bla bla bfmgf For too many people, "sex" is synonymous with "intercourse". Though intercourse is a popular and perhaps archetypal form of sex, it is inappropriate and potentially harmful to overlook the numerous sexual alternatives to intercourse and to its risks of STDs and pregnancy. Good sex is about more than intercourse; it's about passion and pleasure. And though "orgasm" is no more synonymous with "good sex" than is "intercourse" with "sex", it is worth noting that a significant percentage of people can only achieve orgasm through non-intercourse sex. This is why it is important to learn about these alternative methods and about manual sex in particular. Manual sex can take numerous forms, ranging from solo masturbation to mutual masturbation and fisting. Each of these carries its own benefits and associated risks, so it is worth exploring them one at a time. Solo Masturbation If you possess a functional set of genitalia, as most people do, then you probably already know about and have experienced solo masturbation. It's about as ordinary as picking your nose; the body part is there, and you're prone to fiddle with it. Masturbation provides a good opportunity for self discovery, and the knowledge of one's own sexual anatomy and pleasures gleaned from masturbation can be directly applied towards successful sex with one's partner. Mutual Masturbation Mutual masturbation is slightly more complicated than solo masturbation, because of two considerations: the simultaneous coordination of two individuals manipulating each other's bodies and the novelty of manipulating what is (for heterosexual couples) comparatively unfamiliar body parts. Inexperienced men, for example, might not immediately comprehend how to stimulate female genitalia, because such an act is qualitatively different from stimulating one's own penis; instead of wrapping one's hands around a shaft, the appropriate course of action typically involving insertion of one's fingers into the vaginal orifice. In order to get an advanced sense of how the act properly proceeds, you can perform a small experiment for yourself: insert your index finger into one of the nostrils of your nose. Move it around gently and explore. The warmth and moisture of your nose approximate the ambient conditions of a typical vagina, and the distribution of nerve endings is sufficiently similar that you can practice appropriate manual technique with an awareness of any adverse sensations your partner might experience because of improper technique. Slowly move your finger in and out of your nose in a slow but deliberate rhythmic fashion; proper rhythm is the secret to good manual sex. Fisting Fisting is an extreme but rewarding form of manual sex -- whereas simple masturbation might involve the external stimulation of genitalia or the minor insertion of individual fingers, fisting consists of the insertion of an entire hand into the vagina or anus. Because this is a non-trivial physical act, special precautions should be taken to ensure safety and success. Proper and copious lubricant is a must, because improper or insufficient lubricant might result in the tearing or rupturing of sensitive genital tissues and organs. Without appropriate preparation, an unpleasant experience is all but guaranteed. To illustrate and clarify some of the issues involved, try an experiment: take your index and middle fingers, hold them pressed against each other, and insert them both into one of the nostrils of your nose. Because they are unlubricated and therefore dry, you should experience considerable difficulty and much discomfort; this is the result of using no lubrication at all. Next, remove the fingers, insert them into your mouth in order to wet them with saliva, and then reinsert them into your nose. Because they are somewhat lubricated but because saliva is an inadequate lubricant, your nose should again experience discomfort but not as much as before. Finally, dip your fingers into an appropriate lubricant such as Vaseline or vegetable shortening and reinsert them into your nose; the result should be a pleasant and painless insertion, allowing you finally to turn your attention to the separate but related issue of distending a small orifice with such a large object. Again, you'll find that your nose and your partner's genitals will thank you for proceeding slowly and cautiously, making no sudden movements and maintaining constant communication and trust. Conclusion Manual sex can be an exciting and satisfying addition to any couple's sexual repertoire. Though your partner might at first feel reluctant, explain the benefits and mechanics, including the above nasal exercises. With proper technique and a strong emotional grounding, your sexual experiences should rise to new heights and attain new dimensions. When it comes to auto racing games, few franchises can claim a following as vast and as loyal as Sony's Gran Turismo series. The original entry in this series pushed the envelope for games of this type, featuring stunning visuals that stressed the limits of the original Playstation's capabilities. The sequel Gran Turismo 2 left the original engine basically unchanged, but threw in a lot more cars, tracks, and racing options, not to mention a pulsing soundtrack featuring many of today's hottest artists. With the advent of the next-generation Playstation 2, one of Sony's top priorities was to move Gran Turismo to the new system in a way that showcased the incredible graphics performance of the system while maintaining the balance and sheer fun of the previous games. Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec is the result of that effort. How did Sony do? Adequacy.org lays it on the line for you. Note: GT3 screenshots are courtesy of Justin Gould. Used with permission. First of all, if you're a fan of the layout and the general gameplay of the previous games, you won't be disappointed. In terms of structure, the game is nearly identical to the previous games in the series; as before, there is an Arcade mode that allows you to pick and choose between different cars and tracks and race against the computer or a friend. However, chances are you'll spend most of your time in the Simulator mode, wherein you're given an initial outlay of $18,000 and must embark on a racing career. You can visit dealerships, buy cars, soup the cars up, go to driving school to get licensed to race in five different classes, and run different tests on your vehicles (such as seeing how fast it will run the standing quarter mile.) You can even wash your car and give it an oil change (which is highly recommended, by the way.) All of this will be familiar to fans of the series. The game is played by starting off with a fairly modest car, winning lots of races, and building up your bankroll so that you can buy more powerful cars. You win races, which get you trophies, cash, and in many cases, bonus cars. You move up the ranks in the racing world, and progress from a small-time Sunday racer to a full-fledged driver with a 1,400 horsepower race car and a certified pit crew. And as before, there is a dizzying array of modifications that you can perform to your vehicles; if you want to supercharge your engine, you can -- for a price. The available modifications range from the obvious (such as putting on high-performance tires) to the esoteric (such as adding a carbon driveshaft or a molybdenum flywheel.) The hallmark of the Gran Turismo series is meticulous realism and an uncompromising physics model, and that has not changed in Gran Turismo 3. The most obvious and dramatic change in Gran Turismo 3 is the graphics. The capabilities of the Playstation 2 have allowed Sony to take their existing addictive gameplay and realistic handling and overlay it with visuals that in many cases are indistinguishable from actual television racing coverage. As with the previous games, Gran Turismo 3 features a replay mode that allows you to sit back and watch a race once you have finished it. As before, the camera angles and points of view are user-customizable. The game features hundreds of cars, each of which are composed of an obscene number of polygons, and the Playstation 2's polygon-pushing capabilities are certainly put to the test. The result is a game that is a treat to watch; the scenery includes everything