« October 2012 | Main | December 2012 »
Attention all units. Attention all units. This is not a drill. Repeat. This. Is. Not. A. Drill.
Jesus, he is one hot mofo. Who is that?
(All kidding aside, I actually thought this was a very clever advertisement. Quick. Sexy. Makes it point. Of course, with that stud, he could have been selling hemlock and I'd have been down to my local pharmacy in sixty seconds flat.)
Continue reading "Fleshlight's Stamina Training Unit (NSFW)" »
| |
|
Unfortunately, what seems like a genuinely honest reaction to an amazing orgasm is all but scuttled by Annie there and her over-the-top ah-ing.
(Her name is Jasmine! You know, just in case you forgot she's Asian.)
Continue reading "Dane Stewart And His Incredible Cum Shot (NSFW)" »
| |
|
It is expected today that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide which cases, among several, to take onto
And while the last few years have seen unprecedented growth in support for the issue among the general population, that support has not, and will not, necessarily translate into one or more legal victories for same-sex couples seeking the right to marry.
That said, there has been very little examination in the press and media about the legal arguments expected to be made against same-sex marriage. Although well-known by some, most people who support same-sex marriage have a tendency to hear only that part of the argument that fits their ideas about what is right.
Part of it is wishful thinking. Americans like to see themselves as a fair and positive lot and the argument by defenders of the cause has been so successfully made - both in the public and legal spheres among appellate and federal courts - that the emotional preparations that should be being made in the event of a loss - to say nothing of a catastrophic loss - at the Supreme Court level are not being made.
And this could have profound consequences to the LGBTQI movement.
In it, Lyle lays out the case, step by step, argument by argument, on how supporters of opposite-sex marriage (a loaded term if ever there were one), those with an extremely vested interest, will go about making the case.
They will argue that, at its heart, marriage is an institution that has remained unchanged across cultures for thousands of years. They will argue that it has remained so because society has a vested interest in that institution because it is the only one that has proven so successful at child-rearing. They will further argue that the laws surrounding marriage were set up precisely for that reason (one man, one woman, for life, etc.). And because culture depends on its for its advancement and survival, the state has a vested interest in limiting the institution to couples of the opposite sex.
That much is pretty well-known.
But they will also point out some arguments that haven't gotten a fully airing in public. They will argue that despite a few boutique victories in several outlier states, overall the full body of law has been far more favorable to defenders of traditional marriage. Besides, 30-plus states can't all be wrong.
Also included in these arguments, Denniston goes on to discuss Baker v. Nelson (1972), a ruling that struck down a gay couple's claim that they had the right to marry, the basis for every single victory of supporters of same-sex marriage:
"[In]n 1972, it would be entirely unremarkable that the Supreme Court would conclude that a gay couple’s challenge to a traditional marriage law did not even raise “a substantial federal question.” That was the Justices’ brief and apparently unanimous ruling in the case of Baker v. Nelson, and that ruling reverberates still, regularly cited by marriage defenders with the argument that it is the Court’s binding last word on the subject.In fact, if the Supreme Court were to conclude in one or more of the new same-sex marriage cases now on its docket that Baker v. Nelson did, indeed, settle the matter, that might well be the end of gay marriage equality as a constitutional matter — at least for the next several years, and perhaps longer. The current status of that precedent is thus one of the first questions the Court probably would need to answer before moving on to any other arguments, for or against same-sex marriage.
As of this post, I will not have heard which, if any, cases had been selected by the Supreme Court regarding the matter. And I have my own reasons against marriage in general. But as a legal issue, the LGBTQI is deluding itself into thinking that the issue will not face setbacks, some, quite possibly, substantial in its march towards full equality
© 2012, Victor Hoff. All rights reserved. Menofcolor.blogs.com
| |
|
"We will go to the gym with her. And then after, we'll get Pinkberry as a reward. That sounds like a great time to us."
How did I miss this??
© 2012, Victor Hoff. All rights reserved. Menofcolor.blogs.com
| |
|
The married father-of-two won a little over a quarter of million dollars after a seven-year battle with the pharmaucetical giant. From TheIndependent.co.uk:
"Jambart broke down in tears as judges upheld his claim that his life had become 'hell' after he started taking Requip, a drug made by GSK. Mr Jambart began taking the drug for Parkinson's in 2003, he had formerly worked as a well-respected bank manager and local councillor, and is a father of two. After beginning to take the drug he claimed he attempted to commit suicide eight times. In total Mr Jambert said he gambled away 82,000 euros, mostly through internet betting on horse races. He also said he engaged in frantic searches for gay sex."
