Disqus - Latest Comments for AlexaD

Re: Teen Tart Taylor Momsen Flashes Us Her Jugs

Alexa — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:45:22 -0000

I wonder if you've ever even bothered to consider the hypocrisy in your drivel? Your last sentence: "I’m not going to post about it? Why!? Because as soon as we stop paying her attention she’ll go away." kind of conflicts with A) the entire rest of your post, and B) the very nature of your existence, doesn't it? (That's a purely rhetorical question - we know the answer already).

It's one thing to post about these things, but for fuck's sake, cut out the pretended surprise and outrage with the subjects you do cover. It just makes you look stupid and hypocritical. Jeez.

Re: How Big is the Market for Sex Trafficking?

Alexa — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:53:25 -0000

Dude, please. Read what you wrote yourself: "****Extrapolating**** from International Labor Organization data, UNODC ****estimates**** that one in seven sex workers in Europe are trafficking victims."

Extrapolating? Estimates?

No one denies there's a problem, but please, pulling these figures out of your ass (and the ass of others) just to drive hysteria really isn't necessary.

Re: How Big is the Market for Sex Trafficking?

Alexa — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:44:51 -0000

And Mama_kin72, yours is the kind of "let's accept any figure pulled out of someone's ass as legitimate" attitude that causes the real nature of the problem to be not understood. Made up or "estimated" figures do nothing but cause people to flail about and use resources ineffectively. I agree with Andrew - they should be using stats derived from local and state law enforcement agencies on what they're actually finding. Just blanketly stating that 70K women are trafficked (this week - a while back the figure was in the millions. See a pattern developing?) doesn't make it so. In fact, there was one study a year or so ago that showed the actual number of trafficking victims was far, far less than estimated for one country. I don't recall where it was off the top of my head, but the point still stands.

Why aren't you harassing these organizations producing such SWAG figures and asking them to substantiate how they came to arrive at those?

Re: Don’t numb your ass, please!

Alexa — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:44:27 -0000

For the same effect, wrap your hand around the base of his penis and use it like an extension of your mouth.

Um, no, sorry. There's a strong psychological component involved (from the cock-owner's perspective) in being able to take one all the way in. The physical feeling may not be much different, but the psychological aspect of sexuality is just as much a factor in getting someone off as the physical is.

Re: At least 78 GOP candidates would force women to bear rapists’ babies

Alexa — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 19:27:32 -0000

"Why is that if a person shoots a pregnant woman and her child dies, he's charged with murder?"

Why is it people like you are too dense to understand the simple answer to that question? Are you really, truly that ignorant? There's no "both ways" to it. One involves a person with another life growing inside of it (and all of the attendant risks that entails, physical, emotional, short term, and long term) making a decision to divest themselves of that risk, and the other involves someone external to that situation killing two independent lives. The fact that one constitutes two murders is wholly irrelevant to the former situation.

Re: At least 78 GOP candidates would force women to bear rapists’ babies

Alexa — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 17:01:44 -0000

So you believe *you* should be allowed to make that choice for them, because they're too stupid to make the "right" choice as you see it? Is that what I am to take from your comment?

Re: At least 78 GOP candidates would force women to bear rapists’ babies

Alexa — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 16:26:21 -0000

"Only in the West are people able to equate killing an unwanted baby with true freedom"

That's because we "in the West" don't subjugate women and relegate them to the status of incubator when they get pregnant like other societies do. Perhaps you need to refamiliarize yourself with the word "freedom," since you clearly lack an understanding of its true meaning.

Re: At least 78 GOP candidates would force women to bear rapists’ babies

Alexa — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 16:24:23 -0000

We don't allow children a "choice" in anything else they do until they mature, nor are they even remotely capable of making such a "choice." Why attribute something to them they're incapable of doing?

Re: At least 78 GOP candidates would force women to bear rapists’ babies

Alexa — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 16:22:00 -0000

Pregnancy can kill a woman, so having to carry and bear a rapist's child is tantamount to risking my life so that the demon seed can live. I believe any woman should have the right to decide if she's willing to accept that risk and not have you or the government force her to carry the unwanted product of a crime. Luckily for you, you'll never have to be burdened by such a decision, will you?

