Appalled beyond belief
Dec. 2nd, 2004 12:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
annathepiperThese two news bits from today leave me so appalled it's not even funny. They're political, so if you're not in the mood to deal, better skip this one.
First up: if I ever get published, guess I'm not going to be on the shelves in Alabama public libraries! Neither are a whole host of other writers, if one lawmaker gets his way:
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1101896768316400.xml
Gay book ban goal of state lawmaker
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
KIM CHANDLER
News staff writer
The Birmingham (Alabama) News
MONTGOMERY - An Alabama lawmaker who sought to ban gay marriages now wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.
A bill by Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, would prohibit the use of public funds for "the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle." Allen said he filed the bill to protect children from the "homosexual agenda."
"Our culture, how we know it today, is under attack from every angle," Allen said in a press conference Tuesday.
Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed.
"I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them," he said.
A spokesman for the Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center called the bill censorship.
"It sounds like Nazi book burning to me," said SPLC spokesman Mark Potok.
Allen pre-filed his bill in advance of the 2005 legislative session, which begins Feb. 1.
If the bill became law, public school textbooks could not present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn't offer books with gay or bisexual characters.
When asked about Tennessee Williams' southern classic "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof," Allen said the play probably couldn't be performed by university theater groups.
[more at URL]
And here's another wonderbunny of a news report. The last paragraph is particularly choice.
Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html
By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 2, 2004; Page A01
Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found.
Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis, released yesterday, which reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
In providing nearly $170 million next year to fund groups that teach abstinence only, the Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teenagers and sex. But youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report, by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a critic of the administration who has long argued for comprehensive sex education.
Several million children ages 9 to 18 have participated in the more than 100 federal abstinence programs since the efforts began in 1999. Waxman's staff reviewed the 13 most commonly used curricula -- those used by at least five programs apiece.
The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. In some cases, Waxman said in an interview, the factual issues were limited to occasional misinterpretations of publicly available data; in others, the materials pervasively presented subjective opinions as scientific fact.
Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:
* A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
* HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
* Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said.
"I have no objection talking about abstinence as a surefire way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases," Waxman said. "I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."
When used properly and consistently, condoms fail to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) less than 3 percent of the time, federal researchers say, and it is not known how many gay teenagers are HIV-positive. The assertion regarding gay teenagers may be a misinterpretation of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found that 59 percent of HIV-infected males ages 13 to 19 contracted the virus through homosexual relations.
Joe. S. McIlhaney Jr., who runs the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which developed much of the material that was surveyed, said he is "saddened" that Waxman chose to "blast" well-intentioned abstinence educators when there is much the two sides could agree on.
McIlhaney acknowledged that his group, which publishes "Sexual Health Today" instruction manuals, made a mistake in describing the relationship between a rare type of infection caused by chlamydia bacteria and heart failure. Chlamydia also causes a common type of sexually transmitted infection, but that is not linked to heart disease. But McIlhaney said Waxman misinterpreted a slide that warns young people about the possibility of pregnancy without intercourse. McIlhaney said the slide accurately describes a real, though small, risk of pregnancy in mutual masturbation.
Congress first allocated money for abstinence-only programs in 1999, setting aside $80 million in grants, which go to a variety of religious, civic and medical organizations. To be eligible, groups must limit discussion of contraception to failure rates.
President Bush has enthusiastically backed the movement, proposing to spend $270 million on abstinence projects in 2005. Congress reduced that to about $168 million, bringing total abstinence funding to nearly $900 million over five years. It does not appear that the abstinence-only curricula are being taught in the Washington area.
Waxman and other liberal sex-education proponents argue that adolescents who take abstinence-only programs are ill-equipped to protect themselves if they become sexually active. According to the latest CDC data, 61 percent of graduating high school seniors have had sex.
Supporters of the abstinence approach, also called abstinence until marriage, counter that teaching young people about "safer sex" is an invitation to have sex.
Alma Golden, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement that Waxman's report is a political document that does a "disservice to our children." Speaking as a pediatrician, Golden said, she knows "abstaining from sex is the most effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, STDs and preventing pregnancy."
