further cocoon our precious snowflakes from the evils of sex. Here are the ones pertaining to children:
1, Flamin' Hot Cheetos were banned in schools in California, New Mexico and Illinois.
2. Madonna's "Girls gone wild" was rated for 18 or older viewers on Youtube.
3. England's government took offense with an apparel website labeling it pornographic and exploitive for portraying too young looking models even though all the models are over eighteen. It was based on a single complaint.
4. In May Vogue magazine self censored themselves for using models as young as fourteen.
5. In January a Pennsylvania school banned the students from wearing Ugg boots because they could sneak their cell phones into class.
6. New Jersey banned hugging between students. (We all know hugging is a gateway move to necking, petting and, ugh, screwing.)
7. A British school girl was banned from wearing her long hair in the shape of a bow on the top of her head because the rules clearly state, no ribbons.
8. A child in Oklahoma was forced to turn his tee shirt inside out because it was a team shirt for an out of state sports team.
9. Girls at a Connecticut Catholic school now have to wear pants because the previous skirts showed too much leg.
10. A boy of Scottish decent was not allowed to wear a kilt to his prom because it looked too girlish.
11. Don't wear baggy pants in Cocoa Fl; it is against a city ordinance passed this year to keep boys from wearing their pants low on their hips.
12. A Minnesota school asked girls not to wear leggings and yoga skirts because they are too distracting. (To the teachers?)
13. Across the country too high of a hem line was banned on prom dresses.
14. In Colorado a school banned too sexy of pictures from the school book publication as being unprofessional.
15. (And the worst of all) Utah passed a law making abstinence only the only sex education that can be taught in school. (It is a fact that states that push abstinence only education have a higher teen birth rate than those that teach about contraception and STD.)
While on this subject, I watched a documentry on Showtime titled "Sexy Baby" a film about three women and the trials and tribulations of sex in the USA. The one I found most interesting was about a twelve-year-old girl and how she is bombarded with suggestive music videos, racy lyrics, implied sexual advertising, and hard core internet porn. How her parents try to cope with their daughter who wants to be sexy, and wants to dress slutty like her friends. How they try to give her free rein, but need to rein her in at times. When one hears about child sexual abuse one naturally thinks of a child being forced into sexual situations. Maybe the truth is the child needs an outlet for his or her newfound sexuality. Perhaps the bigger child sexual abuse is forcing a child into believing that all their natural sexual instincts are a sin and their naked body a dirty filthy thing.
To all my readers, I wish you a happy New Year.
I appreciate all comments about this site or its stories. Plaese take a minute to tell me what you think.
You can use the ASSTR email system by clicking here:
Send me email directly at:
If you email me direct and do not want me to reply please add "Do Not Reply" to your email