Finding A Good Use For PayPal

It's been a long time since I bought anything off eBay (though I've enjoyed the MST3K videos tremendously!) and the poker site I go to doesn't take PayPal, so my account there with its grand total of $6 (more or less) sits wasted and waiting like Erick Erickson being promised a blind date.

But I've found somewhere that the piddling little amount I have left can be put to some use: Dave Neiwert's place. It's called Orcinus, and if you haven't been, it is highly recommended you do so. Mr. Neiwert has been tracking racism in America for years, both on his own and being paid to do so, and the fruits of his work are, while a little frightening, also tremendously enlightening.

Give him some love, either with financial support, or just by clicking through a few of his posts. They'll change your mind, and writing doesn't get better than that.

***

For an added bonus, check out his first week of blogging (it's down on the left, in the red section: 01/05/2003 - 01/12/2003). Interesting to see how his earliest stuff holds up.

LOLing, LOLing, LOLing...

...Get them skeptics LOLing!

The latest Skeptics' Circle has come around again, and this time, everyone gets a lovely, custom-picked cat to play with!

Awwww.....

The question being: are they as cool as Giant Robots? Or cooler?

You decide.

Anson Carter is a Canadian!

But don't say it out loud.

You think I'm kidding? Here's his link at Wikipedia. The dude's really Canadian - played for the national team and everything. But in certain circumstances, his hockey-playing abilities may not be what folks are talking about, which could lead to a confusing conversation in some hockey markets...

"Hey, man: that Anson Carter is a Canadian!"

"Er... Yes?"

"No, I mean he's a Canadian, ya know?"

"Sure, he got the winning goal for Canada during the World Cup in 2003."

"What I think we have here... Is a failure to communicate."

"What? He was born in Toronto, for cryin' out loud! Yeah, he's a Canadian!"

"Forget I said anything, okay?"

Which is why I'd love for him to return to the Carolina Hurricanes or sign on with the Dallas Stars (joining Trevor Daley) or possibly the Atlanta Thrashers. Somewhere in the South, anyways.

Things I've learned about Canadians in the Southern U.S. from this informative article:

Large numbers of Canadians can appear on juries in Houston;
Canadians on a jury mean tough going for the prosecution;
Some store customers don't like being served by Canadians;
and
Canadians don't tip.

Which makes me wonder if this doesn't mean we can dance now...?

Even if not, it's still better than being Belgian!

Fascists Are NOT Right Wing Extremists!

And whatever you do, don't go here to see why someone who has spent his entire professional career tracking and studying modern fascist groups just might have something to say about that idea.

Far better to listen to someone who thinks Ayn Rand is a historian.

Can't Sleep - No Clowns

Wandering the blogosphere, I came across a question about S&M. Now, I'm more of a B&D guy, but I do hang with several folk on the sharper end of the spectrum and ended up babbling away in response. It's been a while since I've posted about my favorite subject (well, one of them - hockey and motorcycles are coming up!) so I thought I'd include it here.

***

Two quotes, if I may:

In vino veritas.
-Plato

S&M is cops & robbers for grown-ups.
-Dan Savage

Okay, pretentious bit over; you can come out now.

There is some truth in these phrases, just like there is in the sexy costumes that come out at Hallowe'en. When we wear a mask (or assume another character) it gives people an opportunity to come out and play, so to speak. So Holly, when you mention someone being "forced" to do something, it is much more a case of being allowed to do it. The best tops can find a limit the bottom hasn't been to before and explore that together. That takes time.

A good bottom is something quite revered in my circles, as they are the ones who can let themselves go completely; but to get to that point is a lot of work. Not only do they have to feel safe (both physically and emotionally), but they have to be in a situation where they can turn off their mind and release control to someone else. That means the someone else is assuming all the responsibility once play begins, so the top has to trust that their bottom has been honest with their limits before they begin.

Turning over that control is part of the "powerful men do it" legend; another aspect is that it's... well... macho. Type A personalities want to be tested. They want to confront their limits in whatever field, and S&M is pretty much the ultimate in finding out how much you can take, be it in physical punishment or psychological abuse or some combination of both.

