You may be interested in
(unaffiliated etc, etc, chicken.)
— kami 
Mark, you little bugger!
I think sodomites should all have accessible, standards-compliant Weblogs, don’t you? *Somebody* already does, at least:
Here here. The book “Anal Pleasure and Health” (available at Amazon or anywhere else, I won’t bother linking) is a good resource for anyone interested in the benefits of anal sex.
— kfan
I don’t want to see what people do in bed, regarless of their preference. :-)
Same here, unless I’m the one who pushed Play.
— Alan
As much as I hate it, “lesbian chic” does get my site lots of traffic.
A happy sodomite,
Gina
— Gina
I hate when people make homophobic comments (#4 and 5) insisting that they’re really not.
UGH.
— Gina
It’s really easy to say you don’t want to see/hear about what other people do in bed when no one is policing your own boundaries.
Mark:
Since we’re on the topic .. Why “Dive Into Mark/Python/[subject]“?
Where does that phrase come from?
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2002/08/04/dive_into_history.html
— Mark
“Supreme Court Tries Sodomy” sounds like they’re giving it a shot. Er, so to speak.
— kirkaracha
I see Gina exaggerates, if not actually embodies, the stereotype of the humourless lesbian. “I don’t want to see what people do in bed, regar[d]less of their preference,” *followed by a smiley*, obviously means what it says and not, as Gina implies, “I don’t want to see what homosexual[ist]s do in bed, specific to their preference.”
Gina: diveintomuff.org.
LOL @ diveintomuff.org! That even this humorless homosexualist bust a gut!
LOL! diveintomuff.org!!
:D
- the humorless lesbian
— Gina
LOL @ Joe! Diveintomuff.org! That even made this humorless homosexualist bust a gut!
It is a second degree misdemeanor in my state to commit an “unnatural and lascivious act with another person” [whatever that is] (a quote from my state’s so-called Sodomy Law). This law does not only apply to homosexual people. So, yes, my boundaries are being policed, at least in letter if not by enforcement. Regardless of that, I still don’t want to see people doing it. There’s nothing homophobic about that statement, except when viewed through your own perceptions and sterotypes.
Mark, thanks for bringing these issues up. One can already see the nightmare of trying to enforce legilation about “lure domain names” — not to mention exactly how does congress think they’ll enforce these overseas? Most countries would laugh.
As for sodomy, no country has a right to enforce what happens between consenting adults. It’s embarrassing when the rest of the world sees our sexual repression, especially as we’re fighting a way to ‘liberate’ the Iraqi. (Must let Iraqi know that anal sex is _out_ after _liberation_.)
And the case only highlights the continuing prejudice and misunderstanding about homosexuality, a bit tragic when you remember young Matthew Shepard hanging on a fence in Wyoming.
The question is not only about the law, but in what cases that law is enforced and upheld.
In the 1986 Bowers vs. Hardwick, Supreme court decision, the court ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not protect same-gender sex, even in the privacy of a home, between consenting adults. Georgia’s law did not distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex acts either, but the case and the Supreme Court’s decision focused on the fact that the couple in question were both men.
Really, this has absolutely nothing to do with what you do and don’t want to see.
Hmm. No misleading domain names?
I can understand the basic premise behind the bill; nobody wants to go to http://www.homemadecookies.com and see a throbbing erection pop up in front of them.
Well, okay, almost nobody.
But this sounds like a bill that’s about five years too late. How many people actually navigate the web by blindly typing in URLs and hoping to find what they’re looking for? I always hit a search engine or follow a link that’s been referred to me by someone. I can’t remember the last time I guessed at a URL.
— David
Basic premise of the proposed law? Maybe. But consider the dangerous edge cases:
(fictional URLs follow)
teen-steam.com. Should it be a porn site, or a site for teenagers to vent about their lives? Do you want Congress to decide this for you?
Or worse, how about empoweredwomen.com? What if a site with a name like this had graphic information on safe sex or abortion rights (both of which have been deemed pornographic by some local standards). Should that be actionable as well?
— Joel
Hideous P and others are right. The laws suck. And the interpertation of the Constitution continues to suck. Does the Constitution disallow everything it does not specifically allow? I didn’t think so either. Yes, that is homophobia and it should be done away with. It’s really a personal question. I don’t want it to be illegal for me to pray to my God in my own home. I don’t want it to be illegal for me to have anal sex with my partner in my own home, like the guys in this case. So why should it be legal for me and not someone else based on who they do it with. Anyway, all that aside, I have no partner so a handjob from a male is my only option (that doesn’t cost money).
Also, I was recently working on a client web site with sponsors, one of whom is Badcock furniture, and I had to keep asking my co-worker, “Their url is really http://www.badcock.com ? That sounds like it should be some other kind of web site.” Punish the bad cock!
Also, finally, I add my thanks to Burningbirds. You’ve made me think about things, Mark, as always.
Let’s not forget (now thankfully retitled) “www.expertsexchange.com”.
— Alan
I hate to break this to you, but if you’re serious about having children this technique won’t cut it.
— Anonymous
I do NOT want to see what Gay people (women vs. women, or men vs. men) do in bed.
I DO want to see what Straight people do in bed, provided that these people are super hot.
This is why, when I head out to the porn store, I rent Straight porn, and not Gay porn.
This is not a homophobic position. This is called “being straight”. Though you may also refer to it as “not being gay.”
Let it be understood, though, that I don’t give a CRAP about what you do in the privacy of your own homes. I just care that pornography is properly labeled.
— tfm
And this site gets first (AND second, thanks to the mobile edition) result in Google for “Dive Into Anal Sex” ! =)
— Xavier
Joel,
Good edge cases.
tean-steam sounds to me like a porn site; that’s just the way I associate things. But if it were a site for teens to vent their feelings, it would not be affected by this bill. The bill addresses innocent sounding names that point to pornographic sites, not the other way around. Of course, if tean-steam.com sounds like a site for venting to a particular individual and it turns out to be a porn site when they go there, then the law would come into play.
That’s a flaw that I don’t think the bill could get around. Is “ducttapedreams.com” an innocent or suggestive domain name? How do you legislatively define what sounds innocent?
— David
Aw, come on, you don’t want to see hot girls making out?
http://scribbling.net/entry/289/
;)
— Gina