Re: New Internet Censorship Law Introduced in U.S. Senate

Alexa — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 06:27:01 -0000

I doubt this would survive court challenges - it'd be knocked down in the first court it hit. Hopefully, they'll realize that and it won't go anywhere. That a Democrat proposed this is ludicrous. I could see it coming from a Republican - they have no problem restricting speech they dislike, but I guess these days it's getting harder and hared to tell them apart anyway. *sigh*

Re: This Isn’t Play. . . BDSM and Rape

Alexa — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:53:49 -0000

Very good post, my friend. I, too, am writing on this subject, specifically the nexus between consensual sex and rape. My position on what is or isn't rape correlates to yours, and that makes me happy.

Re: The Alexa Collection - Hot Facials

Alexa — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:33:21 -0000

Yeah, but is that your cum? Hahaha!

Re: Keeping records

Alexa — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:26:58 -0000

but so far it just makes me pee a lot.

LMAO!

Re: Working through the logic (of porn)

Alexa — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:38:25 -0000

what is your source for your fact about what porn addiction really is (the point you made about intimacy problem)?

My sexual psychology professors.

I'm not trying to make diagnoses.

You need to rewrite (or consider your wording) your statements, then. You make an assertion that someone is something, that represents a statement of fact. Perhaps adding "In my opinion..." to such statements.

Also, some men may be frustrated because they haven't found a partner who is as sexually open as they are, and thus they watch porn to enjoy those fetishes, habits, what have you

Agreed. But once again, you operate as if women don't exhibit this as well. Some women enjoy porn for the same reasons. See my response to your next statement as well. ;-)

please stop telling me what assumptions I am and am not operating under...I'm merely trying to play devil's advocate

I'm going to call bullshit on your assertion that you're just playing devil's advocate. You stated from the outset that you didn't really know about some of these things, and the way you phrase your statements (for example, the one right above this that I responded to). You've continually shown that you operate from a set of (invalid) assumptions about men and porn, and women who are porn performers. There's nothing wrong with that so long as you acknowledge it when you write, or accept the critique of it when someone else points it out.

Do you think that people can use the endorphin & neurotransmitter rush of an orgasm the same way they would the neurotransmitter rush of a drug high?

Not generally, no. The physiology behind what you get out of an orgasm is not the same as it is with a drug-induced rush, if that's where you were headed.

Re: Working through the logic (of porn)

Alexa — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:21:45 -0000

To go back to the money issue, I've spoken with strippers/prostitutes across the globe and when it comes down to it, time and time again, most all these ladies are doing it mainly because they need the money. Either they are single mothers (very prevalent) or they're in debt, etc.

Why do people always bring this up when they discuss porn, as if it only applied to porn? The overwhelming majority of people who in their jobs because they need the money. That's hardly unique to porn and is therefore not a substantive basis upon which to even discuss the subject.

And, the majority of women who do porn are "single" for a couple of reasons. First, very few men are comfortable with their SOs allowing other people to fuck them, even for money. Second, most guys who would hook up with a porn star are leeches and use the star's money for themselves. There are a great many porn stars who are married or in long-term committed relationships, btw. ;-)

Personally, the most damaging aspect of pornography is how it distorts our perception of normalcy. ... Think of the young man who's only experience with naked women is what he's watched in pornos. What would he expect his mate to look like. How would she act?

I agree with you here, especially as it relates to young people. I can also attach this to the point Tyler made about education. Even the most comprehensive sex education class (except perhaps the OWL series) fails to make anything other than a passing mention of porn.

Sex education classes need to discuss porn and put it into context for teens. Educators are too much of chicken shits to do this, though, for a couple of reasons (namely, the government prosecuting them for "exposing" minors to porn, and parents not wanting their kids to hear about porn, as if their virginal child has never heard of it! Please).

If they discussed porn and how it represents fantasy, the problem you mention could be dealt with much more rationally.

Re: Working through the logic (of porn)

Alexa — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:38:26 -0000

I (sort of) see pornography as something that wouldn’t exist if we were sexually healthier as a nation and as a species,

I doubt that. The artistic depiction of sex has been around since people were living in caves – long before there was any negative connotation associated with sexuality.

For most amateurs, porn isn’t any better money than getting a job at a tanning salon, Best Buy, or McDonald’s.

