Political Sex

Why don’t people want to watch porn when the gross looking cock-wielder is wearing a condom? You wouldn’t think it would matter; you still get to see that chick (or dude) get completely violated beyond all belief. Is the no condom deal a part of that – yeah, fuck her, and maybe give her AIDS…

Whatever, people don’t want to see it, and the performers are adults who do it willingly (or at least willingly took the drugs that made them do it willingly). But of course there’s a bunch of kill-joy eunuchs out there, from this story:

Los Angeles voters could cast ballots deciding whether porn producers have to require use of condoms on shoots as a condition of getting a filming permit if a health advocacy group succeeds in a new ballot initiative.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein announced Tuesday that his group needs 41,138 valid city voter signatures in the next four months to get the issue on the June 2012 ballot.

So, this idiot thinks he can save the world from AIDS by making a bunch of people who get tested regularly in an industry where there are very few AIDS scares use condoms when they’re having sex on film. Sure. That’ll stop AIDS. Good thinking…

Sure, he was one of the most evil people in the world, but he was still a dude, and dudes like us some porno, from this story:

The pornography recovered in bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, consists of modern, electronically recorded video and is fairly extensive, according to the officials, who discussed the discovery with Reuters on condition of anonymity.

First, is the “electronically recorded” part necessary? I’m pretty sure if they just put “video” the “electronically recorded” aspect of videotaping something would be assumed. Unless, it’s widely known that in Pakistan they record their porn with a hand-crank camera like they made silent movies with in the US a hundred years ago. Note: they probably didn’t call them silent movies back them; they didn’t know any difference, they probably just called them movies.

How would Osama have gotten them out of the house in order to watch the porn?

Would you all mind going into town to get me a sandwich?

I’ll make you a sandwich here.

We don’t have the kind of sandwich that I want. Just do to that deli I like, I’d go, but, you know…

Okay, but not all of us need to go, we have to protect you.

I’ll be okay, I think everyone should go get a sandwich. I’ll treat.

I can order for everyone, and bring it back.

Just take everyone and go get sandwiches.

But, Osama, I…

Go get sandwiches! I’ll be fine… god damn it, can’t I get just one minute of Me-time.

This might be the greatest movie porn parody of all time… probably not, but it is pretty cool that movie ”The King’s Speech” was filmed at a place where a gay porno had been filmed and now a parody of “The King’s Speech” called “The King’s Piece” was filmed at the same location. I’d imagine this is quite unusal. Every movie porn parody, no matter what the movie, seems to be filmed in the same location somewhere in the Chatsworth Hills in Southern California. How much better would “Lord of the G-Strings” have been if Dildo Baggins could have actually been in the mountains of New Zealand. Not much, actually, I think they used cardboard cut-out swords – no pervert, I don’t mean ”used” them, they pretended to fight with them.

For some reason I couldn’t embed the stupid trailer, so go here to see it.

Picture from this story. That’s someone named Genachowski who has something to do with the FCC.

So the government will be able to regulate the Internet… for our own good, of course. They call it Net Neutrality, and it has something to do with making sure large Internet providers don’t screw us. From this story:

The new FCC rules, for example, would prevent a broadband provider, such as Comcast Corp., AT&T, Inc. or Verizon Communications Inc., from hobbling access to an online video service, such as Netflix, that competes with its own video services.

The rules would also require Internet providers to give subscribers more information on Internet speeds and service. Broadly, the rules would prohibit Internet providers from “unreasonably discriminating” against rivals’ Internet traffic or services on wired or wireless networks.

There’s no way this is a first step for our government to try controlling the Internet; they wouldn’t want to do that. The current government has done a great job making sure no one trusts large corporations (not that you should), so of course they can make the argument that the evil ISP (if you don’t know, that means Internet Service Providers) corporations are going to make your Internet slow if you don’t use the services they own.

In other news, the government has really sucked lately, right? So… (makes tilting scale with hands) as long as we can still get porn online, I think we’ll all be a-oh-kay!

Some government people in England – called Ministers – want people to have to ‘opt in’ to be able to view online porn in their homes to keep children from inadvertently seeing people do it. From this story:

Ministers believe broadband providers should consider automatically blocking sex sites, with individuals being required to opt in to receive them, rather than opt out and use the available computer parental controls.

Opt in? Is there a man in the house over the age of… let’s say 18 so as not to sound creepy? Then assume the answer is, ‘Agh, for fucks sake gov’na, you got my nut in, this is bollocks, don’t be a wanka’, Ima take a Jimmy and grab a Brittney, and then I’m going to look at porn so OPT IN!’

Now that we got that settled, how do we keep children from looking at pornography on the Internet. Oh I know… don’t let your kids look at porn on the Internet.