Sep 5

Michael Arrington

Bad news for Craigslist users who like to peruse the Erotic Services Adult Services section of their site. It’s gone, replaced by a large black and white “censored” logo.

I’ve reached out to Craigslist for comment and await their reply. But the choice of words is significant – the section wasn’t simply removed, the censored word was used.

The site has been embattled as old press and state attorneys general use any excuse to blame sex crimes on the site. From South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster’s failed crusade against them to a variety of press stories about sex and other crimes. If it’s just a sex crime it isn’t a story. But if a listing on Craigslist was involved, it’s a big story.

Craigslist has fought back using little more than their blog and logic. And they’re right. Having prostitution up front and regulated, as Craigslist does, means less crime is associated with it. It’s not like prostitution, sometimes called the world’s oldest profession, was invented on the site.

The fact that eBay and others do exactly the same thing, but without human review and moderation, doesn’t seem to matter. Craigslist Sex is what scares the general population, and it’s what the press and the politicians will continue to use to get their hits and votes.

So the Craigslist Adult Section was removed. Is the world now a safer place?

Update: This only appears to affect U.S. sites, so if you’re looking for a happy ending in Saskatoon or the West Bank, have at it.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/03/craigslist-censored-adult-section-comes-down/

Mistress Eva says: This is a sad day for many of my Craigslist hoes! There is no telling how many of my sluts wanked to those ads let alone met the Female and Male escorts. I know many of my sissy bitches had fantasies of making me money through that site.

They say prostitution is the oldest profession in the world. It has thrived for a long time and a another site will take off where Craigslist finished. For Craigslist, it was a multimillion business so you know there are people ready to capitalize on this censorship.

To my cock whores…The Casual Encounters Section is going strong! ;-)

Aug 25

(Hello, Its Mistress Eva! I know many of my sluts feel that they are a woman trapped in a man’s body. Some have thought of having sex change operation. Sometimes fantasy is better than reality.)

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/06/sex_reassignment_surgery_when_things_go_wrong.php?utm_source=tbpfront&utm_medium=bestof&utm_campaign=best_of_b
Sex Reassignment Surgery: When things go wrong

Filed by: Amy Hunter

Sometimes, things go wrong with the surgery.

It has many names and many acronyms, SRS, GRS, GCS-Sex Reassignment
Surgery. Whatever you call it, it is an irrevocable commitment and
irreversible step should you choose to take it.

Male to female (MtF) transpeople talk about it a lot. You know: Are
you, or aren’t you? Is she pre-op, or post-op? Who did yours? Whom are
you going to have do yours? We talk about it a lot, except…when
things go wrong. Then–we don’t say much at all. In fact, we won’t
talk about it publicly, but it happens. We cover it up as if we should
be ashamed. We feel damaged.

Something odd ensues, much like forty or fifty years ago. Back then,
people spoke in hushed tones, if at all about the family member,
colleague, or friend who had certain illnesses-the “C word”-only
whispered. Many times this lack of openness about such matters led
directly to preventable consequences–even deaths.

We need to talk about healthcare for the transgender individual and I
want to talk–openly about my experience–about what can happen when
things go wrong with SRS.

I Knew There Were Risks

While death is an unlikely result of complications from sex
reassignment surgery, things can and do go wrong with the procedure.
Even the most skilled of surgeons are, after all, human and as with
any surgery, there are risks.

The information packet sent to me from my surgeon’s office listed the
possible things that could go wrong. I had read extensively about what
my body would have done to it after Propofol sent me to a dreamless
sleep. Everything I found on the internet listed possible
complications. One was a worst-case scenario, but the websites always
mentioned it last and even then, it happened so seldom, most said,
that it was a risk hardly worth mentioning.

My pre-operative appointment, a scant two hours before I signed the
waiver, was brief. The surgeon asked a few questions, looked me over,
pronounced me suitable for surgery and added that I had enough tissue
for good depth. Almost as an afterthought, she said we needed to go
over “this stuff”. We got to that last, not worth mentioning but still
possible, worst-case scenario thing. Of course, it needed to be
brought up but in almost four hundred surgeries “it had only happened
just once, so we don’t worry about it”. I didn’t.

