Vaginal Corona

Have you ever heard of the vaginal corona? Unless you're fairly up-to-date with matters of sexual health, you may not have.

The vaginal corona is a name presented by the Swedish Association for Sexuality Education (RFSU) to replace what is otherwise known as the hymen.

Why rename a part of the human body? The RFSU explains that there are many myths and misunderstandings regarding the hymen, most notably that the hymen is membrane that seals the vagina, being broken upon first penetration (i.e., a reliable indicator of virginity in a female). This is not the case. Vaginal corona, the RFSU argues, is a more accurate name for this part of the female anatomy, as it crowns (hence, corona) the vagina.

The RFSU has produced a booklet explains both what the vaginal corona is and dispelling various myths relating to (female) virginity. I highly recommend not only reading it for yourself, but passing it along to others. It may be found as a pdf on the RFSU site here.

In Which the Author Blasphemes Twice

If you've been following the events of Blasphemy Day you will have noticed much of it has been mocking and denegrating. Fine as that is, I thought I'd do something different. I would like to present to the reader two statements, each highly blasphemous. You may or may not find the statements to be offensive, but just in case you are easily offended, then consider this fair warning.

Here is the first statement:

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Say: He, Allah, is One.
Allah is He on Whom all depend.
He begets not, nor is He begotten.
And none is like Him.

Al-Ikhlas, Al-Qur’ān.

And here is the second statement:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Nicene Creed

One need not be crass in commiting an act of blasphemy. Indeed, commiting an act of blasphemy, strange as it sounds, can actually be a requirement of admission in to the community of one's Faith. Each of the two statements presented above is a required belief: the first of Islam, the second of Christianity. The first statement is a blasphemy in Christianity, whereas the second statement is a blasphemy in Islam.

Carnival of the Elitist Bastards XVII

Ahoy! That veritable ship of thieves and scoundrels, HMS Elitist Bastard, has set sail for another raid on the stupid and idiotic that seeks to claim the treasure that is the human mind.

Celebrate the intelect! Read the latest exploits of the crew, which may be found at En Tequila es Verdad.

Blasphemy Day

Today, 30 September, is Blasphemy Day.

"What the what?", one may well ask. "Crazy atheists and their provocations. Can't they just let people get on with their religious beliefs? Why mock them? What's the point?"

Blasphemy Day is a response to the reaction of some Muslims to the publishing of cartoons in the Danish newspaper Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten (JP) depicting the image of Muhammed, the man revered in Islam for purportedly receiving the final revelations of the god of Abraham. This god is known variously as Allah, Jehova, Yaweh, or simply God. Though not specifically condemned in either Qu'ran or Hadith, the prohibition against depicting the image of Muhammed is a tradition in Islamic belief from the early days of the formation of the religion.

The response of offended Muslims around the world to the cartoons ranged from mild disapproval to violent protest, including damage to property and threats against people associated with the puplication of the cartoons. Though one respects the right of offended Muslims to voice the anger - the right to free spreech is one of the fundamental tenets of a liberal society - one can not approve of damage to property or threats of violence against the person. That is intimidation and an unjust violation of the autonomy of persons.

At the time of the protests many newspapers and journals reprinted the cartoons in an act of support and solidairty with JP. Though they may not have agreed with or endorsed the opinions expressed in the cartoons, such republicantions were done in support of free speech, and as a show to those offended that they would not bow to demands of censorship and threats of violence. Some, however, fearful of Muslim reaction or out of simple-minded 'cultural sensitivity', refused to republish the cartoons, and continue to do so. One rediculous example of this refusal is the book The Cartoons that Shook the World, to be published by Yale University Press, a book about the cartoons published by JP. Though initially included in the book by the author, the images were removed by YUP.