Of course, a lot of people do some variant of role play and don't even know it. Could be as mild as a nickname or hand cuffs, or it could be so-called "angry sex" - having had a partner who would go out of her way to make me angry was both frustrating and alarming. I was simply too young to know what was happening, and I finally split up with her. Looking back, I hope she found a safe outlet with someone nice and more experienced than I was, and I hope she realized what it was she was looking for.

Good god - did I wander off topic much?

As for sport themes, what's it say about me where one of my favorite porn themes right now is Ultimate Surrender, where two women wrestle and the winner fucks the loser? There doesn't seem to be a male version about, though you'd think that would be a natural...

About "BDSM's media image", the only show I can recall with a positive portrayal of kinksters is the original CSI: we seem to be actual humans there. Weird, that! 8)

But the real fun for media imagery is with the bottoms. They love to point and laugh at people in positions of power turning into pathetic fuck-sluts in private. The opposite is used for a quick joke too (the mousey librarian becoming a spike-heeled dominatrix), but it's usually a point of humiliating some storyline villain by exposing him (usually him) as a kinkster sub.

***

I let it stop there, as I didn't want to force people to scroll just when they're looking at a comment. It's a bit of a concentrated version, but more or less what I think.

Miss anything important?

Slightly Distracted

One more surgery for the Significant Other tomorrow. At least this time, it's planned well in advance instead of being the usual emergency.

Driving 90 minutes tomorrow morning to drop her off; then back to work that day; then down again to be with her at the parent's place; then back for work; then pick her up and take her home - but only if she's up to sitting down for the entire drive.

I'd say this, but I'm afraid it may be tasteless.

An Anniversary of Note

It's the 35th year of the awkwardly written Roe v. Wade case in the United States.

On teh Intrawebs, they're calling it the "Blog for Choice" Day. Frankly, that doesn't sound much better, but it seems to get the point across. Lots and lots of folks are talking about that right now, though the subject came up a couple weeks ago, too.

Something to talk about, indeed.

*Oh, and one more thing: what do you do when the batteries run out?

This Is So Sweet!

It's a Concern Troll with his own column!

A Concern Troll, for those not in the know, is someone who will go to a blog and leave messages like "You're only hurting your own cause by being so mean!" or "This attitude isn't helping." or "You shouldn't say that!" That sort of thing.

So here we are, hot (is that brimstone?) off the presses of the Wall Street Journal (why yes! Yes it is!) is Arthur C. Brooks, explaining why the nasty liberal (fascist?) type folk are so nasty, and why that's a bad thing. He's telling us for our own good, of course, so the least we could do is listen.

(And, perhaps occasionally, comment.)

Early warning: this is a long one. And for some reason, the linking words are hidden. Love me some Blogger some days...


Liberal Hatemongers
(Good title! So, what's it about?)

Arthur C. Brooks
January 17, 2008

A politically progressive friend of mine always seemed to root against baseball teams from the South. The Braves, the Rangers, the Astros -- he hated them all. I asked him why, to which he replied, "Southerners are prejudiced."

(Please note, Mr. Brooks has politically Progressive friends! At least one, anyways; and really, isn't that enough? The fact that the friend has the intelligence of a hayrick must NOT be held against him! Otherwise you're just proving your own prejudice! And do NOT associate him with a man made of straw!)

The same logic is evident in the complaint the American political left has with conservative voters. According to the political analysis of filmmaker Michael Moore, whose perception of irony apparently does not extend to his own words, "The right wing, that is not where America's at . . . It's just a small minority of people who hate. They hate. They exist in the politics of hate . . . They are hate-triots."

(And as Michael Moore is the spokesman for the American political left, what he says is true for all of them. Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Bill O'Reilly however, are NOT spokesthings for the American political right, no matter how many books, radio programs, and television appearances they have! Whatever they say is NOT representative for all of us!)

What about liberals? According to University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, "Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others." They also "believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference."

(But not according to Merriam-Webster's!

Main Entry: 1: lib·er·al
Pronunciation: \ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b: archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth

2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c: ample full

3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious

4: not literal or strict : loose

5: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b: capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.