Nonpartisan researchers have been unable to document measurable benefits of the abstinence-only model. Columbia University researchers found that although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" may wait longer to initiate sexual activity, 88 percent eventually have premarital sex.
Bill Smith, vice president of public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a comprehensive sex education group that also receives federal funding, said the Waxman report underscored the need for closer monitoring of what he called the "shame-based, fear-based, medically inaccurate messages" being disseminated with tax money. He said the danger of abstinence education lies in the omission of useful medical information.
Some course materials cited in Waxman's report present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support." One book in the "Choosing Best" series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. "Moral of the story," notes the popular text: "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."
First up: if I ever get published, guess I'm not going to be on the shelves in Alabama public libraries! Neither are a whole host of other writers, if one lawmaker gets his way:
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1101896768316400.xml
Gay book ban goal of state lawmaker
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
KIM CHANDLER
News staff writer
The Birmingham (Alabama) News
MONTGOMERY - An Alabama lawmaker who sought to ban gay marriages now wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.
A bill by Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, would prohibit the use of public funds for "the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle." Allen said he filed the bill to protect children from the "homosexual agenda."
"Our culture, how we know it today, is under attack from every angle," Allen said in a press conference Tuesday.
Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed.
"I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them," he said.
A spokesman for the Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center called the bill censorship.
"It sounds like Nazi book burning to me," said SPLC spokesman Mark Potok.
Allen pre-filed his bill in advance of the 2005 legislative session, which begins Feb. 1.
If the bill became law, public school textbooks could not present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn't offer books with gay or bisexual characters.
When asked about Tennessee Williams' southern classic "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof," Allen said the play probably couldn't be performed by university theater groups.
[more at URL]
And here's another wonderbunny of a news report. The last paragraph is particularly choice.
Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html
By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 2, 2004; Page A01
Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found.
Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis, released yesterday, which reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
In providing nearly $170 million next year to fund groups that teach abstinence only, the Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teenagers and sex. But youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report, by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a critic of the administration who has long argued for comprehensive sex education.
Several million children ages 9 to 18 have participated in the more than 100 federal abstinence programs since the efforts began in 1999. Waxman's staff reviewed the 13 most commonly used curricula -- those used by at least five programs apiece.
The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. In some cases, Waxman said in an interview, the factual issues were limited to occasional misinterpretations of publicly available data; in others, the materials pervasively presented subjective opinions as scientific fact.
Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:
* A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
* HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
* Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said.
"I have no objection talking about abstinence as a surefire way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases," Waxman said. "I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."
When used properly and consistently, condoms fail to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) less than 3 percent of the time, federal researchers say, and it is not known how many gay teenagers are HIV-positive. The assertion regarding gay teenagers may be a misinterpretation of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found that 59 percent of HIV-infected males ages 13 to 19 contracted the virus through homosexual relations.
Joe. S. McIlhaney Jr., who runs the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which developed much of the material that was surveyed, said he is "saddened" that Waxman chose to "blast" well-intentioned abstinence educators when there is much the two sides could agree on.
McIlhaney acknowledged that his group, which publishes "Sexual Health Today" instruction manuals, made a mistake in describing the relationship between a rare type of infection caused by chlamydia bacteria and heart failure. Chlamydia also causes a common type of sexually transmitted infection, but that is not linked to heart disease. But McIlhaney said Waxman misinterpreted a slide that warns young people about the possibility of pregnancy without intercourse. McIlhaney said the slide accurately describes a real, though small, risk of pregnancy in mutual masturbation.
Congress first allocated money for abstinence-only programs in 1999, setting aside $80 million in grants, which go to a variety of religious, civic and medical organizations. To be eligible, groups must limit discussion of contraception to failure rates.
President Bush has enthusiastically backed the movement, proposing to spend $270 million on abstinence projects in 2005. Congress reduced that to about $168 million, bringing total abstinence funding to nearly $900 million over five years. It does not appear that the abstinence-only curricula are being taught in the Washington area.
Waxman and other liberal sex-education proponents argue that adolescents who take abstinence-only programs are ill-equipped to protect themselves if they become sexually active. According to the latest CDC data, 61 percent of graduating high school seniors have had sex.