So, what is blasphemy? Basically, it "is the defamation of the name of one or more gods. In a broader sense, blasphemy is irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable." Though certain speech, imagry or acts may be specified as blasphemous, it tends to be a matter of opinion of what is considered blasphemy: the simple phrase of exasperation "God damn it!" is a simple, non-controversial exclamantion to some, to others a minor offense deserving minor rebuke, and to others yet a phrase worthy of condemnation and punishment to one who may utter it.

As an atheist blasphemy is of no concern to me. Indeed, it is a nonsense idea: there being no divine person to be offended one can not commit the offense of defaming such. It makes as much sense as saying one has defamed Huckleberry Finn, Prince Hamlet, or Scooby Doo.

So if blasphemy is of no concern to me, do I support Blasphemy Day? I most certainly do. The right to free expression includes the right to satire, ridicule and even critique the ideas of religious people. If the religious are offended, then they certainly have a right of reply, ncluding condemning that which they consider blasphemous. However, they do not have a right to compel others to live by their beliefs: they can not punish by violence the so-called blasphemer; they can not use the power of the State to enforce their displeasure with death, imprisonment or fine. If the religious were to content themsleves with such limitations, and use only their voice to proclaim their displeasure, it would be a non-issue. But that is not the case. The 'protectors of that which is holy' are not content to voice displeasure: they want to kill, to destroy, and to restrict. It is therfore incumbent upon the advocate of Liberty to speak against such outrages. Blasphemy Day is day when like-minded people may advocate together.


In Australia blasphemy is a matter for the States. Though neither the Commonwealth nor the States have laws against blasphemy, Tasmania and New South Wales criminalise blasphemous libel. The other States do not contain any Statute criminalising blasphemous libel, but the crime may or may not exist under Common Law: it is unclear what the opinion of a Court may be under the Common Law, not having been tested and unlikely to be tested.

Blasphemy is not to be considered a crime against the State, for the State has no business being concerned with the religious beliefs of people. Relgion is a matter of conscience for the individual. If one is religious and is offended by what one considers a blasphemy, that is the price of living in a free society. Bitch and moan to your heart's desire, but that is the most you may do. The beliefs of the religous are not exempt from examination, and that examination may take whatever form, be it high philosophy, crude satire or the intentional causing of offence for the sake of offence.

"Real Man" beds for "Real Men"

Once upon a time beds were objects that one slept and perhaps, if one were fortunate enough, have sex upon. That no longer seems to be the case. In this modern world of ours, sleeping in bed (let alone fucking) is just so passé. Not only are beds no longer places of slumber, but they are sexed. You see, men can't just sleep in any old bed. It has to be a man-bed, a place he can comfortably call his man-cave.

The Wall Street Journal reports on the growth of that niche market that is men who use beds. You see, men apparently need more than a mattress and manchester in order to use a bed: They need man-stuff, like television, surround sound system, sweat absorbing material, muscle recovery properties (why not just put an ad in the lost and found section of the local paper?) and safes for storing firearms. One presumes the tv has the ability to scramble gay porn, too, lest the man's masculinity be threatened.

"After years of catering to women, manufacturers are setting their sights on men," the WSJ reports. "The bed frames feature built-in TVs, iPod docking stations, wine coolers, safes and other guy-friendly gadgetry." Because women just aren't into that kind of shit. Well, maybe the wine cooler is for the chicks, because otherwise that's just so gay.

Why would you want a tv built into your bed? Because, according to one buyer, "You don't have to get up." Yep, sitting on the couch with a remote control is just too fucking hard. Or unmanly. I'm not sure which.

Another buyer comments that, "I sweat when I sleep, so I wanted to try to find a bed that would be cooler." Maybe I've got this less layers or open a window thing all wrong. Is my thinking stuck in the 19th Century, or something? What's wrong with opening a window? You can get a bed with firearm storage, after all, to have that "peace of mind" men obviously crave when sleeping: you don't even have to get out of bed to shoot any burglar that dare come through that open window! Fucking crybaby.

via Community Feministing

Khede Kasra

Making Child Sex Trafficking More Risky

Full video (01:54:11) available at FORA.tv