from lens flare effects from the sun to racing banners waving in the wind to heat ripples rising off of the racetrack. However, be warned: a lot of this scenery is difficult to digest at 200 miles per hour. The sound in Gran Turismo 3 is also impressive. The game has been designed to take full advantage of Dolby surround technologies; if you play the game with a good set of surround speakers and a Dolby Digital reciever, you're in for a treat. If you're in the middle of a race and you have a Mustang SVT Cobra hot on your tail, you can hear the throaty growl of the engine behind you. If you are unfortunate enough to be passed, you will actually hear the sound of your competitor's engine move from behind you to beside you to in front of you.. an auditory reminder that perhaps you need to spend a few dollars upgrading your vehicle. As with the previous games, Gran Turismo 3 features a soundtrack containing songs by many top rock artists. The game's opening sequence features a remix of the popular "Are You Gonna Go My Way" by Lenny Kravitz; other tracks include "Turbo Lover" by Judas Priest and "Kickstart My Heart" by Motley Crue. The game even features a brand new track by Snoop Dogg called "Dogg's Turismo III" wherein "Snoop" raps about Gran Turismo 3 and all of the features that it offers. This is unfortunate, because rap "music" is essentially a sanctioned form of African-American hatred directed at Caucasians; one would have hoped that such a blatant political statement could have been left out of this game. Unfortunately, it gets worse. The game's soundtrack also includes a Goldfinger cover of the song "99 Luftballoons", which was a popular anti-nuclear song in the 1980s. Pardon me if I'm out of line here, but am I the only one that is getting sick and tired of anti-nuclear propaganda coming out of Japanese video games? I played Metal Gear Solid and am considering purchasing its Playstation 2 sequel, but the amount of sheer liberal anti-nuclear preaching in the original game was enough to make me physically ill. The scary thing is that many of the people who play these games are young and impressionable teenagers who will actually believe the rubbish that games like Metal Gear Solid and Gran Turismo 3 trowl out. This crap was at least related to the events of Metal Gear Solid, which was, after all, a game about a walking nuclear tank. But what the hell do nuclear weapons have to do with auto racing? Namco didn't embed liberal messages like "save the whales" into Ms. Pac Man, for Christ's sake. Now, I am aware of the standard objection from the liberal "politically correct" crowd on this point: "Japan is the only nation to have been targeted and attacked by nuclear weapons, so they have a unique perspective on this issue." Bah. "Unique perspective", my ass. Harry Truman may have been a Democrat, but he somehow made the right decision. If we hadn't nuked Japan, then countless American lives would have been lost in the eventual invasion. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets, and their destruction brought about the end of World War II. Hey, Japan? You got nuked. Deal with it. If the United States had not done what it did, then chances are that Japan would still be ruled by Emperor Hirohito's iron fist to this day. It is only because of the United States that Japan is the economic superpower that it is today; and it is only because of the United States that Japan is one of the leaders in crap racing games. You'd think that these jerks could show us a little bit of goddamned gratitude. Instead, what we get is an endless lecture about policy. Well, I for one am sick of it. I am sick and tired of being lambasted for heroic action that brought this planet out of one of the darkest chapters of its history. Japan needs to realize that they were on the wrong side of that particular conflict. The fact that they are using video games to try to make the United States a scapegoat is most unfortunate. However, rest assured that their transparent attempts to villify us will fail. Bottom line: The silly, sorry sons of bitches that put this turkey together deserve to be banned from the video game industry permanently. Don't buy this game. It was made by a bunch of vindictive assholes. Insider trading's been in the news lately. But what exactly is it? Let's look at the current example: Enron's directors had been selling off their Enron stock, knowing that the company had grossly inflated estimates of its value. They came out of it with millions in ill-gotten loot. Meanwhile, the bosses sent off emails to employees, encouraging them to keep investing their retirement money in Enron stock. Just before Enron's price began to fall in early 2001, the company froze the employees' right to sell their Enron stock. Now that Enron's delisted, thousands have lost their life savings. Insider trading is what turns our fair free-market system into a soulless oligopoly, making us the laughing-stock of communist hippies everywhere. And that, my friends, is why we should legalize insider trading by the government. American intelligence agencies have long had more information than other investors. Although the U.S. government claims not to use information gathered by Echelon and other tools to aid American corporations, the Europeans say otherwise. Now, there's "Magic Lantern", a new FBI keylogger. With the aura of 9/11 damping accusations of unconstitutionality, this program presents the FBI with its biggest-ever moneymaking opportunity. It's naive to think that Our Government will limit Magic Lantern to protecting us from terrorist attacks on our soil. As the economy gets worse, more government agents will dip their hands into the cookie jar. By setting up a nationally owned investment house that trades using government info, the U.S. can harness the profit of insider trading for the public interest. Let's look at insider trading in the hands of private corporations. It was one thing when insider information existed largely in the heads of business-persons, their associated contractors, concubines, and toadies, and on pieces of dead tree. Today, though, it's accessible to thousands of computer hackers. These criminals, available to the highest bidder, justify their activity through unfortunate notions about the nature of information. Yes, the Internet lets any corporation to spy effectively on its competitors, allowing more and more investors insider trading opportunities. And, with the incredible popularity of the stock market among ordinary Americans, this insider trading affects more people than ever. As we have seen with Enron, giving corporations control over what information they can disclose can hurt all of the investors -- and damage the public interest. In fact, a market based on a faulty flow of information is likely to crash. After the 1929 market crash, the government set up the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to force businesses to disclose honest information about performance. Unfortunately, there's no way that a government agency can enforce disclosure after-the-fact in an Internet age. That's why we should legalize -- and nationalize -- the government's own insider trading. How it could work Taking a page from the anti-terrorism book, the SEC should announce that it will use all government-obtained data to openly spy on all publicly traded corporations, at all times. Aided by appropriate legislation, the SEC can use this information to launch a sort of "federal investment house." It won't be typical Wall Street - National Security Administration data miners will work alongside intelligence operatives and regular stockbrokers. Some of these people will use the huge wealth of government info to invest in major world stock markets. As federal employees, they'll work without commission, trying to use their insider information to make as much revenue as possible for the Federal Government. Others will use the data to isolate cases of illegal trading by corporate insiders. In fact, any time a corporation's executives try to hide its real earnings, this "SEC investment house" will be prepared to catch them. The SEC may also hire agents, informants, and spies in the world of business, giving them financial rewards or limited access to government market data as a reward. In these ways, the