The Jeff Booth Show

Internet Radio with Pictures

Show Transcripts

May 11th , 2008

You can contact us at:

Jeff@eroticuniversity.com

(818) 613-9248

Politics

Mildred Loving passed away this week. She married Richard Loving in 1958 and changed history. She was black. He was white. And what they did was called miscegenation, and it was illegal. They were married in the District of Columbia, and when they returned home to Virginia, police burst into their home in the middle of the night and arrested them and charged with "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth". They had to flee the state to avoid being imprisoned. Perhaps Virginia should change their state motto to “Virginia is for Lovers, but nor for Loving” which would be perfect since they banned both Mildred Loving and they have a notorious history even up to today of telling people how they think they should be able to love or have sex. They are obsessed, with some of the most oppressive anti-sex laws in the Union. Anyway, most people would have let it go at that and settled down to a comforatble life in a less insane state. They were banned from Virginia for 25 years, where their families lived. They decided to fight it, and contacted then Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, who referred them to the American Civil Liberties Union. The case became famous as Loving v. Virginia, again, also another great suggestion for a new state motto. They fought the state all the way up to the Supreme Court, and in 1967 they won, a victory which sealed the end of miscegnation laws in the U.S. June 12th is officially “Loving Day” in the United States in honor of them, which is when we really ought to celebrate love rather than on Valentine’s Day named after a Saint we actually know nothing about, and whose flimsy connection to love was made up, probably by Geoffrey Chaucer.  So, how did Mildred feel about gay marriage? She made it very clear, when, last year, on the 40th Anniversary of the court decision, she issued the following statement: “Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about. She was courageous, heroic, humble, and loving. A great American has passed.

Indiana apparently missed the parts of the constitution about freedom of expression and freedom of the press. The state passed a law, written by  State Rep. Terry Goodin, requiring retailers to register with the state and pay a fee if they want to sell sexually explicit material. It is the first law of its kind in the United States, and for good reason. Its an incredibly unconstitutional law and an incredibly stupid idea. Sexual speech is protected speech, until and unless it has been determined by a court to be obscene. You can not put undue burdens on speech. That is why the Indianapolis Museum of Art, Association of American Publishers, the National Association of Recording Merchandisers, bookstores, and the ACLU have teamed up to sue the state and overturn this moronic law, enacted by lawmakers apparently unaware of what country they are supposed to be making laws for. “What, we have a constitution? I just though that meant we were fit and healthy.” Terry Goodin claims that court rulings have shown there’s no gray area when it comes to defining pornography. Except, of course, for the incredible grey area that exists when it comes to defining pornography, with some groups including women’s magazines and even an attempt to prosecute a Halloween store for obscenity for selling sexy Halloween costumes.  Goodin also derided opponents of the law by claiming they are being deceived by the pornography industry. What an idiotic douchebag. Lots of time and money is going to be wasted because of this imbecilic law that will most certainly be overturned.

California is in a financial mess. We’re kind of broke. In deep doo-doo. We need more money. So, where are we going to get it? Democratic Assemblyman Charles Calderon has a solution. AB 1956. It would impose a 25% tax on sex toys, strip shows, pornographic magazines and videos and anything else sold in an "adult entertainment venue." A 25 percent tax. I can’t think of anything else that is taxed quite that high, and since it is targeted at constitutionally protected forms of expression, I suspect there are serious constitutional issues. But as ignorant as Calderon is about the constitution, he is even more ignorant about the adult industry. He said in a Los Angeles Times article on Friday, “"This is a major industry that is putting a disproportionate burden on state services. Drugs are heavily used. The actors have a short life span. Some leave the industry drug-addicted with no skills. They wind up availing themselves of Medi-Cal and other state programs." Okay, now let’s play how many stupid things can one person say in just five sentences. The adult industry in California pumps a lot of money into the economy already in taxes, and it employs many fine people who pay their taxes and work hard and are good citizens. Drugs are a problem throughout our society, but while it was a real problem in the 70’s, drug use is strongly discouraged on adult film sets and no one wants to work with a drugged out actor. I’ve been on a lot of adult sets and I know this first hand. I don’t think that the rate of drug use in the adult industry is different from the rate of drug use in the society at large. Sure, we have a drug problem in this country, but it can’t be singled out as a porn star drug problem. And porn stars make up just a tiny fraction of the people employed in the adult industry. Accountants, marketing directors, secretaries, and the guy who hands the porn stars a bottle of lube on set- all good honest hard working people. And actor’s have a short-life span in the industry, meaning they don’t stay in it that long as it is primarily a young person’s game. Maybe he is confusing this with the similarly made up statistics about all homosexuals having short life spans. Ignorant asshole. And maybe some do leave the industry with drug addiction and no skills- but that could describe a lot of mainstream actors, or a lot of anybody else’s. Its just crap he made up. And most of the people I know in the adult industry have a hell of a lot more integrity than Charles Calderon.

Democratic Ohio State Representative Matthew Barrett’s political career was over in a flash. Caused by accidentally showing a picture from his flash drive of a woman flashing during a high school government class talk. A special prosecutor has decided not to prosecute for the mistake, which could have permanently traumatized and blinded some students who would have been seeing boobies for the first time in their lives, assuming they were never breastfed and lived in a dark closet their entire lives. I notice that politicians hang in a long time with corruption charges over their heads, but titties are a instant career destroyer, even if displayed accidentally. Interesting civics lesson for those high school students to learn. 