Just before I walked into the surgical suite, I signed the waiver.

I slumped to the floor of the shower that morning in Trinidad
Colorado, water and reality raining down on me. Bewilderment and
terror replaced hope, which swirled toward the drain along with the
feces and the blood. Emergency surgeries there, four more at home in
Kalamazoo and another in Denver have all failed.

Chronic pain, heavy narcotics addiction, and bouts of deep depression
are the hushed legacies I have battled. Left with a possibly permanent
colostomy and a painful, fibrous lump between my legs where a vagina
should be, it is nearly impossible not to revisit the devastation
daily. It is now two and a half years later.

The infrastructure of a natal male body is not the same as a natal
female. The male pubic bone is lower and in my body, tipped somewhat,
making it hard for my surgeon to get the geometry just right. In my
case, there probably wasn’t really quite enough space to allow for the
proper thickness of septum between the new vaginal wall and the rectal
wall.

A slight tear in my colon from a retractor, was all that was necessary
to compromise an otherwise flawless procedure. I had developed a
rectal-vaginal fistula. This problem happens to natal women too, often
as a complication from difficult childbirth or certain cancers.
Frankly, the success rate for repairing the defect in natal women is
not good either. It often takes multiple surgeries for them too. What
makes it even harder for the transwoman?

The Endemic Problems In Transsexual Healthcare

My story–and my surgeon’s– illuminate important problems endemic to
healthcare for the transgender and specifically, the transsexual person.

Lack of access- Discrimination by doctors and hospitals and inability
to get insurance or pay outright makes it difficult, if not
impossible, for many transgender people to access care - primary or
specialized.
Lack of knowledge- Documentation of protocols for care of patients
undergoing transition is severely limited. Additionally, techniques
for remedial care of complications are not well developed; instead,
procedures designed for amelioration of fistulae in natal females are
used.
Lack of training- There exist no specialized courses of study or
teaching hospitals for SRS surgeons.
Lack of experience- While some surgeons learn techniques from other
doctors already performing SRS, there are no residencies for those
wishing to become SRS surgeons.
Lack of inter-disciplinary collaboration- Ignorance, discrimination
and arrogance on the part of specialists often block those needing
specialized post-SRS care.
In 2008 both the American Medical Association and the American
Psychological Association issued white papers - policy statements
calling for equal and fair access to healthcare for the transgender
community. Both organizations recognized lack of access to health care
as a growing crisis among transgender people.

Significantly, however, while both bodies asked the insurance industry
to remove discriminatory blocks for transpeople, neither the APA nor
the AMA asked for better training and documentation of skills. Neither
organization called for unilateral coverage of transition related care
and procedures. The APA resolution reads thus (emphasis mine):

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT APA recognizes the efficacy,
benefit and medical necessity of gender transition treatments for
appropriately evaluated individuals and calls upon public and private
insurers to cover these medically necessary treatments;

And the AMA:

RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association support public and
private health insurance coverage for treatment of gender identity
disorder as recommended by the patient’s physician.)

Ok, pretty strong statements, right? Look again and in particular,
consider the italics. The APA resolution makes one BIG assumption-that
you will be able to be “appropriately evaluated” , this requires you
to have found and be able to pay for a psychologist, assuming of
course, that you want to be evaluated. The AMA resolution assumes much
the same thing; that you have a physician and that he or she is
willing to make such recommendations, if, in fact, they are so
qualified.

Whom Should I Go See When No One Will See Me?

I am associated with a LGBT resource center so, I get calls for things
like, “Who is a trans-friendly electrologist” but the most frequent
call I get is “My family doctor won’t prescribe me hormones. Whom
should I see?”

To my knowledge, there are only two therapists in this area who take
transgender clients, neither is a clinical psychologist who can render
a surgical readiness opinion for SRS. There are one or two primary
care physicians in the area who will prescribe hormones but, after
hearing stories of one of them prescribing the exact same regimen for
every patient, I am more than reluctant to send people to him. The
nearest endocrinologist who takes transgender patients is ninety
minutes from here. My own primary care doctor, admittedly, has no
knowledge of how to dose a transwoman either pre-operatively or, post-
operatively. He has left it up to me to tell him.