government will dominate the "market" of insider information, making a previously illegal practice that benefitted the richest 2 percent of Americans exclusively work for us all. Some Possible Problems - and Answers Some people claim that it's unethical for the government to invest taxpayer dollars in the stock market. In my view, though, it's crazy not to do so. As the arguments in favor of privatizing Social Security show, the stock market, which continually increases over the long term, is a better investment than government bonds. Any tax-revenue that the government intends to save should be invested in high-growth securities. Won't the government invest too aggressively when it wants to spend money? It's important to keep political arguments away from this nonpolitical, agency-based initiative. The money the government invests in this way should be kept in trust for Social Security, Medicare, and other long-term plans, or it should be kept out of the regular budget for at least ten years. What about the use of clandestinely gathered information and operatives? If we ever get around to privatizing Social Security, we will have to address this issue anyway. The government can't be expected to invest any amount of money in the market without being tempted to use its information. It's better to have spy-influenced "independent" government traders than to contract with a particular private firm to do the government's trading. There are other good reasons for using this information. SEC chair Harvey Pitt has called for "reform of the accounting profession" in order to prevent another Enron debacle. "The present system, which has been in effect for 67 years, doesn't provide for 'current disclosure.' Financial disclosures are dense, impenetrable," claims Pitt. An SEC database of insider information about corporations would certainly help keep accountants and corporate leaders honest. Finally, there is the argument that the government should stay out of private enterprise. Sorry to burst your bubble, folks, but the government spends more on corporations than on all direct public assistance programs combined. With such a huge portion of our annual budget going to corporations, the government can justify "taxing" them by using their advantages to play the market. Do you like this idea? Write your representatives and ask them to draft a bill on this issue! While the Enron scandal is still fresh in everyone's mind, these proposals have a chance. Notorious Norwegian hacker Jon Johansen has finally been charged with breaking into another's locked property, using his illegal "DeCSS" hacker tool. Johansen's arrest comes after years of pleas from the beleaguered Motion Picture Association of America for the authorities to do something about the wave of property theft caused by Johansen and his Lunix gang members. The hacker defense fund, the GNU/Electronic Frontier Foundation, has responded with shrill insistence that the films Johansen stole were his "own property", and that he is being persecuted merely for making use of what is rightfully his. This line of propaganda has been dutifully swallowed by such "news" organizations as ZDNet, CNN, and even MSNBC, who seem to understand "property" to be nothing more than the equivalent of "possession". The MPAA represents the Hollywood movie studios behind the finest entertainment created anywhere in the world today. Indeed, the films given us by these American artists are so sought-after that some of the most brilliant minds outside the US have grown wicked and rotten with envy and desire to possess them. Rather than respectfully purchase these movies under the terms offered by their creators, the twisted minds of the world's hackers have grown feverish in their plots to take what isn't theirs, and to do so in the most contemptuous way possible. While it is the official editorial policy of Adequacy.org to remain neutral in disputes involving intellectual property, we note that terrorist hackers, who have emerged as the main threat to modern civilization in the 21st century, have never created anything original of genuine artistic merit. In contrast, Hollywood has given us for over 75 years the films that define the beauty and truth of our lives. If these hacker terrorists are allowed to bleed the creative arts to death by brazenly appropriating such landmark films as The Nightmare Before Christmas or Amilie. It sends a cold chill through our bodies to envision a future without films of any kind, save perhaps for an inadequate selection of ill-wrought GNU/Films, rent and torn with obvious plot holes, released before they are finished, and limited to nothing but subjects that geeks will work on for free, like masturbatory medieval fantasy, and fighting robots with enormous metal breasts. Jan Johansen faces the trivially light sentence of two years in prison. He will no doubt spend his time in the joint learning new criminal techniques from other hacker terrorists, and be back to give the creative talents of the world another kick in the teeth. Though we take some comfort in knowing this one miscreant will be off the streets for a short time, we have nothing but fear and dread for the future. Like most American parents, I have been diligently saving for my childrens' education since the day when each was born. Believing, as we are told, that a college education is not merely desirable, but actually necessary for the betterment of my offspring, I knew I was doing the only responsible thing a parent could do. With six wonderful children, it was not unreasonable, I felt, to expect to be the only family in town to give rise to a lawyer, a doctor, a quarterback, an elementary school teacher, a cheerleader and a nurse. Over the past few years, however, my dreams of academic success have begun to look a more than a little naive. A growing disapproval of the manner in which our college educated young present themselves began a process of disillusionment which ended with my decision to refuse my eldest the "advantage" of college this coming Fall. The events that brought this situation to a head occurred last Thanksgiving, when my neighbour's daughter, Blair, returned home for the first time since she had left to attend MIT that year. I remember watching Blair grow up alongside my own children. Though older than them all, she was a fine playmate for my girls, and since her parents are quite devout, I had no qualms about her giving my children any strange ideas. I remember a freckled and knee-skinned eight year old, riding bikes with my eldest daughter on our avenue beneath the sycamores in their Springtime glory. I watched her as she went through her awkward teenage years, uncertain and confused. The proudest memory we have of her is as a young woman, freshly home from finishing school, before she was sent off to receive a higher education. I had my qualms about her parents' decision to allow her to attend MIT, a notoriously secular university, but these were settled when some brief investigation revealed that MIT was considered to be even more conformist than Berkeley. So, it was with a proud smile and a merry wave that my family watched young Blair leave our town to seek her destiny in the halls of academe. Little did we realise that the girl who would return to us would not be the same radiant young woman whose memory we had cherished. It wasn't until Thanksgiving dinner, which our families traditionally eat together, that I met young Blair again. The aggrieved expression on her father, Miles' face was all the first hint that this would not be the joyful reunion we had expected. Minutes later, Blair was coaxed downstairs by her mother. The sight of her left us all quite taken aback. Gone was the long, strawberry-blonde hair that had made her the envy and delight of all her peers. It had been cropped to barely shoulder length and dyed fiercely black. Her once radiant skin was now sickly pale, giving the impression, I felt, of a subterranean lifestyle. She dressed in the anti-social style of a militant nonconformist; in purple boots, grey army-style pants and a heavy, drab wool sweater. Throughout dinner, young Blair was a sullen presence at the table, casting a pall on what should have been a convivial evening. She was monosyllabic in her replies to questions about college. Her