Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for January 25th, 2011

…changes aren’t permanent, but change is. –  Pye Dubois and Neil Peart, “Tom Sawyer”

Who Did Your Tits? (October 1st)

As those who remember this column already know, I can deeply sympathize with any woman who gets a boob job, whether for personal reasons or for business reasons.  And though I wouldn’t do it myself, I can even understand why a woman might want more than one boob job so as to be even larger.  But I have a lot of trouble comprehending why anyone would feel the need for SIX boob jobs by the age of 23, nor for that matter why it took her five surgeries to get to the same size I reached in one jump despite the fact that I was pretty flat-chested to start.  And to have the surgery against medical advice in a desperate bid for publicity is just sad.  Requiescat in pace, you poor, misguided little kitten.

Jezebel (November 6th)

I touched on a number of topics in this column, but one of them was self-appointed guardians of the public morality who belong to groups like “Morality in Media”.  Well, the Marriott corporation has apparently decided to kiss up to such groups in an attempt to make itself appear “family friendly”.  This is paraphrased from a story which appeared in USA Today on January 20th:

Marriott International reports that it’s removing access to adult movies from the new hotel rooms it will be opening the next several years.  The decision coincides with a pending shift to new, in-room entertainment technology, and comes after years of discussion on whether the availability of adult entertainment in guest rooms is “appropriate” and whether secure safeguards exist to keep it away from children.  But it’s certainly no coincidence that in-room porn, for years a reliable money-maker for hotels, has been steadily declining in popularity (and thus profitability) as business travelers increasingly turn to cheaper self-provided entertainment (or simply access porn via the hotel’s broadband internet connection).

According to Marriott’s statement, “It is our practice to keep adult content out of the reach of children and unavailable to any adult who chooses not to view it.  We have strong controls in place that allow guests to block these materials. Changing technology and how guests access entertainment has reduced the revenue hotels and their owners derive from in-room movies, including adult content.  We are working with in-room entertainment providers and technology vendors to transition to the next generation of in-room entertainment.  This new platform of Internet-based video-on-demand will facilitate our exit from the traditional hotel video systems that included adult content in the menu selection, and will also provide guests greater choice and control over what they watch across our system.  As we transition to this new platform, adult content will be off the menu for virtually all of our newly built hotels.  Over the next few years, this will be the policy across our system.”

When I showed this story to my husband (who frequently travels on business) he pointed out that another reason for the decline is that adult movies are always much more expensive than the other options, which is not only a financial disincentive but causes these selections to stand out on the hotel bill even though the name of the movie does not appear.  Obviously, Marriott’s discontinuing in-room porn is the equivalent of a sneaky Catholic schoolboy trying for an easy Lenten penance by giving up a type of candy he no longer likes.

Welcome To Our World (January 20th)

Just a few days ago I wrote about women in other walks of life being on the receiving end of the same kind of rhetoric whores endure constantly, then yesterday the Guardian was kind enough to provide me with another example I’ve paraphrased here:

Protesters blockaded the main entrance of New Scotland Yard in London in a demonstration against undercover police officers having sex with members of groups they infiltrate.  The protest followed the revelation by former undercover cop Mark Kennedy, reported in the Observer Sunday (January 23rd) that undercover operatives attempting to infiltrate environmental and left-wing activist groups routinely use sex as a tool to blend in and gather intelligence.

Anna Jones, who was among 35 protesters at the headquarters of the Metropolitan police, said: “These women were not able to give informed sexual consent.”  Another demonstrator, Leila Deen, asked a young male staff member:  “Did you know your agents were using sex with women like us to get information?  It is a clear abuse of public office.”

The protesters carried pictures of the undercover police officers identified in reports along with placards with slogans such as “Keep your truncheon in your trousers.”  They demanded that other undercover officers should be identified.  “We want a fully independent judged inquiry into the way undercover policing is being conducted in this country,” said Kate Blagojevic.

The Association of Chief Police Officers claimed last week that operatives were absolutely forbidden to sleep with activists, but Kennedy denied that and said that senior officers encouraged the behavior; the only stipulation was that falling in love was considered highly unprofessional because it might compromise an investigation.

Hmm, cops having sex with women under false pretenses in order to bust them; now where have I heard about that before?  Welcome to our world, environmental activists!  And BTB, policemen, there’s a word for a man obtaining sex from a woman by force (deception, after all,  is a mild form of force) that she cannot be persuaded to give by other means, especially when his intent is to hurt her by means of that sex.

Read Full Post »