There is no curriculum, no specialization, no residency, and no board
certification for SRS surgeons. No medical texts detail the
procedures. Most SRS surgeons have followed in the footsteps of
pioneers.

In my doctor’s case, the pioneer was legendary Colorado surgeon,
Stanley Biber M.D. whose compassion for a social worker led him to
develop the most celebrated sex reassignment practice in the States.
The surgeon who did my SRS learned from him and took over his practice
when he retired. Soon, she began refining his technique and developing
and teaching her own. Today, she routinely performs SRS as many as two
hundred times a year.

There are surgeons who want to do SRS-who have trained under doctors
as mine did, but find it difficult, if not impossible, to find a
facility that will grant privileges for SRS. Often, these surgeons may
have the technical skills for SRS-urology, gynecological and plastic
surgery, but hospitals will not grant access because there is no
accredited course of specialization or board certification.

This may not be all bad. While there are a few new surgeons doing SRS
every year, are they really getting the training necessary to
accomplish not just the surgery itself but, adequate follow-up care
too? Again, no curriculum, no specialized course of study, no board
certification, but perhaps more significantly, certainly for the
patient, there is no roadmap for what to do when things go wrong.

My Surgeon Doesn’t Know How to Fix It

Then, seemingly, neither does anyone else. My SRS surgeon attempted to
fix the two-inch tear in my colon while I was still there, the repair
failed in less than twelve hours. Next, a colon-rectal surgeon was
found in the nearest large city and brought in to look at me. He
aborted his attempt to repair the defect and instead, performed a full
colostomy.

I flew home to Michigan with a bag attached to my abdomen and thick
pads between my legs to soak up the blood.

A local colon-rectal surgeon, persuaded to see me by my primary care
physician, was upbeat. Each time I went into surgery with him he would
encourage me, saying “this time we’ll get it”. Coming out of surgery,
my spouse Cindy would hear from him how well it went and that he was
“optimistic this time” the closure would take and a new defect would
not open up.

Another surgeon who has had some success with other fistula patients
seemed promising, but eight months later, under the pressure of a
barium test, that repair too, failed.

I have had stitch-overs, mucosal flap advancements, and pelvic floor
muscle mobilization; each new approach diminishes what viable tissue I
have for another attempt. I have tried to go into every surgery with a
realistic outlook; multiple failures however, become difficult to bear.

Still, I am one of the fortunate ones with this complication; I stand
a chance, albeit small, for an eventually favorable outcome. Many
transwoman are not able to find a colon-rectal surgeon who is willing
to work on a transperson, much less “someone else’s problem”, nor do
all of us have the means.

Even if you are fortunate enough to locate a doctor–and in my case,
privileged to have insurance and financial means to cover remedial
procedures, then there is still only a slim chance for alleviation of
this humiliating and debilitating condition. One surgeon, out of
frustration no doubt, finally washed his hands of me saying, “well,
you did this to yourself”.

Losing the Patient

I am not writing this to slam the physician who did my SRS. Far from
it, she is a dear friend. We have shared much together, laughing, and
holding each other; the two of us have grappled for footing. We have
cried together, and yes, yelled at each other. She is an icon in the
transgender community and heroine to many transsexuals. She is also
perhaps the most accomplished of the few surgeons doing primary SRS in
the United States.

However, even a surgeon as accomplished as mine cannot overcome
obstacles that she has no training for and little experience
resolving. There are unseen and unsaid barriers that come into play
when someone with complications from SRS must seek treatment aside
from their original surgeon.

As I mentioned before, most surgeons just do not want to deal with
what they may perceive to be another doctor’s mistakes, if they are
willing to look at you at all. A person would be hard pressed to get a
doctor to admit that they are closed-minded, yet there are many
doctors who simply will not work on-or treat a transsexual.

My surgeon has told me, and has repeated often, that she would see me
through this. I believe she has tried, but somewhere in the mix of
discrimination, ego, and fear, the patient has been lost.

