In preparing for an upcoming "Star Party" in Atlanta I went to read more about the man on who's behalf it is being held. The late astronomer Jeff Medkeff had some interesting posts in his "Blue Collar Scientist" blog. I culled this list - which he says he found circulating on the web - from his site. Wish I'd met him. I support Gay Marriage and if you read this list you'll get a good idea why:
Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
The siltstone phallus is highly polished. It is 19.2cm tall and has a width of 2.8cm. It was reassembled from 14 fragments found in the Hohle Fels Cave. The close-ups of opposite sides show etched rings around the head, and markings that may have come from knapping flint. (Image: J. Liptak)
This 28,000 year old stone tool was, according to the accompanying BBC article, possibly used as an actual sex-toy. Keep in mind that in Cobb County Georgia you still have to sell such items as "novelties." Seems the novelty would have worn off sometime in the past 28K years...
While this kind of thing may shock some readers, it just goes to show that humans propensity for using technology to improve sex goes way back beyond the VCR. (There is a common theme of porn driving technology. It has been said that the development and spread of the VCR was driven by porn dollars. Likewise the CD-ROM's wide use in PCs has been attributed to the porn industry. And of course DVDs... And now evidence that this tie goes back so far makes me suspect that even back in the stone age the techies were nerds and that they wanted to use their nerd powers for sexual gratification.)
Were ancient techies nerds? Did these stone "tools" get the job done? Did the crafters of this tool also sell pipes, rolling paper and patchouli incense? Finds like these remind us that our ancient ancestors were as interested in sex as we are today.
"But what about porn," you may ask. "Did ancient humans enjoy porn?"
Dr. Dale Guthrie of the University of Alaska Fairbanks says that the majority of known cave art depicting humans shows the female form. According to Dr. Guthrie, "...these weren't just any women, they were Pleistocene Pamela Andersons adorned with ludicrously huge breasts and hips. The walls were also decorated with graphic depictions of genitalia."
And what about sculpture? Who can forget the 30,000 year old Venus of Willendorf? This beauty shows that even "back in the day" folks unashamedly appreciated a BBW. Her hair's a bit different than today's stylings, but you can find images to match the rest of her all over the Internet.
Some sociologist might argue that these are merely symbolic - but the fact is that we have an evolved response to become sexually aroused by visual stimulation. (Or at least males do...)
Call me old fashioned but I am glad to see that I'm not the only one spending hours a day crafting dildos out of stone. ;)
Making the rounds this week was this amusing and entertaining video from Mary Roach, author of several books - of which I've only read Spook - but Stiff is in my "to read" pile, as is "Bonk" - from which much of this material comes. (pardon)
The video is entertaining and informative - but the part that really struck me (besides the non-prurient pig masturbation) was the section that starts at the 5:30 mark. It highlights some of the work of researcher and writer Theodoor Hendrik van de Velde. In van de Velde's writing (per Roach) he mentions the smell of a mature man's semen as being similar to the scent of a Spanish Chestnut's flowers.
This brought to mind some research I'd done a long time ago on this matter. My wife said that a tree in the back yard of my mother's house smelled like semen when it flowers. I agreed with her and found it similar - yet slightly stronger like what I imagines a sperm bank with a faulty freezer unit might end up smelling like after a day or two.
Not content to just note the similarity, I looked around for any literature on the matter and came across a lengthy discourse on the "Straight Dope" board. Here's the link - but the page has a lot of additional material non-topical to this matter, so I'll include the salient quote. Always give "Cecil" a read if you have time, though. This is a link to that article (down the page below the piercing question).
REPORTS FROM THE FRINGE, PART ONE
Dear Cecil:
Abhorrent as it is to speak of such matters, I must corroborate your reader's recent observation about certain trees in Los Angeles that smell like semen in the fall. I have two of these funky-smelling (in the original sense of the word meaning "bitch dog in heat") trees in my backyard in Laurel Canyon. They are ugly, have grotesque hairy blossoms, and smell so bad that bees and flies both share the nectar. It is disconcerting for me and I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice it. --R.H., Los Angeles
PS: I have no idea what they're called.
Dear R.H.:
I can see it's going to be one of those weeks. Due to the press of business, I haven't had had a chance to go hunt down the sperm trees of Los Angeles myself. However, David Lofgren, a botanical information consultant at the Los Angeles State and County Arboretum, speculates that the plant in question is the carob tree, Ceratonia siliqua, source of the well-known chocolate substitute. The tree, which grows only in Mediterranean climates like LA's, typically is around 30 feet tall and has bluish green leaves that are rounded on the end. At blossom time it has many little flowers, which may give the appearance of hairiness. In the fall and winter it produces sweet, juicy pods that conceivably could produce the smell of semen when they rot. However, if one of Cecil's devoted readers will be so kind as to send him a sample of the offending tree's leaves, blossoms, pods, or whatever, we will get to the bottom of this matter once and for all. The discussion goes on from there... go to the SD page for the full discourse.