See? None of those say "tolerant and respectful of difference"! Which proves liberals are lying. Go ahead, look it up!)

Indeed, generations of academic scholars have assumed that the "natural personality" of political conservatives is characterized by hostile intolerance towards those with opposing viewpoints and lifestyles, while political liberals inherently embrace diversity.

(Yes, generations of scholars have been carefully bred for only the highest quality liberalism here at Manfred Foods. Only the most succulent, choice ideologues make it to harvest, the rest being released to East Village and Haight Street to maintain the wild population. These areas are naturally abhorrent to conservative thought, making them ideal habitats for liberals.)

As we are dragged through another election season, it is worth critically reviewing these stereotypes.

(For an excellent reason! Liberals may, after all, possibly run for election somewhere someday; and if they don't get stopped now, there may even be a party calling themselves that.)

Do the data support the claim that conservatives are haters, while liberals are tolerant of others?

(Which is utterly unfair: conservatives have never claimed to be tolerant of others, after all; so why should they be judged by "levels of tolerance"?)

A handy way to answer this question is with what political analysts call "feeling thermometers," in which people are asked on a survey to rate others on a scale of 0-100. A zero is complete hatred, while 100 means adoration. In general, when presented with people or groups about which they have neutral feelings, respondents give temperatures of about 70. Forty is a cold temperature, and 20 is absolutely freezing.

(Don't ask an academic what absolute freezing is! Academics are all a bunch of liars!)

In 2004, the University of Michigan's American National Election Studies (ANES) survey asked about 1,200 American adults to give their thermometer scores of various groups. People in this survey who called themselves "conservative" or "very conservative" did have a fairly low opinion of liberals -- they gave them an average thermometer score of 39. The score that liberals give conservatives: 38. Looking only at people who said they are "extremely conservative" or "extremely liberal," the right gave the left a score of 27; the left gives the right an icy 23. So much for the liberal tolerance edge.

(Hah! There you have it! People on the "extreme left", like folks who support universal health care or are pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage, are more hateful of the "extreme right" than those on the "extreme right", like folks who are in favour of legal torture or imprioning people for five years without cause or the disbanding of women's rights groups or the removal of habeas corpus are of the "extreme left"! Or wait - are those "extreme" positions, or normal ones? I can't tell any more.)

Some might argue that this is simply a reflection of the current political climate, which is influenced by strong feelings about the current occupants of the White House. And sure enough, those on the extreme left give President Bush an average temperature of 15 and Vice President Cheney a 16. Sixty percent of this group gives both men the absolute lowest score: zero.

(How unfair! The people to the "extreme left" hate the two men who led their country to war, weakend or eliminated environmental protections, manipulated legislation to maximise their personal profits, stopped transparency in the administration, turned a military base into a prison in their name, encouraged the use of easily manipulated voting machines, provides support for dictators consolidating power in supposed democracies, has strong personal relations with the same people he was at least partially elected to confront, and hasn't done a thing about oil costs. Okay, extreme lefties aren't likely to care much about that last one. Sorry.)

To put this into perspective, note that even Saddam Hussein (when he was still among the living) got an average score of eight from Americans. The data tell us that, for six in ten on the hard left in America today, literally nobody in the entire world can be worse than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

(Which is completely unreasonable! After all, who has done more against the people of the United States than Saddam Hussein? Who has changed the lives of the people who live there than Saddam Hussein? Who has turned former allies against the United States if not Saddam Hussein? Who has plunged America into a debt of such staggering proportions that the only way Saudi Arabia could afford to loan more money to the U.S. would be if oil stayed at $100/barrel? Saddam Hussein, that's who! The "hard left" has to learn that!)

This doesn't sound very tolerant to me -- nor especially rational, for that matter. To be fair, though, let's roll back to a time when the far right was accused of temporary insanity: the late Clinton years, when right-wing pundits practically proclaimed the end of Western civilization each night on cable television because President Clinton had been exposed as a perjurious adulterer.

(Ah, yes: the Hummer That Destroyed America, back when that was the only thing that mattered. Good times! Though the phrase seems to have changed meaning, somehow...)