Depending on the scene and the studio doing the shoot, the average payment to a female for a straight sex scene involving vaginal penetration is around $500. Anal might add another couple of hundred dollars to that. The figure goes up if she’s willing to do more, with more people, etc. That represents several weeks’ worth of work at McDonalds for what amounts to a couple of hour’s worth of work shooting porn. Males make about half that, btw.

…taken from One Angry Girl

If you’re going to use and cite sources, at least use unbiased ones. Her site is specifically anti-porn and is therefore biased against porn. She offers no sources for any of her statistics (quoting anecdotes from people on TV does not equal a legitimate source, since she doesn’t provide any context and/or transcripts to verify that she’s saying. Though that is irrelevant, since anecdotal information doesn’t equate to a legitimate source in legitimate research.)

“Porn addiction” will not be in the DSM-V, by the way. What manifests itself as “porn addiction” is actually a symptom of an inability to form intimate attachments (which is already in the DSM-IV), or a desire to avoid intimate attachments and is not indicative of an addiction to sexual material per se. Dr. Abel’s “diagnoses” of porn addiction falls outside the current guidelines for acceptable practice (since the DSM is the diagnostic standard), by the way.

Why don’t you discuss addiction to Wii and how it impacts relationships? I’d suspect it would have a negative impact on a man’s ability to form a sexual relationship with a woman as well. lol

The rest of your points involving “addiction” aren’t worthy of addressing since they’re based on a false premise, except for:
But there certainly are men who are addicted.

Again, I’ll ask where you got your license to practice psychology. In the absence of such a license, or at least appropriate training, I’d suggest you discontinue making diagnoses. You don’t have the training to make such an assertion (reading other people’s personal descriptions of what they call “addiction” doesn’t constitute “training.”)

If we were to overhaul our education system and help parents, it’s very likely that a lot of the stigma against porn would fade away.

No, you’d have to rid the country of most religious influence and convince one branch of feminism that porn didn’t “harm women” before porn would lose its stigma (in addition to the points you made about education).

The single largest reason why sexuality in general has such a negative stigma in this country is due to the influence of religion into private sexuality and politics. In Scandinavia, where religion does not play anywhere near as great a role in daily (public) life and does not interfere with political and medical decisions like it does here, human sexuality is treated with the seriousness and dignity that it should be treated at home and in the educational setting. That’s one reason why they start having sex at about the same age we do, yet have far lower teen pregnancy rates, abortion rates, and sexual assault rates than we do in this country. All of this is interconnected and is therefore much more difficult than just “educating” parents. By the way, they use porn on about the same level we do here in the U.S. (you can rent porn movies in most stores there), but no one has even remotely suggested that “porn addiction” is a problem there. ;-)

Are teenagers hurting themselves by experimenting with each other? Are adults? No.

That’s a not necessarily accurate generalization. Teens and adults who do not practice safe sex certainly are harming one another when they transmit STDs, for example. Teens (and adults) who lack the emotional maturity to understand the nature of sexual activity are often psychologically damaged as well.

if so many people are watching porn, then doesn’t that demonstrate just how sexually frustrated we all really are?

No, it doesn’t. As I pointed out in my earlier comments to you, there are a great many benefits to porn use, both on an individual level and societally.

You operate under the false assumption that the only reason someone would use porn is because they’re sexually frustrated, and there are plenty of sources out there that would dispel that notion had you bothered to look. I use porn and I can assure you I’m not sexually frustrated. I enjoyed porn with my last boyfriend quite extensively and I can likewise assure you that he wasn’t sexually frustrated! :lol:

Also, in all of your material you fail to mention that the overwhelming majority of people use porn for healthy release and exploration of sexuality. In Britain, a recent study also showed that 66% of women use porn from time to time, and you completely leave them out of your material as consumers.

Re: What is the point of pornography?

Alexa — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:03:32 -0000

I kind of like Alex's take on it - pretty much sums it up. It's not any different than any other film making when you get right down to it.

There are other positive aspects of pornography:

Porn allows people to experience sex vicariously, especially things they might be curious about or otherwise wouldn't do themselves.

Porn provides masturbatory fodder, which allows some people an outlet for sexual expression that they might not otherwise have.

Porn allows people to come up with new ideas for things they could do with one another sexually.

In many ways, porn is educational.

There's some evidence that porn reduces the instances of rape. http://www.slate.com/id/215... (The same trend was found in Denmark, btw, once they stopped censoring porn: http://www.cultsock.ndirect...