Aug 3

America Wins, Government Loses Huge Obscenity Trial
by Marty Klein

John Stagliano was set free last week when a federal judge ended his obscenity trial on procedural grounds. If convicted, John would have been jailed for 32 years and had his home and business confiscated.

Instead, a few million dollars of your tax money was wasted by a Department of Justice investigation, purchase, viewing, and indictment of Milk Nymphos, Storm Squirters, and Fetish Fanatic. These are DVDs that depict legal activity, whose actors are all certified as over 18. Neither of these facts was challenged by the government.

The charge was simply that the DVDs appealed to the average person’s “prurient interest,” were “patently offensive,” and “lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” These are the actual words of the Miller Test that guide the law. If you can get a jury to agree that a given recording, painting, book, DVD, or stage show meets these three tests, the government can declare the thing “obscene.” It then loses its First Amendment protection, and it creator and distributor can be sent to jail.

That’s right—the depiction of a legal activity can be illegal. Sex is so special, that we’re not allowed to see or hear about things that we’re allowed to do. I don’t know why more people are outraged about this.

The first consideration—“prurient interest”—is not only archaic (do you know what “prurient” means?), it’s completely subjective. How are people supposed to judge whether a film or song appeals to their neighbors’ healthy or unhealthy interest in sex?

The second consideration—“patently offensive”—is equally subjective. Along with “prurient interest,” this is a bizarre standard of lawfulness. If being “offensive” is illegal, there are some Congressmembers who shouldn’t be allowed to wear shorts in public. And Joan Rivers should be executed immediately.

The third consideration—“lacks value”—elevates the personal opinions of a dozen random people to god-like status (especially if you’re the defendant), and begs for carloads of experts. Is Milk Nymphos satire? An indictment of sexist prohibitions against breast-feeding in public? A documentation of creative use of enemas, or associated paraphilias?

When the Supreme Court first described the Miller Test in 1973, it was intended to codify the chaotic state of American censorship at that time. But it is shockingly subjective. It asks a jury of lay people to discern what their neighbors think about sex—a subject about which people are notoriously shy discussing seriously.

And so here was John Stagliano, in the year 2010—a year in which the planet is melting, and the Taliban wants to destroy our country, and millions of Americans have lost their jobs and are losing their homes—here was John Stagliano on trial in federal court for producing and selling adult videos to adults. Not one single customer had complained. The government had decided to go after him.

After an 18-month investigation, months of trial preparation, and days of courtroom activity, Judge Richard J. Leon, appointed by President George W. Bush, threw the case out on procedural grounds. The government’s star witness and the government’s lead prosecutor couldn’t get their stories straight. They indirectly raised the question of the judge’s own ethics, a question the judge firmly denounced.

I’m thrilled that John walks free, because he clearly did nothing wrong. But I’m disappointed that the jury did not get a chance to rule the DVDs not obscene. Judge Leon’s decision demands that the government do a more thorough, professional job when censoring what we can watch in the privacy of our homes. I wish instead he had told the government to stay out of our homes and our bedrooms. I wish the jury had had a chance to say the same.

Instead, people like John Stagliano—yes, who are in it for the money, not for public service— will have to risk everything so we can enjoy the American freedoms we take for granted. Next time you watch a porn video, or The Daily Show or a violent video game, next time you listen to a rap music on a CD or at a concert, give silent thanks to John. He almost went to jail for you and me.

Source: Carnal Nation (http://clp.ly/118JO)

Jun 29

For X-Rated, a Domain of Their Own

By MIGUEL HELFT

SAN FRANCISCO — What if the Web held a sex party and no one showed up?

That’s what could happen now that the agency governing the Internet
address system all but approved the creation of a new red-light
district on the Web. The problem is that some of the biggest names in
online pornography prefer not to be in that neighborhood.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers on Friday
agreed to move forward on a long-standing proposal from a Florida
company to create a specialized dot-xxx suffix for adult entertainment
Web sites. But the plan upset much of the adult entertainment
industry. It joined hands with religious groups in lobbying against
it, arguing that the new domains would lead to regulation and
marginalization.

The alliance “made for strange bedfellows, for sure,” said Diane Duke,
executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, a trade association
representing more than 1,000 adult entertainment businesses. The
company sponsoring the dot-xxx domain, the ICM Registry, said it had a
vision of a red-light district in cyberspace that was a clean, well-
lighted place, free of spam, viruses and credit card thieves. Content
would be clearly labeled as adult and the whole neighborhood would be
easy to block. Anyone offended by pornography could simply stay out.

“It is good for everybody,” said Stuart Lawley, the chairman and chief
executive of ICM. “It is a win for the consumer of adult content. They
will know that the dot-xxx sites will operate by certain standards.”

That did not satisfy religious groups that opposed the dot-xxx
domains, fearing they would make pornography even more prevalent
online. And Ms. Duke said that “there is no support from our
community” for the plan.

Her organization’s members, which include big industry names like
Hustler and Adam & Eve, were concerned that the board overseeing the
dot-xxx domain could engage in censorship and that the entire industry
could come under increased regulation. “If the board doesn’t like what
a producer creates, there is the possibility that they could censor
it,” Ms. Duke said. “This will ghettoize our industry and make us a
target of regulation.”

Ms. Duke said most of her members planned to continue operating out of
their dot-com domains.

But Mr. Lawley is not worried. Online sex is big business, and he
expects his company will benefit. Each domain registration will cost
$60 a year, with $10 going to a nonprofit organization promoting
“responsible business practices” for the industry.

Mr. Lawley said more than 100,000 domains had preregistered. He said
he expected that when the dot-xxx domains opened for business, nine to
12 months from now, some 500,000 domains would register, or roughly 10
percent of the five million to six million adult online sites.

But Ms. Duke said many of those were likely to be “defensive”
registrations, from businesses that wanted to prevent their names from
being hijacked. Mr. Lawley said businesses could ensure that their
names were not misused in the dot-xxx world by paying a one-time fee,
to be set from $50 to $250.

In giving ICM’s proposal the green light in a meeting in Brussels, the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which governs
Internet addresses, reversed a 2007 vote to reject the dot-xxx
domains, saying the decision was purely based on technical grounds.
Peter Dengate Thrush, the agency’s chairman, said it had no interest
or stake in the content of Web sites.

“The applicants believe that this will allow people to filter
pornography more effectively,” he said. “If they do that and it works,
that’s great for them. But that’s not part of our issue.”

The agency now has to negotiate a final contract with ICM. Ms. Duke’s
organization plans to continue its fight against the dot-xxx domains.

Mistress Eva Says: This means I will have to pay for their stupid domains just so no one steals my name. Its nuts! I plan on keeping my .com sites!

Jun 18

Before he even sat down, my new patient blurted out why he had come. “My wife says I’m a sex addict, and she demands I get treated immediately,” he said.

I’ve been a Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist and Certified Sex Therapist for 30 years. That’s some 30,000 sessions with men, women, and couples—a ringside seat at the human circus.

The guy was yet another supposed “sex addict.” I listened to his story carefully, and told him I sympathized with how he had damaged his life and hurt people with bad sexual decisions.

“But I don’t treat ‘sex addiction,’” I said. I think it’s a bogus concept.

“But you have to treat my sex addiction,” the guy pleaded.

Since the day I opened my practice, I’ve seen people going to massage parlors, strip clubs, and hookers. I’m always working with several men and women having affairs, or dealing with the aftermath of one. And every few months someone brings in their mate because their constant flirting is way, way over the top.

But until about three years ago no one ever came in claiming to be a sex addict, or saying that his partner told him he was one. The number of these people has grown tremendously. Not the number of people acting out sexually—just the number of people using the magic words “sex addict” or “sex addiction.”

The poor guy looked like a lot of Silicon Valley engineers: light blue button-down shirt, khaki pants, shoes that desperately needed a shine. He had started going to a massage parlor a few months after his baby was born. After about eight or nine desultory hand jobs in the course of a year, he’d confessed to his wife.

I told him I might work with him, but why did he need this specific approach?

“Because Maria said that either I’m a sex addict and I couldn’t help it and I need treatment, or I’m just a selfish bastard and she wants a divorce.”

