I wonder if this is an equal pay job?

I'm not sure what to call this. A stride forward in the equality of the sexes? The next step in feminism? A step backward from the male-centric power base?

Whatever you might want to call it, it is the first in the United States. In Nevada, home of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the first male prostitution service has been authorized.

Yes, now women can travel outside of Las Vegas (60 miles to be exact) to take their hard earned cash and purchase time with a man, obstensibly for sex. It may be the ultimate form of male objectification, but so far all comments about the new option seem to be about if it will work.

The Shady Lady, in Nye County, is the location of this new enterprise. It's an experiment thought up by the wife and co-owner of Shady Lady, Bobbi Davis. Other brothels in Nevada worry that the potential of male - male services might cause a backlash that could cause all prostitution in the State to be revoked. But according to the owners, if the demand for the male workers is only from other males they will end the experiment. Plus they state that all workers have the right to deny any service of any patron.

Now my query is simple. Would a woman want to actually pay for this service? Do they actually need to? In all honesty, a woman can simply go to a bar and gain this service for free I imagine.

Then again there is no shortage of men (including porn stars) willing to take on this new job opportunity. I'm not sure that it's because of the economy, the prestige (if such can be attributed to this job title), or the nature of the work. I am sure that any male worker would be a great friend of the local pharmacist (stock up on that Viagra).

I also wonder if this new job can be attributed to the Obama Stimulus, or receive money from it? Now that would be priceless; to hear Sen. Harry Reid boasting about the "success" of the Obama Stimulus in creating jobs with this as the shining acheivement for his home State.

Selling sex - in book form

Sometimes a catchy title just perks the interest. No matter if it's for a movie, a book, or an article. You just want to know more. So when I saw the article called "Why Women Really Have Sex" I had to stop.

The first thought that has to pop into your mind is, because they are alive? I mean it's not a big philosophical question. It's kind of like eating and breathing. But I just had to see what a book with this title was about.

The article, essentially more of a 'go buy this' than a review, detailed that the reasons women have sex is far more complex than I could imagine. Which could be true since I am a man. But I doubted it.

Reading the review honestly gave me no new insights, nor compelled me to buy the book. Women have sex because it feels good, they want something, and its natural. That's not exactly the reasons that were given, but it just breaks down to that. Which is exactly what I thought in the first place.

The book tries to dress all of this up though. It's based on research over 5 years with information from 1,000 women of various ages and sexual orientations. They even gave 13 different major reasons that appear in greater detail in the book.

Examples are: Mate poaching

"It's still a bad thing to do. But the bottom line is men and women mates poach because a lot of times the good ones are taken up. It is the case that if a good-looking guy has a good looking partner, then he must be doing something right to get this good-looking partner. She's already preselected him, and this in some ways makes him more desirable."

That falls under, it's natural and they want something. The fact that it's natural to be attracted to someone that others find attractive is basic. That's natural selection and been around since cavemen. Wanting what others have is as simple as "keeping up with the Jones'". But this excuse sounds like justification to me.

To Get Closer to God

"It was a dream come true, being with this incredible man. I was able to lose myself and see God, where the edges of the dreamworld and the real world met." Heterosexual woman, age 23"

Again, it's natural and feels good. Obviously very good for this woman.

To Even The Score, and Out of pity and a Want for Power

I combined these 2 as they are the same thing. Here is one quote

"I had sex with a couple of guys because I felt sorry for them. These guys were virgins and I felt bad that they had never had sex before so I had sex with them. I felt like I was doing them a big favor that no one else had ever done. I felt power over them, like they were weaklings under me and I was in control. It boosted my confidence to be the teacher in the situation and made me feel more desirable." Heterosexual woman, age 25"

Simply put, it is the want of something. Revenge, power, whatever.

Perhaps the classic worst reason I have ever heard may be these. I am combining them as they too are the same thing.

For Money, Out of Boredom and Want of a good meal, Because everyone else is doing it

"I only [have sex for money] with my kid's father. Not a prostitute or anything and because I love him but nothing is free in this world." Heterosexual woman, age 32"

That is just sad. It's insulting. And yes it is prostitution. Whether its cash or a meal. But again they all fall under wanting something. Just the really worst things to want, and a poor reflection on women that believe in this - in my male opinion.

Perhaps the only example of why anyone would buy this book is something I have never heard before.

"A lot of women report that the moment of penetration is the most pleasurable aspect of sex," said Buss, who previously published "The Evolution of Desire" about varying cultural attitudes about sex. "Orgasm is certainly up there, it's in the top three, but I don't know if it's the No. 1 physical reason."

Really? I've known many women, in fact all of them, that would differ with this conclusion. But I hardly could argue the point. So that was new to me, but still it falls under feeling good and being natural.

