Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.
Sexual desire and sexual activity long have played central roles in family law, rationalizing its rules, informing its policies, and animating any number of calls for reform. Since the 1970s, gender equality has also become a salient value in family law - purporting to correct legally imposed double standards of the past. Yet, despite the conceptual centrality of sexual desire and sexual activity, family law says nothing explicit about sexual pleasure. And despite the salience of gender equality in contemporary family law, the field remains preoccupied with performances that produce heterosexual men's orgasms while ignoring or rejecting women's interest in orgasmic pleasure. As a result, family law today is marked by fundamental omissions and inconsistencies.
The article goes on to describe a "culturally despised body part." Three guesses which part - the first two guesses don't count.
To be honest, there are a host of women who have been maimed by what is euphemistically called "female circumcision," but the feminist euphenism for this event is beyond my gag factor.
The article goes on to describe a "culturally despised body part." Three guesses which part - the first two guesses don't count.
To be honest, there are a host of women who have been maimed by what is euphemistically called "female circumcision," but the feminist euphenism for this event is beyond my gag factor.
Social Science Research Network. Now there's a hole with no bottom. You can pour in as much money and time as you want and never get any useful result.
Social Science Research Network. Now there's a hole with no bottom. You can pour in as much money and time as you want and never get any useful result.
No foolin'.
The score goes up wihen no one is watching, but that's par for the course.
No one is watching most of the time -- or if they are, they have a stake in what's being watched.
Saw him play with Frank Zappa's kid a couple years ago.He rips. I agree, a Satriani influence, but he also is shows signs of being influenced by Zappa riffs which he is quite good at.
The more BORING a child is, the more the parents, when showing off the child, receive adulation for being GOOD PARENTS -- because they have a TAME CHILD-CREATURE in their house.
Frank says: