Category Archives: Sex

Updated: Farewell Farrah

Celebrity, Healthcare, Pop-Culture, Science, Sex

I watched “Farrah’s Story” on NBC. I was expecting the worst. I watched, I guess, because Farrah Fawcett was such an icon.

There is already in-fighting over the production. To be expected.

The film follows Farrah’s diary, which is both poignant and quite well-written.

In its review, the New York Post makes a point I expected to echo here, but I’m not, because I did not get the sense that,

“It does not register with [Farrah] that her wealth and fame, which afford her private jets to Germany and an international team of doctors, are unavailable to the vast majority of cancer sufferers, and that, if not for her station in life, she would not have had extra time. She does not seem to wrestle, at all, with the notion that there may be some experiences best kept private, that the unintended consequences of oversharing can be a cheapening and coarsening of the most meaningful moments.”

Fair enough. (Update: May 17) The docudrama is in the tradition described above. However, one need not resort to such a formulaic verdict when the overall effect departs from the usual Oprah menagerie of moral degenerates. Fawcett is a nice lady; she was not over-dramatic or emotional.

One of the idiots that writes at Fox News.com dubbed Fawcett a “starlet” in what was a “straightforward” news story. The woman who pulled off “Extremities” and “Burning Bed” had become a bit more than a “starlet.” So, that was not entirely warranted, but maybe I just have a soft spot for someone who “came across as a nice Texan girl.”

Farrah’s Story was so obviously Farrah’s trip—her tribute to herself—and it worked.

However, if Fawcett meant to be an advocate for American patients, she failed miserably. The treatment modalities she availed herself of in Germany are banned in the US by the fascistic FDA. In the United States, legitimate, medical procedures are thus labeled “alternative treatments.” Decent advocacy would have broached this aspect of the disease and the treatment. I have no doubt that the problem of FDA approval—a process that kills—applies to other diseases and treatment options.

But mostly, not a word was said about the horrible, yet extremely rare, disease Farrah has: anal cancer.

Without wading into this indelicate topic, risk factors include:

* Being over 50 years old.
* Being infected with human papillomavirus (HPV).
* Having many sexual partners.
* Having receptive anal intercourse (anal sex).*
* Smoking cigarettes.

In 2008, there were only 5,070 new cases, and 680 Deaths. That would have been an important bit of information to impart to viewers. (Update: May 17) The FDA kills more people in a year by proscribing new treatments and new drugs.

Prevention follows from the risk factors.

* I first found out that heterosexuals engage in this perversion when I arrived in North America. I was already a married woman with a 12-year-old daughter. South Africa was a blissfully conservative country.

Updated: Bomb Them With Bimbos

Feminism, Morality, Sex, The Zeitgeist

The excerpt is from my new WorldNetDaily column. You can read the uncut version of “Bomb Them With Bimbos” on IlanaMercer.com:

“It transpires that Mao Zedong once proposed exporting 10 million Chinese women to the United States. In a long conversation with Henry Kissinger at the Chinese leader’s residence in 1973, Mao moaned about ‘the dismal trade between the two countries,’ saying China was a ‘very poor country’ with an excess of women.

That’s one page America might consider talking out of the Little Red Book.

If we were to export women, politics would begin to move to the right again. Oprah’s empire of imbeciles would shrink. And it would become possible to rehabilitate English as our official language. Distaff America has made a certain style of speech its signature:

“And he was like, ‘Come here’; and I was like, ‘No’; and he was like, ‘You’re amazing’; and I was like, ‘I know.’”

Update (May 11): “SEND MY WIFE.” Stephen G. Smith has entertained us with one of the funniest letters—funny, but a little sad at the same time. I wonder how men of the Right deal with wives who’re left-liberals. (And face it; most women are left-liberals). The garage, the range, this blog. Do share.

Updated: The Shakedown of the Catholic Church

Christianity, Criminal Injustice, Law, Pseudoscience, Psychiatry, Psychology & Pop-Psychology, Sex

On the occasion of Pope Benedict being forced to publicly capitulate to the sexual abuse industry, I’m reposting a BAB post titled “Sex, God & Greed.”

Ever wonder why the epidemic of allegations that has almost bankrupted the Catholic Church has not caught on in the UK and Europe? I venture that this is because the pop-psychology that undergirds the lion share of the allegation, and the attendant class-action law suits that ensued, is American through-and-through.

The repressed memory mythology is an American invention. As I reminded readers in my “Defense of Hierarchy & the Catholic Church,” “this victim movement has done a great deal more than try and bankrupt the Church.”

‘SEX, GOD & GREED’

In 2003, Daniel Lyons, in Forbes, hashed out all there is to say about the sexual-abuse shakedown to which the Catholic Church has been subjected. It’s worth revisiting this exceptional exposé, now that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, lamentably, has decided to capitulate, rather than fight a racket facilitated by courts that are conduits to theft. Writes Lyons:

“….The focal point of this tort battle is the Catholic Church. The Church’s legal problems are worse even than most people realize: $1 billion in damages already paid out for the victims of pedophile priests, indications that the total will approach $5 billion before the crisis is over… The lawyers are lobbying states to lift the statute of limitations on sex abuse cases, letting them dredge up complaints that date back decades. Last year California, responding to the outcry over the rash of priest cases, suspended its statute of limitations on child sex abuse crimes for one year, opening the way for a deluge of new claims. A dozen other states are being pushed to loosen their laws.”

“’There is an absolute explosion of sexual abuse litigation, and there will continue to be. This is going to be a huge business,’ MacLeish, age 50, says. A Boston-based partner of the Miami law firm of GREENBERG TRAURIG (2002 billings: $465 million)…”

Lyons and Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal are the only writers I know of to have pointed out how many of these class-action claims are, if not bogus, backed by the discredited excavation of false memories. (See my “Repressed Memory Ruse”):

The repressed memory hoax “…relies on a controversial theory that has split the world of psychology into bitterly opposing camps for more than a decade: the notion that people can wipe out memories of severe trauma, then recover these repressed memories years later… Richard McNally, a Harvard psychology professor…. thinks recovered memories of trauma are questionable. He has conducted numerous studies on memory, particularly with sexual abuse victims. He says people don’t forget a trauma like anal rape. They might forget something like being fondled as a child, but that’s because the fondling was not traumatic, he argues. ‘It might be disgusting, upsetting—but not terrifying, not traumatic.’”

“McNally’s take on this subject has set off a hometown feud with Daniel Brown, an assistant clinical professor at Harvard Medical School who is a leading proponent of recovered memory. The two archrivals have never met, engaging instead in a ‘battle of the books.’
In 1998, when Brown won an award for his 786-page tome, Memory, Trauma Treatment & the Law, McNally wrote a scathing review that criticized Brown’s methodology. In March of this year McNally published his own book, Remembering Trauma, in which he bashes repressed-memory theory and criticizes Brown’s work yet again.”

Update (April 20): To the extent that there was sexual abuse in the Church—and it was never as rampant as the $2 billion-worth of lawsuits suggests—it was mostly homosexually oriented. So sanctioning marriage would not have mitigated the abuse of small boys. I can’t imagine, moreover, that by sanctioning marriage, our reader recommends that the Catholic Church bless gay marriage.

All in all, lowering moral standards in response to a moral crisis is surely not a very elevated solution. The church, therefore, need not change its tradition of celibacy.

Skank in the Skies

Aesthetics, Etiquette, Private Property, Sex, The Zeitgeist

The moron media is celebrating the saucy skank, who stood up to Southwest Airlines in her skimpy ensemble. Kyla Ebbert is being dragged onto every cable network set to parade the porn get-up in which she boarded the airline, only to be asked to cover up, or purchase more appropriate attire in which to travel.

Ebbert’s offending skirt is so short that hot pans would have been more modest. She sports one of those cropped wrap-around tops on top of a tank top, the purpose of which is to obscenely emphasize her huge bosom, so obviously augmented.

Mother was there to support her vacuous offspring’s “rights” and perfectly appropriate dress code. What amazes is how the tele-twits interviewing this woman (one was Matt Lauer, but women stood up for Ebbert too) kept gushing, “Wow, I can’t believe they did this to you; this outfit is just great.” Had she uncrossed her tightly wound legs, as she sat opposite her interviewers, Ebbert’s undies would be plain for all to see.

One “argument” made in support of the porn apparel (besides the heat) was that all young people Ebbert’s age dress like that. Need I dignify that?

Southwest Airlines personnel are in their right, of course, to enforce minimal dress codes on their airline, if they so wish.

That this has been developed into a news story is more revealing than the outfit.

Update: A comment below indicates how deeply misunderstood property rights are in contemporary America, a country founded on private property rights. Who owns the property onto which the Skank Ebbert set foot? The airline does!! The comment writer below has no right to deliver a speech—i.e., exercise her free-speech rights—in my living room without my permission, because, guess what? My living room is MINE.
Similarly, the airline owns the plane (although, nominally, due to government regulation). On their property, the airline owners have the right to determine how they wish people to behave and dress. I’ve explained this vis-à-vis airline security in “Who’s Property Is It Anyway?” The writer can read this column (and this one) to familiarize herself with what private property rights mean—and this does not pertain to libertarianism only. The definition of property isn’t changeable or negotiable. What’s yours is yours to do with what you may.

The writer also complained about my stooping to dignify the topic. Once again, she evinces yet another misunderstanding as to what my mandate is. In case anyone has failed to notice, I’m a commentator. I comment on the Zeitgeist. This vignette, in particular, is meta-commentary: commentary about commentary. The commentary that cuts it these days as commentary is, in itself, an important area for analysis for what it reveals about the culture we inhabit. I offer insights about the culture.

Finally, aesthetics. I understand that what I’ve termed the “porn aesthetic” is appealing to men. I don’t blame them; I blame women, who generally tend to be far more narcissistic and exhibitionist than males. A woman, moreover, can dress both provocatively and attractively. Provocative dress is more appropriate for evening wear than for daytime travel or work. That women constantly ho-up for travel and work gives us a glimpse into the “Silly Sex.”

Furthermore, there is sexy and there is skanky. Ebbert is skanky. With her genitals and mammary glands threatening to pop out of her stretched-to-the-limits garments, Ebbert’s entire demeanor screams, “Do me!”