Supporters of the abstinence approach, also called abstinence until marriage, counter that teaching young people about "safer sex" is an invitation to have sex.
Alma Golden, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement that Waxman's report is a political document that does a "disservice to our children." Speaking as a pediatrician, Golden said, she knows "abstaining from sex is the most effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, STDs and preventing pregnancy."
Nonpartisan researchers have been unable to document measurable benefits of the abstinence-only model. Columbia University researchers found that although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" may wait longer to initiate sexual activity, 88 percent eventually have premarital sex.
Bill Smith, vice president of public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a comprehensive sex education group that also receives federal funding, said the Waxman report underscored the need for closer monitoring of what he called the "shame-based, fear-based, medically inaccurate messages" being disseminated with tax money. He said the danger of abstinence education lies in the omission of useful medical information.
Some course materials cited in Waxman's report present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support." One book in the "Choosing Best" series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. "Moral of the story," notes the popular text: "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-04 12:56 am (UTC)IMO he's a jackass, and if it makes it so even my book, Society of Noght and Lies, isn't published in those states, or anywhere else, because of the one gay character in it, I'll be highly upset. Really, I see no problems with people being gay, or being married whether it in RL or in a book. I know he would die of brain spasms if he could read a story in progress I call Rising Noble.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-07 03:14 am (UTC)Of course, I think Faerie Blood would make this man have an aneurysm regardless of the fact that I've got a gay male couple among the minor characters. I tallied up the various things that would probably make him run screaming:
1) It's got MAGIC in it.
2) It's got strong female characters in it who are not playing second fiddle to the male characters.
3) It's got religious tolerance.
4) It's got "inhuman creatures"--the Sidhe. And a demon. And a troll. And assorted faeries and lesser fey critters.
And, thinking about it, if this guy got his way Elfquest would have to vanish off of the shelves of public libraries, too. ;P
no subject
Date: 2004-12-07 03:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 03:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 04:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 07:24 am (UTC)It should scare the poopy out of strictly readers too then!
In fact, even more so. You can still write in private... but readers would have a harder time getting a hold of your stuff. The readers would lose a lot more, since there's a lot more of them, with less to read.
(Unless of course your work was quite lousy and a lot of people wouldn't miss it anyway. LOL. ;) j/k)
First books depicting gays... Then books depicting people committing adultery. Then books depicting women as 'trying to be like men'. Then books depicting any sex. Then books depicting any "evil" religion. Then books depicting women exposing their skin. Then books criticizing religion. Then books criticizing the government. Then books depicting the future.
No more of anything really...
And the irony of it is... If Orthodox Jews suggested banning books which had people doing work on the Sabbath, or if vegans suggested banning books that mention hunting... I bet no president in his right mind would entertain those people.
Then again...
no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 05:55 pm (UTC)Yes! Yes, it should.
(Unless of course your work was quite lousy and a lot of people wouldn't miss it anyway. LOL. ;) j/k)
*snicker* I am fairly confident that I can string together coherent prose, but I am not yet assured that it is publishable prose. So till then, very few readers are getting hold of my stuff anyway. ;)
First books depicting gays... Then books depicting people committing adultery. Then books depicting women as 'trying to be like men'. Then books depicting any sex. Then books depicting any "evil" religion. Then books depicting women exposing their skin. Then books criticizing religion. Then books criticizing the government. Then books depicting the future.
Let's see--yeah, I'll be hitting a few of these, too, as I write more.
And the irony of it is... If Orthodox Jews suggested banning books which had people doing work on the Sabbath, or if vegans suggested banning books that mention hunting... I bet no president in his right mind would entertain those people.
I daresay that even our current President would dismiss these examples, just because these are things that would annoy him and those who share his mindset: "ban anything we don't think is moral". And never mind that it's quite possible for people of differing or even no religious faiths to be ethical, moral people.
BTW, welcome, and glad to see a new person stopping by on my journal. :)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 03:49 am (UTC)Yes, but that's the thing, even fewer might eventually regardless!