In 1998, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were hardly popular among conservatives. Still, in the 1998 ANES survey, Messrs. Clinton and Gore both received a perfectly-respectable average temperature of 45 from those who called themselves extremely conservative. While 28% of the far right gave Clinton a temperature of zero, Gore got a zero from just 10%. The bottom line is that there is simply no comparison between the current hatred the extreme left has for Messrs. Bush and Cheney, and the hostility the extreme right had for Messrs. Clinton and Gore in the late 1990s.

(Damn straight! After all, they were both elected presidents late in their second terms, which means they were identical in every way that matters.)

Does this refute the stereotype that right-wingers are "haters" while left-wingers are not? Liberals will say that the comparison is unfair, because Mr. Bush is so much worse than Mr. Clinton ever was. Yes, Mr. Clinton may have been imperfect, but Mr. Bush -- whom people on the far left routinely compare to Hitler -- is evil.

(True. Comparisons should only be made to Satan, pseudeo-Satan, or Mussolini. Will these "far lefties" never learn?)

This of course destroys the liberal stereotype even more eloquently than the data.

(The beauty of eloquent stereotype destruction - something liberals just don't appreciate.)

The very essence of intolerance is to dehumanize the people with whom you disagree by asserting that they are not just wrong, but wicked.

(Yup. And when you're right, that's something you never have to do.)

In the end, we have to face the fact that political intolerance in America -- ugly and unfortunate on either side of the political aisle --

(But it's not on our side!)

is to be found more on the left than it is on the right.

(See?)

This may not square with the moral vanity

(Vanity? Ooo! Ooo! See also: John "Pretty Boy" Edwards! Ha ha!)

of progressive political stereotypes, but it's true.

(It's not just true: it's the TRUTH!)

So there you have it. Absolute, conclusive evidence that lefties are evil and they call people names. All provided in a column that's not only sweet, it's also crunchy.

Define Yourself

Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: fas·cism

Pronunciation: \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\

Function: noun

Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces

fasces

Date: 1921

1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control


Oxford English:

/fashiz’m/

• noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

— DERIVATIVES fascist noun & adjective fascistic adjective.

— ORIGIN Italian fascismo, from fascio ‘bundle, political group’, from Latin fascis ‘bundle’.

Cambridge Dictionary Online:

Fascism
noun [U]
a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed.


Jonah Goldberg:

It’s one word we give for a totalitarian, religious impulse, where everything has to go together, where the state has to govern every aspect of society or at least direct every aspect of society towards some Utopian end. Something like that. It’s a hard thing to (define) which is why it’s important to define it better on paper, which I do in the book.

Okay, then.

He also says:

One of the central points of fascism is the cult of unity. This idea that — and this is what I was getting at in the beginning with my definition of fascism — that if everybody gets together, if everybody holds hands and agrees to the national program, to the progressive cause, to what the movement dictates is right and good, then we will be able to be delivered from history, we will be delivered to a promised land, a Thousand Year Reich, a Communist world, a perfect society, a utopia, the kingdom of heaven on earth — that notion still runs straight through the heart of contemporary liberalism today.

Got it.

Then oddly on this show (but this episode), he states:

The military is not fascist. West Point is not fascist. Fascism is this totalitarian mindset that we all have to be in it together.

Effectively either contradicting himself, or not knowing what exactly happens in an army.

So who's right? Who can say, really? Because when words mean whatever you want them to, it becomes pointless to argue.

Troops Aren't Important

...If they survive. That's why the ex-soldier who led the Swift Boat maniacs that lied about John Kerry has no problem with going after another vetran, John McCain. Then again, he may just have a thing for the name "John".

J.C. Patriot has the details.

Oooo.... Pretty Circles!

Dude.

There's this surfer at this web site that's, like, totally bragging that he's high, right? Well, check it, bra: he's hosting this edition of the Skeptics' Circle! No way!

I'd go, but, like, right after I chill a while.

Cool.

I Am A GOD WARRIOR!

...And I vote!

All references to our favorite screaming psychopath aside, it looks like Huckabee is making little of his presidential pitch besides "I'm a Christian, yup!" The folks on the political right are getting awfully confused wondering just how the heck it could happen that the religious wing could take the lead of the Republican Party.

Well.

With the near-constant invocation of Ronald Reagan that's been happening even as the realization that perhaps "anyone but a Democrat" wasn't such a good voting strategy sinks in, you'd think that folks could connect the two dots. But apparently not.

Reagan, as some of the old folks will remember, was a True Believer(tm). The end of the world was coming, Hal Lindsay was right, and Jesus was gonna be here soon. Every policy he made was based on this belief.

Think I'm kidding?

He put the U.S. on a wartime economy, increasing the size of the army (coincidentally reducing some unemployment) and vastly increasing the research into weaponry. Foreign involvement skyrocketed - in the number of locations around the world, if not in actual troops used. Supplying weaponry to most nations in the middle east wasn't a problem, as Jesus ain't gonna come back without major warfare going on there anyway. As for the environment, here's James Watts, the Interior Secretary:

"I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns."

Reagan himself, on a coup in Libya in 1971:

"That's a sign that the day of Armageddon isn't far off. Everything's falling into place. It can't be long now."

And in 1983 to the Association of Evangelicals:

"I believe communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history, whose last pages are even now being written."

He was a pre-millennialist, meaning that Jesus shows up and takes care of everything, but first there have to be wars and the breaking of seals and all that sort of thing. He will establish peace out of the chaos and rubble (think the Left Behind series). Post-millennialists believe that He'll come back only after the church has established a land of peace and prosperity et al. You don't hear about them much, because they just don't have the same sort of unbridled glee for bombings, disease, nuclear explosions and mass starvation that the pre-millennialists do (think post-presidential Jimmy Carter).

Which makes for an interesting question to ask Huckabee: is he a pre- or post-millennialist?

The answer is more important than you think.

What Does Abortion Have To Do With Women?

I have had abortions.

-Mark B. Morrow, Christian Counselor

Um, no, you haven't. Unless there's something about yourself you should really tell your wife...

-Everyone else


Okay, one time:

If my Significant Other were pregnant, would we consider her having an abortion? See how the pronouns work, there? She would be the one undergoing the procedure, not me. What I would be doing is talking to her about it, discussing options, and reaching a decision together. You know, like couples are supposed to do with really big, important decisions.

At least, that's how it works in a healthy relationship.

In this story published in the LA Times, on the other hand, you'll notice something. The men involved didn't actually talk to the women they had gotten pregnant in any meaningful way. Read, if you will, this rather telling quote:

Aubert looks startled. "I never really thought about it for the woman," he says slowly.

Yes. It shows.

Another man who is a member of this group who actively reinforce feelings of shame, trauma, and guilt ("the men are told to picture their sons and daughters dancing in a sunny meadow at the feet of Jesus Christ" - despite blastocysts and embryos not being able to do that sort of thing) mentioned being so angry that his finance had an abortion that he "drank too much" and blacked out for "weeks and months".

Can't imagine why she didn't tell you she was pregnant, then.

One bit of shoddy writing (rather than shoddy thinking) from the story is this:

"Even abortion rights supporters acknowledge that men may benefit from counseling when they and their partners face an unwanted pregnancy."

Let's file that one under "No Shit", shall we? Why would you even bother to start that sentence with the word even ? I'm not as familiar with clinics in the United States as with the ones in Canada, but clinics here will offer counseling to anyone who is considering an abortion, anyone who is involved with someone else getting an abortion, pretty much anyone who walks into the room, really. Women who are trying to decide are given information, support for whatever decision they choose, and the freedom to make that choice.

Don't miss that last bit: it's the important one.

I understand that abortion is a difficult question, and one that often has politicians flailing like the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a tar pit; but it's only difficult if you bother to think about it.

What these men are doing is stopping that thought, and I simply don't think that should be rewarded.

So, would we decide if the SO should have an abortion? If her health were at risk, then yes. But hopefully, we're the exception rather than the rule. But what if it were a Significant Another who was at no risk and otherwise healthy?

Then we - all of us involved - would have to decide. And until that happens, then I don't know.

Maybe I'll find out, but I refuse to be afraid of the discussion.

Spinning On Its Jared?