In "Cecil's" research he's referred to the Carob tree by botanist David Lofgren. Also Ginko trees. (We have these at my office, and the smell shows up there sometimes.) Florida "Punk Trees" are implicated. California Privet. A Chesnut. (Cecil postulates "Chinese" - but perhaps it was Spanish as in TvdV's example?)
"Cecil" comes to the conclusion that the correct tree hasn't been identified. Yet it seems more likely that a variety of trees produce a comparable odor. I wonder why? And is the chemical involved in the odor the same as that in Semen? Or is this a result of convergent evolution?
There may not be any benefit to having heavily scented semen. Especially if one is trying to convince a lover to swallow it. But based on my research (still preliminary) evolution doesn't favor oral sex for the benefit of the male. (Now female directed oral sex - that's all over the place in the animal kingdom.)
So if humans don't use scent for selection (though there is a lot of evidence that they DO in fact) then why have such a scent. And more importantly why have such a similar scent in multiple plants? Do we really want bees and flies attracted to semen? (I don't! - and I certainly don't want any honey produced by such a misguided hive.)
It's a mystery - but one worth investigating. I'll put this one on the list of "things to keep looking into" and get back to it in the future.
In the April 1st (no joke) episode of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe, the crew - including the neurologist Dr. Steve Novella, discussed what possible applications could need mind control where manual control or voice control wasn't just as good.
And the immediate - and obvious - use to my mind, is enhanced teledildonics.
In case you've never heard of teledildonics, it is the field of science(?) that handles remote-controlled sex toys. Now recent inventions like the "Real Touch" synthetic sex orifice have worked on the idea that a visual component (a video) is needed with the synthetic orifice. (They say "orifice" because it is penis-centric technology and could be used to simulate straight/gay vaginal/anal sex. In other words, it could either be an electric anus or vagina. (I bet my mom is so proud of helping me go to college as an English major.)
Anyway, the technology discussed on the SGU allows some simple manipulation of robotic mechanisms via a hat. What kinds of activity might you be engaged in where your hands were actively doing something and your mouth was busy so that it couldn't speak out a command, but you wanted to be able to control a robotic device? Looks like "in bed" isn't just for appending to fortune-cookies anymore!
I foresee a time when a pair of consenting adults can be engaged in the most remarkable activities wherein many orifices are stimulated by friend and faux. I won't spell out what I'm thinking - but I can almost guarantee it'll be illegal in The South.
Okay - it's not every day that I see something that surprises me. Yet this video does for some reason. I think it is because the folks in it seem so earnestly "into" their inanimate partners. Now many, many women "enjoy" inanimate objects - and men too, don't leave them out. But these women seem to have developed one-way emotional ties that are inordinately strong and sexual in nature.
Is this a fetish? Or something different?
I plan to expand on this article but for now, just want to expose you to the concept.
I will say that one woman is seriously into her gear - but there is no nudity. Still, I'd say this one's not work-safe. For that matter neither is this blog in general - so you've been warned.
But - my only exposure to this (so far) is through this documentary. And as a rule, I like to check out the studies and get to the science behind these kinds of behaviours. Still, with a little research I did come up with some interesting information.
The condition is called "Objectum-Sexuality" or "Objectophillia" and the video is from a documentary called "Married to the Eiffel Tower." (I'm trying to track down a link to the "real" video - it isn't on Netflix yet.) The documentary talks with several people who are in love with various objects - such as the Golden Gate Bridge, the Eiffel Tower, and -as you may have surmised from the snippet above - a large mechanical side-show. This is no new condition, with a famous case being that of a woman who married the Berlin Wall. Not sure how they worked that out.
The video does appear to be available in chunks on YouTube - not my favorite way to watch a movie, but here's the link to part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag3pFIDapIw
So - is it a real condition? That's the big question on the Internet. That and "why would anyone love a bridge?" I have to admit with my naturalist world view (that's the science one, not the naked volley-ball one) I can see no reason why it wouldn't be feasible for someone to fall in love with an inanimate object. I'm of the personal opinion that much of what the world thinks of as "love" is far more brain chemistry and confirmation bias - (still I loves Mrs. Doctor Atlantis with all my chemical heart.)
The condition seems real enough, but I'll do some more journal searches and see what I can dig up. Dig up with my big shiny Internet shovel. Mmmmm. Shovels... Where was I?
Oh, I remember. There is a website for folks with the condition (if that's the right word) and you can find that here: http://www.objectum-sexuality.org/
We'll get back to this with some more details on the specifics of the condition (besides the obvious) and perhaps discuss what role animism has in the whole matter.