Jambert also claims he was forced to sell his children's toys to maintain his addictions. (What is Mr. Potato Head worth these days anyhow?)
Mr Jambert said he realized the drug was responsible when he stumbled across a website that made a connection between the drug and addictions in 2005. When he stopped the drug he claims his behavior returned to normal.
Look, I'm no expert, but if all your life you've been accustomed to certain vaginal pleasures and then, one day, the port of entry has shrunk considerably in size and accommodation, that's probably the first sign that your scrips need a serious review.
Duh.
The article fails to mention if Requip addressed any of the symptoms of his Parkinson's Disease or whether or not Requip works to offset the sexual side effects of their antidepressant Wellbutrin which, by no small coincidence, has been the subject of a multi-billion dollar fine.
© 2012, Victor Hoff. All rights reserved. Menofcolor.blogs.com
| |
|
Gay couples seeking access to marriage in Nevada will have to wait after a ruling by Judge Robert
"The judge disagreed, writing that the 1972 summary dismissal in Baker v. Nelsonforecloses the issue. He suggested a broad reading of Baker (which concerned an equal protection challenge based on gender), writing that “The equal protection claim is the same in this case as it was in Baker, i.e., whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from refusing to permit same-sex marriages. Although the judge found that the amendment does indeed draw a dividing line between two groups and that “for the purposes of an equal protection challenge, the distinction is definitely sexual-orientation based”, he applied the most lenient form of judicial review for equal protection challenges, rational basis review, where “a court does not judge the perceived wisdom or fairness of a law, nor does it examine the actual rationale for the law when adopted, but asks only whether “there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.”” Under this standard, he wrote, “[t]he protection of the traditional institution of marriage, which is a conceivable basis for the distinction drawn in this case, is a legitimate state interest.” Thus there is no violation of the Equal Protection Clause."
Worse, the judge concluded that the state had a reasonable interest in maintaining the distinction between marriage and civil unions even if it meant "one result of the distinction is the stigmatization of same-sex relationships or if bias was one motivating factor.”
This, from a state that legalized prostitution.
The case now makes its way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where it is expected to get a much more sympathetic hearing.
© 2012, Victor Hoff. All rights reserved. Menofcolor.blogs.com
| |
|
During this time, I've written for some other well-established brands. Unzipped. Fleshbot. Gay Demon. Queerty. I've met some amazing people and made even more amazing friends. And I've been blessed to have interviewed some of the brightest lights in the gay porn industry.
But mostly, I've played a part, however small, in opening people's eyes to the self-imposed limits that the gay porn industry has indulged in by catering to outworn ideas about human sexuality, race and the need to compartmentalize gay porn performers by race. I've forced people to defend their policies and, in some cases, like to think I've have a hand in changing them.
I've also watched a lot of sites come and go during this time. It takes time, patience and a willingness to cultivate an audience (even though I really should be writing for myself and not others). But I'm glad I've stuck to it because I've always believed in what I'm doing even if the way I've gone about it hasn't always been - what's the word - adroitly.
I don't know know what the next eight years are going to bring but if they're anything like the past eight, it's going to be one hell of a ride. And you can sure that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I will sure as fuck call it a duck.
Well Wishes,
Victor
© 2012, Victor Hoff. All rights reserved. Menofcolor.blogs.com
| |
|
Could I do without all the ew-ing and ah-ing and 'fuck my man pussy' from Sideburns Sally over here? Of course. But that top sure does wind my clock!
| |
|
John Crawford, from Marylebone in Central London has finally had his sexually offense conviction
"Under a new law people can apply for historic convictions for gay sex to be treated as spent...The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which gained Royal Assent in May, changed the law so historical convictions for decriminalised consensual sex offences will not show up on criminal record checks. Those affected need to apply to the Home Secretary for a formal disregard of their convictions."
Since October 1, 27 people, presumably all alive, have applied from England and Wales.
"I looked back over my life and realised that all the work I'd lost over the years was due to this criminal record," Crawford noted ruefully.
Currently the age of consent in England is 16. The age of consents for two men was changed in 2000 from 18 to 16, in line with heterosexual laws. Further, it had been reduced from 21 to 18 in 1994.
© 2012, Victor Hoff. All rights reserved. Menofcolor.blogs.com
| |
|