Seriously, a catchy title is the big draw for most things being sold. This book is just that, a title and nothing of real benefit - as I see it. But I didn't read it, and I won't. If any of my female readers do read this, I would love to hear if anything in this book goes beyond what I have concluded. Or if it's worth the money.

Can television commercials promote HIV and AIDS?

Mrs. H,

Thank you for commenting. My response is not only to your comments but for those reading this post for the first time.

Now it’s not me saying this Levi’s 501 jeans commercial is about sex. I didn’t make it. But to watch this and to say they think that sex will sell their jeans seems obvious to me. The question of morality should be asked of Levi’s.

Now you asked how I connect this to HIV and AIDS. Well I view it like this. Teenagers and 20-something’s experience huge hormonal changes. Their sex drives are massively amped up compared to most any other age group, as is their belief that they are invulnerable to any harm. As such they don’t always think in the most logical or complete manner once sex is on the horizon. That leads to risky acts and spontaneous action.

That is not to say every young adult is like this. But honestly most are.

This is why far too many young adults don’t carry or use condoms. Add to that the general cultural fear and/or embarrassment about asking questions relating to sex and you have an environment that is ripe for transmitting STD’s. The worst of those STD’s is HIV and AIDS.

If unprotected sex can cause pregnancy, transfer Chlamydia or Herpes, then it can absolutely spread HIV and/or AIDS. Unprotected sex often is connected to high risk sexual activity, multiple partners, and spontaneous sex acts. The failure to even hint at a question of the sexual heal status of a potential partner due to fear, embarrassment, and/or fear of thus being rejected increases the chance of unprotected sex.

This commercial emphasizes spontaneous sex. It never asks any question of sexual health status. The very environment of the act demands the high risk nature of the sex. So in consequence it directly promotes the chances of getting an STD which means the chance of HIV and/or AIDS is MASSIVELY more likely.

Mrs. H, I see it like this. If we, via the media, promote spontaneous, high risk sex we promote the chance of getting and spreading HIV and AIDS. If we maintain a cultural fear and taboo about speaking to a potential sex partner about their sexual health status, we promote HIV and AIDS.

Unprotected sex is high risk sex and promoting HIV and AIDS. Ignorance of a sex partner’s sexual health is promoting HIV and AIDS. And both of these are the reason that most of those with HIV and/or AIDS currently in the United States are 25 or younger.

Assuming that unprotected random sex acts with a person that looks healthy, is of the opposite sex, or part of a race that is of lower HIV risk does not make anyone immune or safe from contracting HIV and/or AIDS. It is virtually inviting the contracting and spreading of the disease. And the 501 jeans ad does just that.

Some might think that I am overreacting. Perhaps I am. But what if your kid gets HIV and/or AIDS? What if it is you? IS not asking a simple question, having documentation, and being protected worth less than your life?

Because unprotected sex is like playing Russian Roulette with the odds, and you will be shot – if not the first time, then eventually. No one can beat the odds forever. Even if a jeans commercial would like to make it seem like you can.

Oprah mistaken to show pregnant "man"

I understand that Oprah Winfrey is an entertainer. Her purpose is to provide something to give women something to watch and talk about at bridge meetings, the office, and the spa. While she occasionally hits on real subjects of note, most often she revels in man-hating topics, movie promotion interviews and nonsensical topics that would never have made the airwaves before the Robert Downey Show (a mid-80’s program that was the inspiration for Jerry Springer).

But I just find the subject of a recent show to be objectionable and wrong. This is my personal opinion, and has little to do with Oprah beyond her allowing the subject to hit the airwaves. What was the show? A pregnant man.

Well that is what it was billed as, but in fact that is a lie. Every newscaster that has touched on this story has made the reference of this being a man that is pregnant. That is physically impossible, and untrue. In fact it is a woman that is pregnant. Not that this obvious fact of nature matters to the state of Oregon – the home of the city of Eugene that can’t figure out how to speak to African Americans.

Let me explain that this falls into a category of items I call “We can, but we shouldn’t”. Like injecting poison into your body – otherwise known as botox injections. Or breast implants for teenagers. Or as in this case changing your sex.

The “man” in this case is actually a woman, who partially changed her body to resemble a man’s. She is “married” to a woman. She maintains the reproductive organs of a woman. Thus she is a woman, and the fact she is pregnant proves it. Worse is the fact that if she raises the child in this family setting. That kid, mark my words, will be the most screwed up kid in quite some time.

I do not agree with people trying to be smarter than nature and “fixing” their sex. I do not agree with these people raising a child. And I mean transgendered not gay when I say these people. Nature said they were male or female, and unless they are a hermaphrodite [which this woman in question has functionally become] that is all there should be.