The Carnival of the Godless has been published at Axis of Jared, and they've been kind enough to include my own short script of a most holy event...

For those about to rock (in Hell), turn it to 11 and join the jam!

Behind the Mask

One reason why people love costume parties is that it gives them a chance to pretend... or to reveal.

In Vino Veritas
-Plato

We can be who we think we should be, or who we admire, or what we think is admired.

Strive to be the man your dog thinks you are.
-Mort Crim

Which is where an experience like Second Life can provide some of the best people-watching on the planet. Take, for instance, attending the Virtual Republican Headquarters...

Jesus' General has the report.

This Might Hurt A Bit...

...Especially if you're a fan of Woo Medicine.

Our favorite disembodied-voice-projecting-from-the-speakers (Orac, for short) has started up a Medical Science blog, in conjunction with Steven Novella(or it may be the other way around). Their description:

"The philosophy of this blog, at its core, is simple: Safe and effective health care is critical to to everyone’s quality of life; so much so that it is generally considered a basic human right. The best method for determining which interventions and health products are safe and effective is, without question, good science. Therefore it is in everyone’s best interest for health care to be systematically evaluated by the best science available."

Tough to argue with, really. You're welcome to try, of course; but you had best be very, very well prepared before hand!

So, What's One Degree Matter?

Sometimes, people are idiots.

Other times, it's just assumed we're idiots.

And sometimes we suffer outrage fatigue and simply give up caring about whatever it is people are screaming at us this week.

But one of the great examples of the former is the way some folks react to what's happening in the environment. I don't just mean the energy companies that actively cast doubt on global warming (in some cases using the same "scientists" the tobacco companies used to deny those deliciously carcinogenic tubes), or the governments that refuse to apply any kind of environmental consideration to their economic development. They've made their choices, and they chose money over life. So it goes.

No, I mean the folks who happily bob along like lobsters in a pot, scoffing at anyone who finds it a bit warm ("And hey? Why are our hands tied?") and mocking them for being such pansies.

The tragic thing is that we, the human species, are astoundingly adaptable. We will live in the most nightmarish conditions if that is all that's left to us. We live everywhere from barren mountain ranges to arctic tundra to blistering desert. Whatever we do to this planet, we'll survive it.

The only real question to ask is: Will we want to?

From Wired magazine:

"In interviews Albrecht conducted over the past few years, scores of Australians described their deep, wrenching sense of loss as they watch the landscape around them change. Familiar plants don't grow any more. Gardens won't take. Birds are gone. "They no longer feel like they know the place they've lived for decades," he says.

Albrecht believes that this is a new type of sadness. People are feeling displaced. They're suffering symptoms eerily similar to those of indigenous populations that are forcibly removed from their traditional homelands. But nobody is being relocated; they haven't moved anywhere. It's just that the familiar markers of their area, the physical and sensory signals that define home, are vanishing. Their environment is moving away from them, and they miss it terribly."

Yes, little lobster, it is just one degree... at a time.

I only wish I wasn't in the pot with you.

Date A Nerd; It's Worth It!

I am a nerd.

And I'm all right with that.

It's actually a well known fact that nerds are better in bed, anyways. I can prove it, too:

1) We study everything. Every nerd, geek, and dork has read the Kama Sutra, and a bunch of us has made an intensive study of the Hite Reports. Heck, I was reading Penthouse Letters before I had even heard of C.S. Lewis.

2) We're grateful. If we're ever lucky enough that someone wants to have sex with us, we work hard at making sure they want to come back. Hey, we're nerds: we rely on repeat business!

3) We are willing to try pretty much anything. This is why you'll find a whole lot of crossover in the S&M scene with the folks who do ren fairs, play Dungeons and Dragons or other RPGs, read fantasy novels, and have careers in information technology.


From the well known documentary:

Betty: That was wonderful. You did things to me you've never done before.
(gasps) You're that nerd!
Lewis: Yeah.
Betty: God, you were wonderful.
Lewis: Thanks.
Betty: Are all nerds as good as you?
Lewis: Yes.
Betty: How come?
Lewis: 'Cos all jocks think about is sports. All we ever think about is sex.

And those are words to live by!