Because once these things are deemed "bad" for public libraries and such... Slippery slope... These people aren't going to want to stop there. You might have a problem putting such things on the internet... or heavens, your computer.
For example, in the U.S., a person can be prosecuted for having child pornography on their computer.
Now, I'm not saying that isn't the right thing - since child pornography exploits *real* children. And I agree it should be illegal...
But how about this one book I took out of the library once... I had no clue what I was in for. Someone on-line recommended the author to me, so I went to the public library and found something by her.
I think it was Catherine Coultiere (I could be mangling the spelling).
I also could be mangling the details a bit. But I'm pretty sure of most of the salient points...
In this book, which was in the public library, a man at least in his 20s, I think late 20s (possibly older), RAPED a 14 year old girl. And the scene was described explicitly.
In the state of this public library... a man over 21 having sex with a 14 year old could be convicted of statutory rape. It's ILLEGAL. And that's even if it's consentual! Never mind if it isn't.
Now, that said, I should note that, in the story the girl was (although against her will), married to the man. And it might also be important to note that she later *liked* it. (Though that only made it seem worse to me... Hard to explain without going into details of the context.)
And while the book was written in perhaps the 1980s or 1990s, the story was set in Europe, at least a few hundred years ago - and in that setting and period, nothing illegal occurred.
Plus, this is FICTION. No REAL 14 year olds have been exploited in the making of this book. (hehe)
Did I like the story myself? No, it kind of made me sick. Not because I think it was pedophilia (pedophilia refers to sex between an adult and a PRE-puberty child). But I didn't think much of it, I didn't finish the book, and I don't seek out that author, I can tell you.
But do I think they should tear it from the library shelves? No. I don't think they should put it in the children's section. HAHA.
But even though the scenes depicted in the story were law-breaker scenes, I don't think it should be censored.
Now, that said, I ABSOLUTELY do NOT think that gay sex should be illegal.
But EVEN IF IT WAS, there's no reason to rip books from the shelves of public libraries.
If I can feel that about a book containing a 14 year old getting raped. Then I don't see why someone who thinks homosexuality is a sin, even if they think it should be illegal, wanting to censor it out of libraries.
And again, where does it stop?
Do we chuck Jayne Ann Krentz off the shelves of public libaries because not only do her books contain explicitly erotic sex scenes, there's also often gay characters in her books.
And then will they be eventually ripped from the shelves of stores?
I use Jayne Ann Krentz as an example, because on the whole, her stories are actually WHOLESOME in the extreme. Despite having explicit sex scenes. And though I can't remember any explicit homosexual sex scenes, I can't say for sure that none of her books contain any (she has tons of books published, I believe), and the gay relationships of some characters in the ones I have read have been mentioned in no uncertain terms.
I wouldn't want my 10 year old* reading these books, obviously. But I certainly have a hard time imagining that there'd be any good grounds at all for deeming these books unacceptable for a public library.
And certainly not unacceptable for sale.
And what's to stop the really prudent religious people from going after that too?
(* I don't have children that was hypothetical.) ;)
no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 03:56 am (UTC)Yes, but that's the thing, even fewer might eventually regardless!
That's the part that scares me.
I think it was Catherine Coultiere (I could be mangling the spelling).
Catherine Coulter, perhaps? She's written scads of romance novels; when
Did I like the story myself? No, it kind of made me sick. Not because I think it was pedophilia (pedophilia refers to sex between an adult and a PRE-puberty child). But I didn't think much of it, I didn't finish the book, and I don't seek out that author, I can tell you.
Ugh. I don't blame you for bailing on the book; based on what you've described, I think I would have done so as well. Unfortunately a lot of romance novels, historically, have had that sort of 'helpless young female forced into sex against her initial consent with big brawny male but later discovers that she likes it' thing going on. I've seen enough romance novels to know.
Hell, I even remember that sort of attitude going on with F'lar and Lessa in the very first Dragonriders of Pern book. One sentence in particular stands out in my mind, from the part of Dragonflight after Lessa has Impressed Ramoth and started settling in at Benden Weyr, and after F'lar's Mnementh has flown Ramoth:
"He had been a considerate and gentle bedmate ever since, but, unless Ramoth and Mnementh were involved, he might as well call it rape."