He wanted to keep his marriage and kid. To do so, he had to admit he had a disease and get it treated. He was desperate. He would do anything. I told him I might be able to help him deal with the power struggle in his marriage, and help him stop avoiding conflict (his wife happily abandoned him when she had the much-wanted baby, then unilaterally invited her mother to move in with them for a year—and he couldn’t confront her because “I love her so much”). I said I could probably help him feel better about himself, and help him feel less guilty about masturbating.

But I couldn’t treat his sex addiction because I didn’t believe he had such an ailment. In tears, he left. The town’s best-known sex therapist had failed him.

I saw a guy last fall in an even more extreme situation. His wife had caught him seeing out-of-town prostitutes. Not only did she decide he was a sex addict (and porn addict), she demanded he begin treatment at an in-patient facility. He asked what I thought of that.

“Is your wife a psychologist or an addictionologist?”

“No.”

“Well, I don’t find ‘sex addiction’ a clinically meaningful or useful term,” I said. “But if I did—if I were a professional who claims to be a serious sex addiction specialist—I would probably say you had some symptoms of this disorder. I would then give you some tests, interview you, and evaluate you. Then I’d prescribe a treatment program, which might include attending 12-step meetings, reading books, being in a group, or even going into a hospital.”

“But since your wife isn’t a psychologist or an addiction specialist,” I continued, “I wonder why she feels qualified to not only diagnose you, but to prescribe an extremely complex treatment program.”

He hadn’t looked at it that way. He asked what I would suggest.

I don’t treat sex addiction. The concept is superficial. It isn’t clearly defined or clinically validated, and it’s completely pathology-oriented. It presents no healthy model of non-monogamy, pornography use, or stuff like S/M. Some programs eliminate masturbation, which is inhumane, naïve, and crazy.

Oh, I observe people with obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and a few other exotic states. That accounts for some of what laypeople call “sex addiction.”

What I mostly see instead of “sex addicts” is people who are neurotic or narcissistic. They can’t quite believe that the normal rules of life (“tell the truth,” “all behavior has consequences”) apply to them. They make promises they intend to keep—but then they want relief from frustration, or loneliness, or anxiety so much, they are unwilling to keep their promises, even promises to themselves. And some “sex addicts” just can’t come to terms with having one, relatively brief, life. They want several lives, so they can have everything.

“So tell your wife the truth,” I said. “Tell her you’re concerned about your behavior just like she is. Tell her you want to change it just like she wants. Tell her you’re concerned about your ability to do that just like she is. And tell her that you understand she’s in a lot of pain, that you caused it, and that you feel great regret.”

While all that consensus should provide her some relief, and maybe even create some intimacy, it still doesn’t give her the credentials to diagnose and specify her husband’s treatment. Her pain is valid. Her proposed solution isn’t. She wants to regain a sense of control. Telling him what’s wrong with him and demanding a particular treatment isn’t.

“I think you’re the one to help me,” said the would-be patient. “But let me talk to my wife about your approach. If she agrees, I’ll call for another

Source: Carnal Nation (http://clp.ly/Yf8) http://carnalnation.com/content/51741/98/epidemic-sex-addiction

Jun 11

A Troubled Rape Case
The high-profile rape charges against Deputy District Attorney Michael Gressett are tainted by questionable facts, unorthodox prosecutorial conduct, and the unmistakable whiff of politics.
By John Geluardi

Chris Duffey
“This case has stirred up a shit storm, and the Contra Costa District Attorney’s office is right in the middle of it,” said Gressett’s chief attorney Daniel Russo.

The rape allegations from within Contra Costa County’s District Attorney’s office were bound to make big headlines. Michael Gressett was a 51-year-old deputy district attorney who worked for the sexual assault unit. His alleged victim was a 29-year-old coworker who said Gressett violently assaulted her during a lunch break. The Martinez Police Department’s September 2008 press release was replete with lurid charges like “sodomy,” “forced oral copulation,” and “penetration with a foreign object.” The alleged props — including a gun, handcuffs, steak knife, ice cubes, and an ice pick — seemed plucked from the pages of a Marquis de Sade novel.

