http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0704-chapman-20100703,0,1660162.column

When conservatives talk about judicial activism, they have in mind a variety of Supreme Court decisions — legalizing abortion, hindering the death penalty, allowing flag-burning and preventing officially sponsored prayer in public schools. All these, they believe, ignored the plain words or the original meaning of the text.

But there is another decision that fits any definition of a liberal, activist approach. It came in a 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas, involving two men who were prosecuted after being caught by police having sex in a private bedroom.

In a 1986 challenge to sodomy laws, the Supreme Court derided the notion that the Constitution protects “a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.” But this time, it ruled such statutes unconstitutional.

How come? Because the government may not regulate private, consensual, noncommercial sex among adults, straight or gay. “Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy.

At the time, the outcome was controversial. Conservative commentator David Frum said it would have been “unimaginable to the Constitution’s authors.” The conservative Family Research Council lamented that “judicial activists have used their fertile imagination to create rights that simply don’t exist in the Constitution,” and “imposed their own moral judgments in place of state legislatures.”

The decision bore the telltale signs of liberal activism: It did not rest on any clear provision of the Constitution. It did not match up with the laws in effect at the time of the nation’s founding. It discarded well-established precedents. And it created a social policy strongly favored by liberals.

But after the initial denunciations, something odd happened: The decision vanished from public debate.

Roe v. Wade led to endless battles over abortion laws. The school prayer decisions have been defied in many districts. But once the sodomy laws were gone, they were forgotten. No one mourned them, and no one tried to bring them back.

Well, almost no one. The Texas GOP’s new platform says unabashedly, “We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.”

Last year, the Oklahoma Republican Party came out against “the elimination of laws against sodomy.” The Montana GOP agrees.

That’s right. They want to allow the states to put gay and lesbian couples in jail for something (oral or anal sex) that millions of heterosexual couples do all the time.

But this sentiment is not exactly sweeping the country — even the red states. GOP senators had the chance to ask Kagan what she thought of the sodomy decision, and not one of them did. No one had the slightest desire to denounce or even revisit the court’s ruling.

There are a few possible explanations for that. Maybe Republicans think sodomy laws are impossible to justify and secretly don’t mind that the court struck them down. But that amounts to favoring judicial activism if you like the results, which is exactly what they lambaste liberals for doing.

Or maybe it’s because, though they would prefer for the court to uphold sodomy laws, they fear the political consequences of saying so. But that suggests that when the court’s activists imposed their moral preferences, they were also “imposing” those of the American people.

Or maybe they realize that laws trampling liberties that most people take for granted can’t be squared with the spirit of freedom and equality that defines the Constitution — even if the letter of the Constitution has nothing obvious to say on the particular matter at hand.

Rentboy gave sexual massages to christian antigay hypocrit

That wonderful spunky stuff, sperm, is a bit hard on a body, it seems, wether you are male of female. It’s a concentrated package of genetic material, and we have to respect its power.

In one study, Gardasil was 89% effective in preventing human papillomavirus, a virus that causes cervical cancer and other diseases, in women ages 24 through 45.

In the other study, the drug was 78% effective against anal intraepithelial neoplasia, a precursor to anal cancer, associated with HPV in men ages 16 to 26 who have sex with men.

“We are excited to learn more about the potential of Gardasil to help prevent HPV and HPV-related cancers and diseases in both men and women,” said Richard Haupt, executive director of Merck Research Laboratories.

Gardasil is approved for use in girls and women ages 9 to 26 to protect against some forms of HPV. It was also recently approved for use in males 9 to 26 for the prevention of genital warts.

Lets hope we can make gardasil a household standard.