face was constantly downturned, as though she wanted to pretend there was nobody else present at the table. When I asked her about the boys she had met at college, and if she was having finding any good husband material, she finally looked up, only to give me the most angry, hurt stare I have ever had from a young woman. The whites of her eyes were very red, as though she had been crying for hours, and her lip trembled, as if she were on the verge of saying something, but she obviously thought better of it, and returned to resolutely studying her dinner plate. It was then that I realised that something terrible had happened to her at college, most likely at the hands of heartless college men. How could a few months of college change a person so completely? As much as it hurt me, I knew that I could not allow the drastically altered attitudes of young Blair to affect my family. I would not allow my children to be so irrevocably damaged. With heartfelt apologies to Miles, I told my children that they were not allowed to see Blair ever again. The strident complaints of my three daughters told me I had made the correct decision. Already they had begun to be drawn to her attitude of teenage rebellion. It felt good to know that I had acted in time to save them. Of course, I was shaken enough by the events of Thanksgiving to begin reassessing the pros and cons of a college education for my children. The misgivings I had been feeling over the past few years now seemed more well-grounded, while the benefits of college had taken on the aspect of wishful thinking. Was it really worth the risk, to send my children away, to pay tens of thousands for an education that they might not even get? Americans have not always harboured college ambitions for their progeny. Until the 1960s, it was not common to meet college graduates. Even though the GI benefits program provides for college education for returning soldiers, most of those who survived WW2 did not exercise those particular benefits. College ambition was simply not part of the American culture, until the Sixties. It was thanks to the Vietnam war that college became the expected continuation of a middle class child's life. With the new SAT program opening possibilities that had once been restricted to the children of privileged families, more students took it upon themselves to seek acceptance in tertiary institutions. Coupled with the fact that college entry delayed the draft for as long as the child was at college, it is easy to see why America in the Sixties saw such a massive rise in college applications. A rise so unexpected and so large that the nation was forced to almost bankrupt itself to build state colleges to accept the middle class children fleeing the war. What did this leave us with? A well educated middle class? Alas, no. The result of the boom in education has been a tide of smug, mistaught state college graduates, who consider themselves to be the example of the modern intellectual, despite having spent their entire three years at college indulging their basest appetites and avoiding any form of learning. Not that avoiding learning is difficult in America's state colleges. These institutions have never been known for their high academic standards.After the war ended, the college system's primary function -- to provide a shelter from the draft -- ceased. Even so, the state colleges have remained little more than degree mills and pretentious sleep-away schools for spoiled middle American teenagers who want to delay growing up for a few more years. As the college graduates of those turbulent years raise their own children to college age, they of course look back on their college years as the best time of their lives. Having based much of their self-esteem on their all-but-worthless degrees, they naturally see college as the logical next step for their children, and encourage them to attend whatever liberal arts course they feel like. No doubt, they imagine college will transform their child into the next Susan Sontag or P. J. O'Rourke. Of course, they have forgotten that their presence at college was not for the sake of education, but was born of the cowardice that bought our nation its first ever military defeat. It is this misapprehension about the purpose of education that has sustained our college system through the last three decades, however, as the nineties drew to a close, the tide of children born of parents who had attended college in the Sixties began to dry up. America's colleges and even our most revered universities have begun to feel the squeeze, as too many institutions compete for too few students. It is this highly competitive environment that has caused some of our most respected institutions to start selling degrees. It was not long after I first began using the internet that I received my first offer of a college degree for no more than twenty dollars. Apparently, this practice has become common among educational institutions, and the only difference now between a Harvard degree and one from a degree mill such as Carnegie-Mellon is the price you pay. A depressing state of affairs, offering no plausible benefits to my children. I will not have my flesh and blood participate in this hypocrisy. And what of the supposed benefits of education? While the dreams of success that draw hundreds of thousands to college may be compelling, the facts are not so attractive. Most college graduates don't amount to much more than a mediocre success in the real world. On the other hand, we are always hearing tales of people such as Bill Gates who did not attend college -- or sometimes even finish high school -- achieving incredible wealth and fame. The educational institutions of America have little to offer but disillusionment and corruption. While a properly educated elite is necessary for society to function well, the state college system has done little to advance the education of our leaders, and much to undermine not only knowledge and truth in these United States, but also the prestige that education brings. Offering literally hundreds of soft option courses such as psychology and astrophysics, the modern American student has become renowned not for learning, but for indolence and immaturity. Even the SAT examination -- the basis of college entry -- has been "updated" to be composed almost entirely of multiple choice questions, so easily guessed that cheating (not to mention learning) is almost pointless. American revolving door colleges are quite clearly making a mockery of our nation's proud heritage. In our modern colleges, children are turned against their parents, and taught to hate society. Loving and respectful young men and women are returned to their parents hateful and withdrawn. So-called sexual "liberation" (really a euphemism for institutionalized rape) abounds within college dormitories, and no effort is made to control underage drinking and drug abuse. I shiver at the thought of what might befall poor Blair when she returns to college. When we see her again I worry that she will have become addicted to narcotics such as marijuana, heroin or smack. I cannot allow my children to fall into the same trap. Since the illusion of college has been so effectively shattered for me, I have revised my expectations for my children. None will attend college, but instead, they will find jobs in the industries that made America great. The industries upon which our nation was built. I will be proud to be the first father in my town to count among my children an auto-worker, a soldier, a steel miner, a secretary, a beautician and a waitress. These are noble and honest trades, despite their unglamorous image. If I were a more powerful man, I would do more. I would call for the dismantling of the state college system. I would demand a drastic reduction in our government's education budget. I would fight tooth and nail to keep our nation's children out of college. I am, however, no more than a humble father of six, and I can only try to protect what is my own. Bla bla bla
For too many people, "sex" is synonymous with "intercourse". Though intercourse is a popular and perhaps archetypal form of sex, it is inappropriate and potentially harmful to overlook the numerous sexual alternatives to intercourse and to its risks of STDs and pregnancy.