Not surprisingly, the story attracted wide attention. The San Francisco Chronicle assigned two reporters and the Contra Costa Times posted a complete copy of the criminal complaint on its web site. Television news joined the fray, and soon Gressett’s face was plastered all across the Bay Area. And no one followed the story more closely than the lawyers and politicians who work for Contra Costa County. So many people have viewed the case file that clerks in the courthouse keep it handy like it was a popular library book. When a reporter asked for the file by its case number, the clerk immediately said, “Oh, you want the Gressett file.”

The veteran prosecutor’s reputation as an office iconoclast only added to the case’s newsworthiness. Gressett has run for the position of Contra Costa County District Attorney three separate times, putting him in disfavor with the old-boy power structure that has controlled the office for decades. After the charges came to light, District Attorney Robert Kochly did what he could to distance his office from Gressett’s alleged behavior. “It’s a sad day for our office for anything like this to occur,” Kochly told the Chronicle. “Anything of this nature is devastating to the office. It’s antithetical to what we’re about.”

After his arrest, Gressett might have been expected to cease being a thorn in management’s side. Once he was released from jail on a $1 million bond, he was promptly fired. He now faces a possible life sentence for thirteen felony counts including rape, forced sodomy, forced oral copulation, and making death threats.

But instead of slinking away, his defense team has mounted an aggressive investigation that is shedding a withering light on both the DA’s office and the charges against him. The inquiry exposed an office sexual culture so highly charged that it makes HBO’s Mad Men look like pimply sophomores toeing their insteps at a high school dance mixer. The inquiry also sheds light on an unusual contract hiring system in which young attorneys like the alleged victim live in constant fear of losing their jobs. “Pandora’s box has been opened and what’s inside is not pretty,” said Michael Cardoza, one of Gressett’s defense attorneys. “I was a deputy district attorney for sixteen years and I am appalled at what goes on in that office.”

Read the rest here: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/a-troubled-rape-case/Content?oid=1371765&showFullText=true

Mar 1

By Steve Williams
On Friday, lawyers in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger Proposition 8 trial submitted their case summaries as per Judge Vaughn Walker’s request. Both sides are said to have included their most hard-hitting points, including a claim from the Proposition 8 defense that bisexuals in particular constitute a threat to marriage.

Firstly, for the plaintiffs seeking to overturn Proposition 8, California’s 2008 gay marriage ban, lawyers David Boies and Theodore Olson submitted a document in excess of 290 pages, aiming to prove that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. From the American Foundation for Equal Rights:

“This 294-page filing is only a summary of the overwhelming evidence against Proposition 8,” said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. “The evidence proves beyond a doubt that Proposition 8, which separates Americans into unequal groups, violates the U.S. Constitution and causes incredible harm to individuals and our nation as a whole.”

The document outlines the following as the core of the plaintiff’s case:

Prop. 8 does irreparable harm to Americans
Marriage has shed discriminatory restrictions over time
Gay men and lesbians are entitled to the full protection of the 14th Amendment
There is no good reason for Prop. 8’s denial of fundamental civil rights

The summary also points out the unequal weight of testimony provided in the case. The plaintiffs in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial called on 16 witnesses (including Paul Katami & Jeff Zarrillo and Kris Perry & Sandy Stier, the couples who filed the original lawsuit) whereas the defendant-intervenors Protect Marriage were only able to present two witnesses after their other four dropped out ahead of the trail, claiming that they were likely to face intimidation for their stance against gay marriage.

According to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the summary presented by the plaintiffs also points to the fact that, during several occasions during the trial, the two remaining defense witnesses - both of whom had their status as “experts” put in question - appeared to make the case for marriage equality in spite of their apparent stance against it:

In addition to outlining the evidence presented by Olson and Boies, the document outlines the devastating admissions made by the defendant-intervenors’ witnesses that further proved our case and undermined the Proponents’; those witnesses’ lack of credentials; and evidence on the utilization of messages of pedophilia, polygamy, incest and bestiality in support of Prop. 8.

You can access the full document by going here.

Like so much of the pro-Proposition 8 side’s material, tracking down a copy of their summary for public viewing is proving difficult (if you have come across the text, please let me know).