“It may come as Piss Christ blasphemy to many, but there are those of us who Truly Do Not Give A Flaming Fuck who finished last in the league in rushing the ball or who led the league in defending tight ends or who had a hot flash during red-zone play-action passes (although that does sound provocative, now that you mention it).”

http://trueslant.com/markdery/2010/02/09/jocko-homo-how-gay-is-the-superbowl/

Homo Jockus - lolz found it on the web

“But for those with a functioning irony gland, he seemed, at the same time, to be hinting that real men, men who were truly comfortable with their own masculinity, didn’t need to strap on the prosthetic masculinity of the jock (whose very epithet reduces him to a big, swinging dick), the steroid-pumped weightlifter in his thong, the highway cop in mirrorshades and jackboots. The fact that all of the above are stock characters in homoerotic fantasy is no accident: their hyperbolized masculinity—what the postmodern theorist Arthur Kroker calls a “hysterical” masculinity, since it fairly screams its anxieties about its own manhood—ironically undermines itself, emphasizing not the impregnable masculinity of the subject but the social constructedness of gender—that is, the extent to which we’re all in drag.

Tim Burton’s Batman offers a readymade metaphor for the idea that masculinity is not something inherent in us, an act of nature, but something we put on, a figment of culture: the wimpy Michael Keaton becomes Batman only after being sealed in the huge, hulking batsuit. Transformed into an armored phallus with a sculpted six-pack, he speaks through gritted teeth, in the raspy monotone that, in American culture, is a benchmark of Real Manhood, from Duke Wayne to Dirty Harry. (Listen to interviews with icons of masculine power such as law-enforcement officials, Pentagon top brass or, better yet, football players and coaches, and you’ll hear the same terse, tough-talking, g-droppin’ tone, almost robotic in its flattened affect; emotional expression is for girls. And girlyboys.) The Batmobile, likewise, is all about masculinity as prosthesis, gender as put-on. It’s Darth Vader’s idea of a jet-propelled dildo on wheels, an Oscar Meyer Weinermobile retrofitted for the hysterical male. It uses its, er, glans as a battering ram and guards its orifices with heavy-metal shields that sphincter shut when threatened with penetration. (Yeah, sure, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but cum on!)”

So when I saw this, on the blue I think, referring to this dk post, I had to post about it.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/2/832988/-The-2010-Comprehensive-Daily-Kos-Research-2000-Poll-of-Self-Identified-Republicans

I don’t know if the poll was well done – you’ll have to check that for yourselves.

Apparently this article is by Kos himself…

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m putting the finishing touches on my new book, American Taliban, which catalogues the ways in which modern-day conservatives share the same agenda as radical Jihadists in the Islamic world. But I found myself making certain claims about Republicans that I didn’t know if they could be backed up. So I thought, “why don’t we ask them directly?” And so, this massive poll, by non-partisan independent pollster Research 2000 of over 2,000 self-identified Republicans, was born.

The results are nothing short of startling.

Ultimately, these results explain why it is impossible for elected Republicans to work with Democrats to improve our country. Their base are conspiracy mongers who don’t believe Obama was born in the United States, that he is the second coming of Lenin, and that he is racist against white people. They already want to impeach him despite the glaringly obvious lack of high crimes or misdemeanors. If any Republican strays and decides to do the right thing and try to work in a bipartisan fashion, they suffer primaries and attacks. Even the Maine twins have quit cooperating out of fear of their homegrown teabaggers.

Given what their base demands, and this poll illustrates them perfectly, it’s no wonder the GOP is the party of no.

Here were the poll’s answers about us:

GAYS

Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?

Yes 26
No 55
Not Sure 19

Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?

Yes 7
No 77
Not Sure 16

Should gay couples receive any state or federal benefits?

Yes 11
No 68
Not Sure 21

Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?

Yes 8
No 73
Not Sure 19

Oof. That’s some serious neanderthal action going on. Gays can’t serve their country, teach children, get married, or even have civil unions. That’s the GOP agenda for gays, which makes the existence of the Log Cabin Republicans that much more of a mystery.

It was that last line that got to me today – “the existence of log cabin republicans”. I’m going to be very mean to the logheads from now on.

It’s the “NO HOMO” phenomenon and it’s saving the world for gay-curious and metro straight guys with one simple phrase!

Here’s how it works:

Now come home with me you cute bastard! NO HOMO!

Not the anal toilet plunger guy – BUY A DILDO YOU DOLT – but LIMP…

Go read the post.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/artsculture/toilet_plunger_as_anal_sex_toy/Content?oid=1216066

My boyfriend always goes soft after he penetrates me. He’s come in me only a handful of times — and I’m a bottom! When it comes to oral, he doesn’t have trouble staying hard. Even more curious: The guy is only 21! Can someone that young really have “erectile dysfunction”? We’ve tried cock rings, and they don’t help: He can keep his hard-on for a little longer (enough time to get inside me without getting soft), but it doesn’t take long for him to get soft again. Dan, what do you think is going on? He’ll be super-hard when I’m sucking him off, then I’ll start jerking him a bit, then he’ll get inside me, and then a very short while later he’s soft. Is there anything we can do? Does he have ED?

Lover Is Missing Poundings

Your boyfriend is hard during oral sex and when you jerk his cock, LIMP, and only loses his erection when he’s in your ass or about to go in. Hmm. That doesn’t sound like ED to me — there’s no such thing as “act-specific ED” — but more like YBDLAS, or “your boyfriend doesn’t like anal sex.”

Your boyfriend may feel pressure to perform, LIMP, as being fucked is important to you. (Please tell me that he’s coming inside a condom when he comes inside you.) And he may feel some pressure to conform. Anal sex among gay men has been elevated to the status of vaginal sex among straight men, LIMP, in that it’s somehow become the defining sex act, despite the fact that roughly a quarter of all gay men don’t enjoy and don’t indulge in anal sex. Your boyfriend may be one of those guys, but he’s too inhibited to tell you how he feels because, hey, it’s buttfucking and he’s gay and all gay men are buttfuckers and if he doesn’t enjoy buttfucking then he’s some sort of defective gay buttfucker.

The very first thing that occured to me reading this story was this.

The boyfriend is doing coke or speed of some kind. The symptoms are classic – he can get hard with direct stimulation, but penetration is more of a whole body than a genital experience, so he loses his hard.

What do you think?

But, I didn’t know the Dalai Lama is anti-gay, and anti-anal.

He’s a veritable Tibetan Republican.

I’ll bet he’s in the closet.

I was reading about him here…

http://dagblog.com/politics/obama-and-sex-vs-dali-lama-and-wall-street-journal-8-fold-path-unenlightenment-934

1) At a 1997 press conference the Dalai Lama said: “Men to men sex and women to women sex is sexual misconduct.”

Jerry Falwell and the Lama agree: being a homo is a no-no.

2) An interview with 2001 Swiss magazine he said, “Sexual organs were created for sexual reproduction between the male the element and the female element and anything that deviates from this is not acceptable.”

By this definition you shouldn’t even take a piss!

…

5) In the same religious writings he deemed, “Oral sex and anal sex are not acceptable even between a husband and wife.”

Anyone who likes sodomy and/or bj’s and is traveling to Tibet, might wanna rethink their plans.

…

So let’s recap: the Dalai Lama says gay sex, oral sex, anal sex, day sex and abortion are all wrong – is that who you want running a free Tibet? Is this guy we want to pick a fight with China over? He’s a sexaphobe and that’s undemocratic and anticapitalist. I can’t say I’m surprised that the rightwing establishment likes him so much, after all they share some of the Lama’s ideas of intolerance and small-mindedness.

I thought this was sweet. I’m still alive just hiding mostly – Josh…

And speaking of Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church . . .

My life’s purpose over the past week was to read the thousands of proposed new definitions for “saddlebacking” sent in by my readers. As with the new definition of santorum crafted by Savage Love readers (“the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes a byproduct of anal sex”), the new definition of “saddlebacking” has to be some act that (1) needs a name but doesn’t already have one (we can’t just rename “reverse cowgirl,” people), and (2) is naughty enough to discomfort, say, a Reverend Warren—but is something that actual people might actually do because that’s the only way the actual word will actually get used.

SADDLEBACK is the new Santorum

My suggestion is pretty simple – and it happens to be one of my favorite sexual positions anyway. “Saddlebacking is face to face gay anal sex, in which the bottom holds his knees by his ears with his elbows (to make his ass the ’saddle’), and the top fucks him good while holding onto the ‘horn of the saddle’, which is of course his cock.”

I know, not very imaginative – but sincere! I couldn’t find a pic of a true saddleback, here’s a partial saddleback.

A half saddleback - bottom strokes his own cock while being fucked.