Good sex is about more than intercourse; it's about passion and pleasure. And though "orgasm" is no more synonymous with "good sex" than is "intercourse" with "sex", it is worth noting that a significant percentage of people can only achieve orgasm through non-intercourse sex. This is why it is important to learn about these alternative methods and about manual sex in particular.
Manual sex can take numerous forms, ranging from solo masturbation to mutual masturbation and fisting. Each of these carries its own benefits and associated risks, so it is worth exploring them one at a time.
Solo Masturbation
If you possess a functional set of genitalia, as most people do, then you probably already know about and have experienced solo masturbation. It's about as ordinary as picking your nose; the body part is there, and you're prone to fiddle with it. Masturbation provides a good opportunity for self discovery, and the knowledge of one's own sexual anatomy and pleasures gleaned from masturbation can be directly applied towards successful sex with one's partner.
Mutual Masturbation
Mutual masturbation is slightly more complicated than solo masturbation, because of two considerations: the simultaneous coordination of two individuals manipulating each other's bodies and the novelty of manipulating what is (for heterosexual couples) comparatively unfamiliar body parts. Inexperienced men, for example, might not immediately comprehend how to stimulate female genitalia, because such an act is qualitatively different from stimulating one's own penis; instead of wrapping one's hands around a shaft, the appropriate course of action typically involving insertion of one's fingers into the vaginal orifice.
In order to get an advanced sense of how the act properly proceeds, you can perform a small experiment for yourself: insert your index finger into one of the nostrils of your nose. Move it around gently and explore. The warmth and moisture of your nose approximate the ambient conditions of a typical vagina, and the distribution of nerve endings is sufficiently similar that you can practice appropriate manual technique with an awareness of any adverse sensations your partner might experience because of improper technique. Slowly move your finger in and out of your nose in a slow but deliberate rhythmic fashion; proper rhythm is the secret to good manual sex.
Fisting
Fisting is an extreme but rewarding form of manual sex -- whereas simple masturbation might involve the external stimulation of genitalia or the minor insertion of individual fingers, fisting consists of the insertion of an entire hand into the vagina or anus. Because this is a non-trivial physical act, special precautions should be taken to ensure safety and success.
Proper and copious lubricant is a must, because improper or insufficient lubricant might result in the tearing or rupturing of sensitive genital tissues and organs. Without appropriate preparation, an unpleasant experience is all but guaranteed.
To illustrate and clarify some of the issues involved, try an experiment: take your index and middle fingers, hold them pressed against each other, and insert them both into one of the nostrils of your nose. Because they are unlubricated and therefore dry, you should experience considerable difficulty and much discomfort; this is the result of using no lubrication at all. Next, remove the fingers, insert them into your mouth in order to wet them with saliva, and then reinsert them into your nose. Because they are somewhat lubricated but because saliva is an inadequate lubricant, your nose should again experience discomfort but not as much as before. Finally, dip your fingers into an appropriate lubricant such as Vaseline or vegetable shortening and reinsert them into your nose; the result should be a pleasant and painless insertion, allowing you finally to turn your attention to the separate but related issue of distending a small orifice with such a large object. Again, you'll find that your nose and your partner's genitals will thank you for proceeding slowly and cautiously, making no sudden movements and maintaining constant communication and trust.
Conclusion
Manual sex can be an exciting and satisfying addition to any couple's sexual repertoire. Though your partner might at first feel reluctant, explain the benefits and mechanics, including the above nasal exercises. With proper technique and a strong emotional grounding, your sexual experiences should rise to new heights and attain new dimensions.
When it comes to auto racing games, few franchises can claim a following as vast and as loyal as Sony's Gran Turismo series. The original entry in this series pushed the envelope for games of this type, featuring stunning visuals that stressed the limits of the original Playstation's capabilities. The sequel Gran Turismo 2 left the original engine basically unchanged, but threw in a lot more cars, tracks, and racing options, not to mention a pulsing soundtrack featuring many of today's hottest artists.
With the advent of the next-generation Playstation 2, one of Sony's top priorities was to move Gran Turismo to the new system in a way that showcased the incredible graphics performance of the system while maintaining the balance and sheer fun of the previous games. Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec is the result of that effort. How did Sony do?
Adequacy.org lays it on the line for you.
Note: GT3 screenshots are courtesy of Justin Gould. Used with permission.
First of all, if you're a fan of the layout and the general gameplay of the previous games, you won't be disappointed. In terms of structure, the game is nearly identical to the previous games in the series; as before, there is an Arcade mode that allows you to pick and choose between different cars and tracks and race against the computer or a friend. However, chances are you'll spend most of your time in the Simulator mode, wherein you're given an initial outlay of $18,000 and must embark on a racing career. You can visit dealerships, buy cars, soup the cars up, go to driving school to get licensed to race in five different classes, and run different tests on your vehicles (such as seeing how fast it will run the standing quarter mile.) You can even wash your car and give it an oil change (which is highly recommended, by the way.)
All of this will be familiar to fans of the series. The game is played by starting off with a fairly modest car, winning lots of races, and building up your bankroll so that you can buy more powerful cars. You win races, which get you trophies, cash, and in many cases, bonus cars. You move up the ranks in the racing world, and progress from a small-time Sunday racer to a full-fledged driver with a 1,400 horsepower race car and a certified pit crew. And as before, there is a dizzying array of modifications that you can perform to your vehicles; if you want to supercharge your engine, you can -- for a price. The available modifications range from the obvious (such as putting on high-performance tires) to the esoteric (such as adding a carbon driveshaft or a molybdenum flywheel.) The hallmark of the Gran Turismo series is meticulous realism and an uncompromising physics model, and that has not changed in Gran Turismo 3. The most obvious and dramatic change in Gran Turismo 3 is the graphics. The capabilities of the Playstation 2 have allowed Sony to take their existing addictive gameplay and realistic handling and overlay it with visuals that in many cases are indistinguishable from actual television racing coverage. As with the previous games, Gran Turismo 3 features a replay mode that allows you to sit back and watch a race once you have finished it. As before, the camera angles and points of view are user-customizable. The game features hundreds of cars, each of which are composed of an obscene number of polygons, and the Playstation 2's polygon-pushing capabilities are certainly put to the test. The result is a game that is a treat to watch; the scenery includes everything from lens flare effects from the sun to racing banners waving in the wind to heat ripples rising off of the racetrack. However, be warned: a lot of this scenery is difficult to digest at 200 miles per hour.