However, reports suggest that the pro-Prop. 8 side have not included much of their witness testimony in their summary, at least not for supporting their central argument, and have instead cited research documents that, they assert, prove that “extending marriage to same-sex couples would result in a profound change to the definition, structure, and public meaning of marriage.”

However, calling on the testimony of Professor Miller, their first witness, they advance that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people do not constitute a protected class worthy of judicial intervention, and that LGBTs have political allies and sufficient political power so as not to be classed as a vulnerable group.

Using their other witness testimony provided by David Blankenhorn, the pro-Prop. 8 side are said to have reinforced that marriage hinges on gender roles of “maleness and femaleness” and that procreation is a key element to marriage. Therein, they argue that child rearing is best served by the heteronormative family unit and that this fact means that marriage must, by necessity, exclude same-sex couples.

Perhaps one of their most startling maneuvers in the defense’s summary is where they are reported to have singled out bisexual people as one of the reasons to deny same-sex couples marriage rights:

The potential harms they cited included giving bisexuals a legal basis for pursuing group marriages and unmarried fathers an incentive to abandon their children.

While a copy of the summary text itself has not been forthcoming, text from the defendant-intervenors’ original trial brief also includes this argument:

[Allowing same-sex marriage would] increase the likelihood that bisexual orientation could become a legitimate grounding for a legal entitlement to group marriage.

They did not stress this point in the trial any more than the rest of their slippery slope polygamy arguments, but it is interesting that they have returned to it here.

Under California law, “Only the marriage of a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” as per Proposition 8 and this, the defense say, guards against the much maligned “group marriage.”

The argument goes that, should same-sex marriage be legalized once again in California, there would be a potential legal basis for a bisexual person to seek recognition for a marriage to both a male and female spouse (one man and one woman) at the same time, leading to a multi-partner marriage.

As far as I can see it, this argument is flawed as California marriage laws clearly state that you can’t enter into marriage while still married to another adult. From the California Department of Public Health website:

“To marry in California, the two parties may not be already married to each other or other individuals.”

Amending civil marriage laws to include same-sex partners does not overturn this aspect of the family code.

However, the defense appear to be arguing that once you grant equal access to marriage for same-sex couples, the next logical and inevitable step is granting multi-partner marriage, and that bisexuals would be the gateway for this.

This relies on the assumption that a bisexual would want more than one spouse because of their attraction to both sexes, and seems to infer that bisexuals are less capable of monogamy than heterosexuals, which is actually broadly offensive and blurs the line between sexuality and the useful social convention of monogamy to an extreme.

It will be interesting to see if the pro-Proposition 8 side revisit this argument as part of their closing statement, which, although as yet unscheduled, is likely to be heard in the next few months.

Go to Website

Mar 12

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.switched.com/media/2009/03/2009.03.11clist.jpg

by Peter Mychalcewycz, posted Mar 11th 2009 at 5:36PM

A collaborative effort between Craigslist, 40 state Attorneys General, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) has, over the past year, resulted in a 90-percent drop in “Erotic Services” listings on the popular site. A Craigslist spokesperson called the change “spectacular,” according to ArsTechnica.

For months now, Craigslist has implemented measures such as phone verification and credit card authorization, and the results speak for themselves. Not everyone is happy, though; the Cook County Sheriff’s Office in Illinois filed suit against Craigslist last week for facilitating prostitution.

Somebody please get Sheriff Dart a copy of this article, and a chill pill. [From: ArsTechnica]

MISTRESS EVA says:
I currently advertise My Professional Domination and Phone Domination on the Craigslist Erotic Services section close to me. Today I got a message that I needed to authenicate my phone number but I only got a error so I couldnt post a ad. CraigsList fees $5.00 for every Erotic Services ad. They are making a huge profit and it would be stupid to drop the catergory. Craigslist should not have to feel bad for providing a simple service. What’s next? Kinky Personal ads??

Mar 5

Click past the advertisement! Its worth reading!

Go to: Click HERE!

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/family/blog/sex%20jpg.jpg

Nov 27

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God.

In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.

Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People.

I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.

And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth

« Previous Entries

Copyright © 2006 PhoneBdsm.com Designed By:EroticWebDesign.net