Now is it just me, or does this suggest that F'lar actually took Lessa to his bed when she was unwilling? Before this point, there are all sorts of indications of mutual attraction between him and Lessa, but this one sentence really just jumps out at me.
Now, that said, I ABSOLUTELY do NOT think that gay sex should be illegal. But EVEN IF IT WAS, there's no reason to rip books from the shelves of public libraries.
Indeed. Murder is illegal, and yet, I don't see anyone campaigning for removing all books that contain murders from public shelves. Hell, if they did that, they'd have to take the Bible off the shelves, what with all the people killing one another in that. ;P
no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 03:19 pm (UTC)I think what put me off of it was that it went a little farther beyond just a 'helpless young female gets shown a thing or 2 about sex by the grown man of the world', the girl was a tomboy, and very independent... And he straightened her out with that too. Pfft.
"He had been a considerate and gentle bedmate ever since, but, unless Ramoth and Mnementh were involved, he might as well call it rape."
I have no idea of the book or story you're talking about. But yeah, why say it that way? The most gentle intercourse is still rape if it's done by force - say at gun point. And the most violent intercourse is not rape if it's consensual.
I'm put off by authors who somehow think it's "exciting" or "sexy" somehow to bandy about that word. Sort of makes the author seem somehow uneducated about the issue... Or worse, it could even make them sound flippant about the topic of rape.
Though I think the reality is probably that the author is unskilled. Was this an established author with experience who wrote that? My guess is it's probably rather common among writers inexperienced in writing erotic descriptions.
I've also noted that there seems to be a youth slang jargon becoming popular, to use the term "raped" instead of the more traditional "screwed".
I've also noticed that "rape" also seems to be used now as a variation of geek speak, replacing (or appending) "owned" (or "pwnd"). I've heard homophobic young men to brag about "raping" another guy... in a video game. It always struck me - do they realize how that sounds?
But then I've never even understood the term "screwed" or "fucked", meant as "taken advantage of" or "beaten" or how that got started. But this kind of pinpointed it for me - roots of misogyny in some way:
http://www.petebevin.com/archives/2005/01/09/homophobia.html (http://www.petebevin.com/archives/2005/01/09/homophobia.html)
You know, somehow a lot of people think, even if only subconsciously, that it's a bad thing to be on the "female end" of sex?
And this isn't just about sexist heterosexual men with sexist attitudes. It's across the board.
I've seen as much sexism from gay men as I have from straight men. And so it wasn't at all surprising really once I learned about a rather widely social construct among many gay men (some claim all, but I doubt that), to categorize themselves and others into "tops" or "bottoms". And tops pair with bottoms, and not with each other.
And there are gay men who are reluctant to admit to being "a bottom", and the ones who say they're both - other gay men will chuckle and say "He just doesn't want to admit he's a bottom."
Now, mind you, I don't understand why they all wouldn't be both - being both would make a hell of a lot more sense to me. But I even moreso don't understand why the guys would consider it to be at all embarrassing to being a "bottom" anyway.
And let's be clear here, this isn't about sexuality - in that it's not about homosexuality... Because as far as I've ever known, there's no categorization among lesbians this way at all.
Indeed. Murder is illegal, and yet, I don't see anyone campaigning for removing all books that contain murders from public shelves.
Yes. And even moreso - any books about real murders!
That's the analogy I've used when talking about that JFK assassination video simulation. It would appeal more to crime buffs than teen video gamers. And yet there's all this outrage over that. Well then, they'd have to get rid of the History Channel... Or is it the Discovery Channel?
I haven't had cable in years myself, but I know there's one cable station that some of my friends jokingly call it "the murder network". Kind of like some of my friends call that Lifetime Network "The Victims Network"
That serial killer has a LiveJournal... and "celebrity status". I think that's definitely more disturbing than a crime buff or a conspiracy buff tinkering with a computer simulation of the JFK assassination.