The sound in Gran Turismo 3 is also impressive. The game has been designed to take full advantage of Dolby surround technologies; if you play the game with a good set of surround speakers and a Dolby Digital reciever, you're in for a treat. If you're in the middle of a race and you have a Mustang SVT Cobra hot on your tail, you can hear the throaty growl of the engine behind you. If you are unfortunate enough to be passed, you will actually hear the sound of your competitor's engine move from behind you to beside you to in front of you.. an auditory reminder that perhaps you need to spend a few dollars upgrading your vehicle. As with the previous games, Gran Turismo 3 features a soundtrack containing songs by many top rock artists. The game's opening sequence features a remix of the popular "Are You Gonna Go My Way" by Lenny Kravitz; other tracks include "Turbo Lover" by Judas Priest and "Kickstart My Heart" by Motley Crue. The game even features a brand new track by Snoop Dogg called "Dogg's Turismo III" wherein "Snoop" raps about Gran Turismo 3 and all of the features that it offers. This is unfortunate, because rap "music" is essentially a sanctioned form of African-American hatred directed at Caucasians; one would have hoped that such a blatant political statement could have been left out of this game.
Unfortunately, it gets worse.
The game's soundtrack also includes a Goldfinger cover of the song "99 Luftballoons", which was a popular anti-nuclear song in the 1980s. Pardon me if I'm out of line here, but am I the only one that is getting sick and tired of anti-nuclear propaganda coming out of Japanese video games? I played Metal Gear Solid and am considering purchasing its Playstation 2 sequel, but the amount of sheer liberal anti-nuclear preaching in the original game was enough to make me physically ill. The scary thing is that many of the people who play these games are young and impressionable teenagers who will actually believe the rubbish that games like Metal Gear Solid and Gran Turismo 3 trowl out. This crap was at least related to the events of Metal Gear Solid, which was, after all, a game about a walking nuclear tank. But what the hell do nuclear weapons have to do with auto racing? Namco didn't embed liberal messages like "save the whales" into Ms. Pac Man, for Christ's sake. Now, I am aware of the standard objection from the liberal "politically correct" crowd on this point: "Japan is the only nation to have been targeted and attacked by nuclear weapons, so they have a unique perspective on this issue." Bah. "Unique perspective", my ass. Harry Truman may have been a Democrat, but he somehow made the right decision. If we hadn't nuked Japan, then countless American lives would have been lost in the eventual invasion. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets, and their destruction brought about the end of World War II.
Hey, Japan? You got nuked. Deal with it.
If the United States had not done what it did, then chances are that Japan would still be ruled by Emperor Hirohito's iron fist to this day. It is only because of the United States that Japan is the economic superpower that it is today; and it is only because of the United States that Japan is one of the leaders in crap racing games. You'd think that these jerks could show us a little bit of goddamned gratitude. Instead, what we get is an endless lecture about policy. Well, I for one am sick of it. I am sick and tired of being lambasted for heroic action that brought this planet out of one of the darkest chapters of its history. Japan needs to realize that they were on the wrong side of that particular conflict. The fact that they are using video games to try to make the United States a scapegoat is most unfortunate. However, rest assured that their transparent attempts to villify us will fail. Bottom line: The silly, sorry sons of bitches that put this turkey together deserve to be banned from the video game industry permanently. Don't buy this game. It was made by a bunch of vindictive assholes. Insider trading's been in the news lately. But what exactly is it? Let's look at the current example:
Enron's directors had been selling off their Enron stock, knowing that the company had grossly inflated estimates of its value. They came out of it with millions in ill-gotten loot.
Meanwhile, the bosses sent off emails to employees, encouraging them to keep investing their retirement money in Enron stock. Just before Enron's price began to fall in early 2001, the company froze the employees' right to sell their Enron stock. Now that Enron's delisted, thousands have lost their life savings.
Insider trading is what turns our fair free-market system into a soulless oligopoly, making us the laughing-stock of communist hippies everywhere.
And that, my friends, is why we should legalize insider trading by the government.
American intelligence agencies have long had more information than other investors. Although the U.S. government claims not to use information gathered by Echelon and other tools to aid American corporations, the Europeans say otherwise.
Now, there's "Magic Lantern", a new FBI keylogger. With the aura of 9/11 damping accusations of unconstitutionality, this program presents the FBI with its biggest-ever moneymaking opportunity.
It's naive to think that Our Government will limit Magic Lantern to protecting us from terrorist attacks on our soil. As the economy gets worse, more government agents will dip their hands into the cookie jar.
By setting up a nationally owned investment house that trades using government info, the U.S. can harness the profit of insider trading for the public interest.
Let's look at insider trading in the hands of private corporations.
It was one thing when insider information existed largely in the heads of business-persons, their associated contractors, concubines, and toadies, and on pieces of dead tree.
Today, though, it's accessible to thousands of computer hackers. These criminals, available to the highest bidder, justify their activity through unfortunate notions about the nature of information.
Yes, the Internet lets any corporation to spy effectively on its competitors, allowing more and more investors insider trading opportunities. And, with the incredible popularity of the stock market among ordinary Americans, this insider trading affects more people than ever.
As we have seen with Enron, giving corporations control over what information they can disclose can hurt all of the investors -- and damage the public interest.
In fact, a market based on a faulty flow of information is likely to crash. After the 1929 market crash, the government set up the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to force businesses to disclose honest information about performance. Unfortunately, there's no way that a government agency can enforce disclosure after-the-fact in an Internet age.
That's why we should legalize -- and nationalize -- the government's own insider trading.
How it could work
Taking a page from the anti-terrorism book, the SEC should announce that it will use all government-obtained data to openly spy on all publicly traded corporations, at all times.
Aided by appropriate legislation, the SEC can use this information to launch a sort of "federal investment house." It won't be typical Wall Street - National Security Administration data miners will work alongside intelligence operatives and regular stockbrokers. Some of these people will use the huge wealth of government info to invest in major world stock markets. As federal employees, they'll work without commission, trying to use their insider information to make as much revenue as possible for the Federal Government.