Science may be capable of cloning creatures (which I disagree with), manipulating DNA (another bad idea), and moving around body parts – but human beings are not smart enough to know neither why these things exist as they do nor how they affect their surroundings. We just aren’t. And in promoting the belief that we are this smart, Oprah does society a disservice.

My greatest objection to this is because of my personal belief. It is because of the impact on the unborn child and society. It is one thing for a grown adult to manipulate their body in an unnatural way (all cosmetic surgery is unnatural and generally unnecessary), but promoting that as normal or positive – as being on Oprah makes it – is bad, in my opinion. And to raise a child in a family that is sexually confused and societal pariahs is unfair and conductive to problems in that child’s emotional if not intellectual growth.

Appearing on Oprah just gives fuel to others to follow in this manner, just as the antics of Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, and Paris Hilton (among others of both sexes) promote and fuel drugs, drunken binges, anorexia, ill-behavior and such. Or in another manner it’s like the way that Columbine has caused the copycats since that event.

I do not see a single positive to society, or the unborn child, by the actions of Oprah in promoting this act. It was wrong, but sadly the genie is out of the bottle. As such I give my condolences to the future children of the transgendered parents.

Some things in this world we can do, but we just shouldn’t.

LeBron James, Gisele Vogue cover controversy hides a lot - 3.27.2008.2

LeBron James. Gisele Bundchen. King Kong and the blonde or success and good looks?



The cover of Vogue does not make a preference. Beyond saying both look good and are in shape there is nothing more said. But in America, images of Blacks and Whites together always evoke issues older than the nation itself. This is no different.

How you see the cover has a lot to do with what you want to see, and I think what race you are. I would guess that most African Americans will either see nothing or a Mandingo image. Most Whites will see nothing or the stereotypical sexual image of a Black male, or a taboo that far too many Black men have died over for centuries. And that is perhaps the problem.

Not that some see anything, but that so many see something more. And that was exactly what Vogue wanted. Ads and images for companies are important. They promote sales, and bring profit. They make your brand memorable. In a nation that is obsessed with sex, yet repressed from having it the residual suggestion is enough to get some into an uproar.

I personally did not see anything wrong with the photo at first glance. My next thought was, couldn’t LeBron have worn something more classy or professional? Then I saw the sexual insinuation. Note that I had to work to that conclusion.

But there is no lack of people who go to that 3rd thought first. Whether it’s an African American that thinks the Black race is being breed out of the world (which considering the numbers in Africa I doubt), or a White seeing visions of Slavery rape fantasy/fears. We are a nation that has yet to resolve our initial circumstances, and companies that recognize this seek the profit out of it.

I’ve read many that say the photo is one thing or another. Actually I think it’s both. It is meant to be on the edge, allowing deniability and thus feeding a frenzy that happened with too much ease. And the real question to me is if this was so easy to cause uproar, how can we ever believe that all the issues and baggage since 1619 no longer exists?

While on an individual level I’m sure many are not racist or tied to prejudice, just as LeBron did not envision this as being a negative portrayal of him. But as a nation that cannot be said. The first day of 2007 I commented on the interracial couple that made headlines with their proposal on national television. Later that same year I discussed the lesser covered news of their wedding marred by death threats and violence at the wedding.

Barely a week ago Senator Obama had to discuss race, and the racism of his own grandmother. 2 weeks ago Rev. Wright was often taken out of context as a group of 10 second soundbites from 5 sermons were strung together to form polispeak against Senator Obama’s campaign; to the delight of the Clinton campaign that had been using race as an issue since October 2007 at least.

If there is anything more at issue in America than sex (who’s having it and with whom) it is absolutely race. Neither issue is one that gets an honest or open conversation.

What is the real thing the cover is saying that is not being dealt with in the media? That several successful Black entertainers and businesspeople, like Kimora Lee Simmons or Sean Combs (aka P Diddy), never got attention on the cover of Vogue though they had successful and popular clothing lines for a decade. That holding up a question about an entertainer completely obfuscates the real issues of poor educations for our children, skyrocketing drop-out and teen pregnancy rates, unequal legal sentencing policies, and the proliferation of drug in low income communities to name a few.

Magazines about women’s clothing lines are about sex. A cover is meant to exemplify that fact. Sex sells in America (if not the world). And this cover absolutely attacks the American precepts of sex appeal and sexuality. It dives right into the unspoken and still held belief in restricting or preventing interracial couples. It swings the door open to the learned fears and fantasies and questions that have plague this nation since the first African slave was sold in America and a White woman gave him a second glance.

Is this image troubling? Maybe in some respects. But more troubling is what this cover is attempting to distract from. That is what we really need to pay attention to. At least that’s what I think.