Porn reduces the instance of adultery by providing a (harmless) outlet for sexual fantasy (assuming there's no "addiction" lol ;-)

Porn is one area of work (in any industry) where women make much more money than men do.

Porn has contributed to female sexual liberation.

The adult industry is responsible for the quick adoption of the Video cassette recorders, DVD technology, and even much of the technology used on the web today.

The adult industry contributes between $12 billion and $18 billion a year to the nation's economy.

And so forth.

Re: The Alexa Collection - Buttholes - An Alexa Exclusive: Malloy Martini’s gorgeous...

Alexa — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:15:00 -0000

Dude, grow the fuck up and find someplace else to be an asshole.

Re: The Alexa Collection - Buttholes

Alexa — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:05:09 -0000

Open your fucking eyes. ;-)

Re: Sexy Secretary

Alexa — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:24:30 -0000

Wow. You can be my secretary any day! ;-)

Re: The Alexa Collection

Alexa — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:16:19 -0000

Mine, too, as luck would have it. ;-)

Re: The Alexa Collection

Alexa — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:17:30 -0000

That does sound hot.

Re: Oh shut the fuck up, California! › Twanna A. Hines is a writer in New York City

Alexa — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 13:00:23 -0000

lol You sure are hard headed. Why are you trying to argue with me? I AM NOT ARGUING WITH YOU. I am explaining why people are reacting the way they are - they're seeing the demos and reacting based on that. I made no claim about the validity of their interpretation of the statistics whatsoever. Please step off your high horse and read the words I am writing. I have no argument with you whatsoever. I AGREE WITH YOU. I was trying to be helpful. Christ.

For someone who claims to have a stats background, you sure fail in the area of common sense.

I guess I do show up in Delaware. I am VPN'ed to the Internet through a server there. I happen to live, work and go to school in SF. Whether you believe that is of no concern to me. The information is valid whether I am in California, Delaware, or Antarctica.

I won't bother you again, as I tire easily when dealing with people who have intracranial density issues.

Re: Oh shut the fuck up, California! › Twanna A. Hines is a writer in New York City

Alexa — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:06:20 -0000

I didn't see any white people holding up such signs - perhaps I missed them. The point was that, as a class that has historically been discriminated against, one would think blacks would be a bit more understanding and sensitive to the plight of GLBTQ individuals.

"I don't see a *HUGE* difference between "removal of an existing right" and denying someone a right they've never been granted; it's wrong in both cases."

I don't see a difference, either, and didn't intend to imply that there was. The singular difference in this case, and why it is generating so much anger, is that California (though its Supreme Court) had specifically stated that gays had the exact same rights to marry as straights did. The wording of the proposition stated that its purpose was to "Remove an existing right..." Therefore, this was much more than just denying someone a right they never had as has occurred in every other state. People had to take affirmative action to explicitly deny someone a right that they'd enjoyed for some period of time - one that they had from the days of the creation of that Constitution. And, while several groups slightly supported Prop 8 over those who didn't, the margin among black voters was *hugely* disparate. Mix that with, as I outlined in my original post, the fact that blacks themselves have been victimized by discrimination to this day, those who oppose Prop 8 see that support as hypocritical at best.

The stats came from the exit polls for the proposition, which have been widely publicized. For example:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION...

Keep in mind, I am not attempting to justify this behavior, merely explain it, since you, at least based on what you wrote, didn't seem to understand the source of the anger.

Re: Oh shut the fuck up, California! › Twanna A. Hines is a writer in New York City

Alexa — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 10:29:52 -0000

I think you kind of miss the point. The fact that 70-75% of the black voters voted to discriminate against someone else is why people are kind of irritated at the African Americans on this. That a group of people who themselves have been discriminated against, including black women, who've been doubly discriminated against (for being black AND women), literally voted in overwhelming numbers to deny another group of people their rights is just incredulous. The issue with Prop 187 was one of money - people didn't believe someone who was in the country illegally should be the recipients of tax-payer provided services when they were not paying taxes themselves (whether that belief was right or wrong). The case here was purely a removal of an existing right. There's a *huge* difference.

Compounding this was the influence of out-of-state religious groups. Combine the two and I think you can see why people are upset.

I was at the march last night here in SF, and it pained me greatly to see black people A) holding signs that supported Prop 8, and B) being verbally harassed by marchers.