Sex Science Sunday

Welcome to another edition of sex science Sunday, our roundup of all the latest in sex science every second Sunday of the month.

New Scientist magazine reports that a woman’s voice is affected by her menstrual cycle. When she is most fertile, her voice becomes more alluring. It appears that sex hormones can alter the workings of the voice box. Since humans don’t have regular obvious fertile periods, scientists suggest that subtle clues have developed to make them more attractive to men at the point they are most likely to get pregnant. In their tests, men listening to recordings of women at different points in their cycle tended to be more attracted to the voices of women at the peak of their fertility. There appeared no difference, however, for women who were on the pill.

Some people claim that there is no such thing as the G-Spot, but now we have pictures. Renowned vaginal researcher Emmanuele Jannini of Italy's University of L'Aquila. Using an ultra-sound, he was able to image a distinctly visible thickening of the tissue in the area the G-spot, or Grafenburg spot, is supposed to be.  Stimulation of the G-spot can lead to intense orgasms. The more pronounced this spot was in the image, the more the women tended to report being able to orgasm from vaginal stimulation alone. In the report on his findings published in the "Journal of Sexual Medicine", they noted that women’s sexual organs differ markedly from person to person, and that some women do no have a G-Spot. However, I’m wondering if those women simply have a less pronounced G-Spot that requires a little more expertise to stimulate. I don’t know, but I have seen first hand that under the hands of an expert, a lot of women can have a G-Spot orgasm for the very first time when they have never had one before. So I think it is premature to say that some women don’t have G-Spots (in this study about half were claimed not to). There are a couple of other problems with this conclusion. I know that the G-spot swells once stimulated, more in some women than others. Did they do an ultrasound with the woman stimulated? There is still a remarkable amount that science does not know about the G-Spot, but I think part of the problem is that so few researchers are willing to pull up their sleeves and use a hands on approach.

This research sounds to me more like phrenology than science. Scientists at the University of Aberdeen and St. Andrews working with Durham University studied 700 people in their 20’s. Their conclusion was that men generally preferred women they perceive are open to short-term sexual relationships, while women tend to prefer men who seem interested in longer term relationships. And they can make these distinctions simply by looking at the shape of the person’s face. Masculine looking men with squarer jaws, larger noses, and small eyes were perceived as less committed by women. The scientists said their research showed people could use their perceptions to make more informed partner selection depending on the type of relationship they were after. They might also want to consult an astrologist and have his chart read. Even if facial characteristics are perceived in certain ways by some people, this information is meaningless. Most people in their early twenties are not looking for a long term relationship, and as is typical of university studies, this is the range this study focused on. And even assuming that we can read these facial cues, wouldn’t a better analyses be that men and women who are judged to be either promiscuous or commitment prone would be more likely to be pursued by those seeking that, and vice versa, thius increasingly the likelihood of them becoming involved in that type of relationship? And isn’t it rather obvious that the physicality of your face does not change when you decide you are interested in a long term relationship. Sure, some guys seriously considering a long term relationship do tend to get bigger eyes, but that look is fear, because long term commitments are scary. And larger noses? Look honey, my nose has stopped growing and is actually getting smaller- that means I am now more honest and ready for a commited relationship. The study was published in the Journal of Evolution and Human Behaviour, and I am assuming, Parasychology.

And on this Mother’s Day, we should not forget about the groups who want to make everyone a mother whether they want to be or not- and use false scientific arguments to try and make their point. I’ve long said that one of the most dangerous things about the anti-abortion movement realizing their dream of banning abortion is that it would give them full time to spend on their other dream, the less publicized one- banning birth control. I really can’t think of any major anti-abortion groups that support birth control. And now we have the American Life League starting a campaign called The Pill Kills, trying to convince people that the birth control pill is a form of abortion. They make this same argument about emergency contraception, and it is not anymore scientific. They also oppose the patch, the IUD, and pretty much anything that keeps women from being constantly pregnant. They are calling on people to join them in a National day against contraception by protesting in front of facilities that provide birth control products across the country on June 7th, a significant day because that is the 43rd anniversary of the date when the Supreme Court ruled that married people had the right to use contraception.  Joining them are Pro-Life Wisconsin and Pharmacists for Life International, and yes, these groups oppose birth control even for married people. The claim is that birth control kills babies. I hope they don’t also teach women that the body normally does the same thing quite frequently- up to 50% of fertilized eggs do not implant, thus causing a baby genocide of unimaginable proportions. And eggs that implant late are more likely to die. And about 15 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. Can you imagine the guilt women will feel when they learn that their own body is a mass murderer? How do we punish them? And how do we punish all of those demon possessed scientists who point out that the way groups like the American Life League claim that birth control works is a lie? And if abortion becomes murder, do we have to put the prescribing doctors and the women who use contraception in prison? I am sure they are salivating at the thought. While they cite countless made up scientific facts about the harm the pill causes and how it works- their real agenda is anti-sex. On the Pill Day site, it says, “By contracepting, you are saying "no" to God’s plan by selfishly taking part in sexual relations without fulfilling the entire act or the purpose of the act.” I’m sure there is also something on the site about being barefoot- if only they could dream up some fake science for that as well.