Others will use the data to isolate cases of illegal trading by corporate insiders. In fact, any time a corporation's executives try to hide its real earnings, this "SEC investment house" will be prepared to catch them.
The SEC may also hire agents, informants, and spies in the world of business, giving them financial rewards or limited access to government market data as a reward.
In these ways, the government will dominate the "market" of insider information, making a previously illegal practice that benefitted the richest 2 percent of Americans exclusively work for us all.
Some Possible Problems - and Answers
Some people claim that it's unethical for the government to invest taxpayer dollars in the stock market.
In my view, though, it's crazy not to do so. As the arguments in favor of privatizing Social Security show, the stock market, which continually increases over the long term, is a better investment than government bonds. Any tax-revenue that the government intends to save should be invested in high-growth securities.
Won't the government invest too aggressively when it wants to spend money?
It's important to keep political arguments away from this nonpolitical, agency-based initiative. The money the government invests in this way should be kept in trust for Social Security, Medicare, and other long-term plans, or it should be kept out of the regular budget for at least ten years.
What about the use of clandestinely gathered information and operatives?
If we ever get around to privatizing Social Security, we will have to address this issue anyway. The government can't be expected to invest any amount of money in the market without being tempted to use its information. It's better to have spy-influenced "independent" government traders than to contract with a particular private firm to do the government's trading.
There are other good reasons for using this information. SEC chair Harvey Pitt has called for "reform of the accounting profession" in order to prevent another Enron debacle.
"The present system, which has been in effect for 67 years, doesn't provide for 'current disclosure.' Financial disclosures are dense, impenetrable," claims Pitt.
An SEC database of insider information about corporations would certainly help keep accountants and corporate leaders honest.
Finally, there is the argument that the government should stay out of private enterprise.
Sorry to burst your bubble, folks, but the government spends more on corporations than on all direct public assistance programs combined. With such a huge portion of our annual budget going to corporations, the government can justify "taxing" them by using their advantages to play the market.
Do you like this idea? Write your representatives and ask them to draft a bill on this issue! While the Enron scandal is still fresh in everyone's mind, these proposals have a chance.
Notorious Norwegian hacker Jon Johansen has finally been charged with breaking into another's locked property, using his illegal "DeCSS" hacker tool. Johansen's arrest comes after years of pleas from the beleaguered Motion Picture Association of America for the authorities to do something about the wave of property theft caused by Johansen and his Lunix gang members.
The hacker defense fund, the GNU/Electronic Frontier Foundation, has responded with shrill insistence that the films Johansen stole were his "own property", and that he is being persecuted merely for making use of what is rightfully his. This line of propaganda has been dutifully swallowed by such "news" organizations as ZDNet, CNN, and even MSNBC, who seem to understand "property" to be nothing more than the equivalent of "possession".
The MPAA represents the Hollywood movie studios behind the finest entertainment created anywhere in the world today. Indeed, the films given us by these American artists are so sought-after that some of the most brilliant minds outside the US have grown wicked and rotten with envy and desire to possess them. Rather than respectfully purchase these movies under the terms offered by their creators, the twisted minds of the world's hackers have grown feverish in their plots to take what isn't theirs, and to do so in the most contemptuous way possible.
While it is the official editorial policy of Adequacy.org to remain neutral in disputes involving intellectual property, we note that terrorist hackers, who have emerged as the main threat to modern civilization in the 21st century, have never created anything original of genuine artistic merit. In contrast, Hollywood has given us for over 75 years the films that define the beauty and truth of our lives. If these hacker terrorists are allowed to bleed the creative arts to death by brazenly appropriating such landmark films as The Nightmare Before Christmas or Amilie.
It sends a cold chill through our bodies to envision a future without films of any kind, save perhaps for an inadequate selection of ill-wrought GNU/Films, rent and torn with obvious plot holes, released before they are finished, and limited to nothing but subjects that geeks will work on for free, like masturbatory medieval fantasy, and fighting robots with enormous metal breasts.
Jan Johansen faces the trivially light sentence of two years in prison. He will no doubt spend his time in the joint learning new criminal techniques from other hacker terrorists, and be back to give the creative talents of the world another kick in the teeth. Though we take some comfort in knowing this one miscreant will be off the streets for a short time, we have nothing but fear and dread for the future.
Like most American parents, I have been diligently saving for my childrens' education since the day when each was born. Believing, as we are told, that a college education is not merely desirable, but actually necessary for the betterment of my offspring, I knew I was doing the only responsible thing a parent could do. With six wonderful children, it was not unreasonable, I felt, to expect to be the only family in town to give rise to a lawyer, a doctor, a quarterback, an elementary school teacher, a cheerleader and a nurse.
Over the past few years, however, my dreams of academic success have begun to look a more than a little naive. A growing disapproval of the manner in which our college educated young present themselves began a process of disillusionment which ended with my decision to refuse my eldest the "advantage" of college this coming Fall. The events that brought this situation to a head occurred last Thanksgiving, when my neighbour's daughter, Blair, returned home for the first time since she had left to attend MIT that year.
I remember watching Blair grow up alongside my own children. Though older than them all, she was a fine playmate for my girls, and since her parents are quite devout, I had no qualms about her giving my children any strange ideas. I remember a freckled and knee-skinned eight year old, riding bikes with my eldest daughter on our avenue beneath the sycamores in their Springtime glory. I watched her as she went through her awkward teenage years, uncertain and confused. The proudest memory we have of her is as a young woman, freshly home from finishing school, before she was sent off to receive a higher education. I had my qualms about her parents' decision to allow her to attend MIT, a notoriously secular university, but these were settled when some brief investigation revealed that MIT was considered to be even more conformist than Berkeley. So, it was with a proud smile and a merry wave that my family watched young Blair leave our town to seek her destiny in the halls of academe. Little did we realise that the girl who would return to us would not be the same radiant young woman whose memory we had cherished.
It wasn't until Thanksgiving dinner, which our families traditionally eat together, that I met young Blair again. The aggrieved expression on her father, Miles' face was all the first hint that this would not be the joyful reunion we had expected. Minutes later, Blair was coaxed downstairs by her mother. The sight of her left us all quite taken aback. Gone was the long, strawberry-blonde hair that had made her the envy and delight of all her peers. It had been cropped to barely shoulder length and dyed fiercely black. Her once radiant skin was now sickly pale, giving the impression, I felt, of a subterranean lifestyle. She dressed in the anti-social style of a militant nonconformist; in purple boots, grey army-style pants and a heavy, drab wool sweater.
