"Female Friendly" v. Same Old "Spank Vids" NSFW Links for those not on funemployment

I was searching porn for "Molly Morrison", since this is the pseudonym of "internet celebrity" Amor Hilton. [Not a particularly scortching scene, but different. Does she seem possibly drugged to you too?] I  occasionally check up on internet porn, because, you know... I want to know what's going on, I want to know what's out there...I'm a well rounded person...and boy was I surprised to find "Female Friendly" on a well travelled porn site. "Alright! Let's see what is friendly to females these days." Lemme tell you, it's nothing to copy, paste & click home about. I noted a clip called "Spoiled Brats Tan and Smoke".  "So Hot!! I'm damp in the basement for that, for sure."  I was offended that the content was considered friendly to females. It is exactly the same thing, ordered and distributed the same way as always.  I'm not surprised the same things that generally appeal to women, generally appeal to men, so in that regard, I don't understand why a new category was even created.  I have definitely seen "she-centric" porn and surely support the concept, but that wasn't what this category contained. From a marketing perspective, it's a fail because any woman seeking something friendly need only take a quick glance to see that the material is not different, nor friendly as evidenced by the ad clip of a woman being "forced" at the bottom of the page.  Again, I'm not judging the content or those who like it, just that it's questionably labeled. I cannot imagine that there's someone actively looking at the material and saying "This would turn a woman on."  In fact, I think it's a miniscule fraction of the adult industry that does ask this question. I applaud Howard Stern's recent Penthouse Pet interview where the gals admit porn is acting.  I didn't need the Pets to tell me that most ladies can be remarkably talented actresses when the situation dictates, and not just the pron ones, but it's always nice to have 3rd party verification of my beliefs. 

Aside:  Do you love that picture?  I do. It's endlessly funny to me.  Even more funny that you're supposed to pay to use the image.

What the Hell, Sarah Palin?

That's been a long standing question for me, but last night I heard she's ready to go to the mat for the right to life with the Teabaggers. How dare you. If a single American makes the decision that they don't want to be parent, that it's part of the problem, that the time is not right, or that for any other reason that their pregnancy should be terminated within the confines of the law, YAY! Now that's an old arguement, but I'm stressing the "American" in this case because no other country will generate a population that is so wasteful and resource intensive throughout the duration of their lifetime. What is it with this middle class notion that you have a "God given" right to have 2.5 kids and a house? What is this sense of entitlement and ownership? I'd even say the government is going way too far to support this ongoing, unsustainable fiction. Biodiversity is globally decreasing and species are becoming extinct due to diminishing resources. Extinction is everywhere & increasing at an alarming rate, but the cult of motherhood/babymaking is overpowering the logical thought process of survival of species. Just as well, maybe.

I'm not just talking out of my ass here. I have a friend from Niger, and he has six kids. However, I know all his kids, in their entire lives, will consume less resources than I already have and I'm not much of a consumer. They are part of a nomadic tribe, they carry their worldly possessions with them and they hope to one day complete the well they started drilling. And when my friend is here, he misses home.

I am an Aunt. I like kids & I love my Nephew dearly and there is nothing I would not do for him, but if there is even one American who decides parenthood is not for them, leave it alone for fuck's sake. I have friends with children and without and I love 'em all. It's a personal, ethical & lifestyle decision that each person lives with. I do not want to really get into the other obvious and numerous contradictions of pro-life v. less taxation, cuts to TANF, childcare issues, housing issues, unemployment, overpopulation, institutionalized poverty, institutionalized racism, fuel deficiency, financial collapse, child abuse rates, etc., so I won't, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how weak and short sighted the arguement is. I'm just sorry that feminism has not evolved enough for American women to feel "whole" without producing a child from their own womb. The feminist proposal that women can be educated, do "anything" and be independent falls terribly flat when society continues to perpetuate, spoken or unspoken, the outdated and sexist belief that women without children are damaged, faulty, undesireable, selfish or are otherwise simply "old maids". Women have an inherent worth as humans, not just baby machines. Weak! We can do better for our women, Sarah. Move forward, damn it.

If I had more time, I'd take Meg Whitman to task, but I'm busy right now.

Update: May 16, 2010
the link at the top has some righteous strippers at a Sarah Palin look a like contest. hey. just in case you wanted to see...