Throughout dinner, young Blair was a sullen presence at the table, casting a pall on what should have been a convivial evening. She was monosyllabic in her replies to questions about college. Her face was constantly downturned, as though she wanted to pretend there was nobody else present at the table. When I asked her about the boys she had met at college, and if she was having finding any good husband material, she finally looked up, only to give me the most angry, hurt stare I have ever had from a young woman. The whites of her eyes were very red, as though she had been crying for hours, and her lip trembled, as if she were on the verge of saying something, but she obviously thought better of it, and returned to resolutely studying her dinner plate. It was then that I realised that something terrible had happened to her at college, most likely at the hands of heartless college men.
How could a few months of college change a person so completely? As much as it hurt me, I knew that I could not allow the drastically altered attitudes of young Blair to affect my family. I would not allow my children to be so irrevocably damaged. With heartfelt apologies to Miles, I told my children that they were not allowed to see Blair ever again. The strident complaints of my three daughters told me I had made the correct decision. Already they had begun to be drawn to her attitude of teenage rebellion. It felt good to know that I had acted in time to save them.
Of course, I was shaken enough by the events of Thanksgiving to begin reassessing the pros and cons of a college education for my children. The misgivings I had been feeling over the past few years now seemed more well-grounded, while the benefits of college had taken on the aspect of wishful thinking. Was it really worth the risk, to send my children away, to pay tens of thousands for an education that they might not even get?
Americans have not always harboured college ambitions for their progeny. Until the 1960s, it was not common to meet college graduates. Even though the GI benefits program provides for college education for returning soldiers, most of those who survived WW2 did not exercise those particular benefits. College ambition was simply not part of the American culture, until the Sixties.
It was thanks to the Vietnam war that college became the expected continuation of a middle class child's life. With the new SAT program opening possibilities that had once been restricted to the children of privileged families, more students took it upon themselves to seek acceptance in tertiary institutions. Coupled with the fact that college entry delayed the draft for as long as the child was at college, it is easy to see why America in the Sixties saw such a massive rise in college applications. A rise so unexpected and so large that the nation was forced to almost bankrupt itself to build state colleges to accept the middle class children fleeing the war.
What did this leave us with? A well educated middle class? Alas, no. The result of the boom in education has been a tide of smug, mistaught state college graduates, who consider themselves to be the example of the modern intellectual, despite having spent their entire three years at college indulging their basest appetites and avoiding any form of learning. Not that avoiding learning is difficult in America's state colleges. These institutions have never been known for their high academic standards.After the war ended, the college system's primary function -- to provide a shelter from the draft -- ceased. Even so, the state colleges have remained little more than degree mills and pretentious sleep-away schools for spoiled middle American teenagers who want to delay growing up for a few more years.
As the college graduates of those turbulent years raise their own children to college age, they of course look back on their college years as the best time of their lives. Having based much of their self-esteem on their all-but-worthless degrees, they naturally see college as the logical next step for their children, and encourage them to attend whatever liberal arts course they feel like. No doubt, they imagine college will transform their child into the next Susan Sontag or P. J. O'Rourke. Of course, they have forgotten that their presence at college was not for the sake of education, but was born of the cowardice that bought our nation its first ever military defeat.
It is this misapprehension about the purpose of education that has sustained our college system through the last three decades, however, as the nineties drew to a close, the tide of children born of parents who had attended college in the Sixties began to dry up. America's colleges and even our most revered universities have begun to feel the squeeze, as too many institutions compete for too few students. It is this highly competitive environment that has caused some of our most respected institutions to start selling degrees.
It was not long after I first began using the internet that I received my first offer of a college degree for no more than twenty dollars. Apparently, this practice has become common among educational institutions, and the only difference now between a Harvard degree and one from a degree mill such as Carnegie-Mellon is the price you pay. A depressing state of affairs, offering no plausible benefits to my children. I will not have my flesh and blood participate in this hypocrisy.
And what of the supposed benefits of education? While the dreams of success that draw hundreds of thousands to college may be compelling, the facts are not so attractive. Most college graduates don't amount to much more than a mediocre success in the real world. On the other hand, we are always hearing tales of people such as Bill Gates who did not attend college -- or sometimes even finish high school -- achieving incredible wealth and fame.
The educational institutions of America have little to offer but disillusionment and corruption. While a properly educated elite is necessary for society to function well, the state college system has done little to advance the education of our leaders, and much to undermine not only knowledge and truth in these United States, but also the prestige that education brings. Offering literally hundreds of soft option courses such as psychology and astrophysics, the modern American student has become renowned not for learning, but for indolence and immaturity. Even the SAT examination -- the basis of college entry -- has been "updated" to be composed almost entirely of multiple choice questions, so easily guessed that cheating (not to mention learning) is almost pointless. American revolving door colleges are quite clearly making a mockery of our nation's proud heritage.
In our modern colleges, children are turned against their parents, and taught to hate society. Loving and respectful young men and women are returned to their parents hateful and withdrawn. So-called sexual "liberation" (really a euphemism for institutionalized rape) abounds within college dormitories, and no effort is made to control underage drinking and drug abuse. I shiver at the thought of what might befall poor Blair when she returns to college. When we see her again I worry that she will have become addicted to narcotics such as marijuana, heroin or smack. I cannot allow my children to fall into the same trap.
Since the illusion of college has been so effectively shattered for me, I have revised my expectations for my children. None will attend college, but instead, they will find jobs in the industries that made America great. The industries upon which our nation was built. I will be proud to be the first father in my town to count among my children an auto-worker, a soldier, a steel miner, a secretary, a beautician and a waitress. These are noble and honest trades, despite their unglamorous image.
If I were a more powerful man, I would do more. I would call for the dismantling of the state college system. I would demand a drastic reduction in our government's education budget. I would fight tooth and nail to keep our nation's children out of college. I am, however, no more than a humble father of six, and I can only try to protect what is my own.
Slashdot Mirror
and my first post is longer than YOURS.
bla bla bfmgf For too many people, "sex" is synonymous with "intercourse". Though intercourse is a popular and perhaps archetypal form of sex, it is inappropriate and potentially harmful to overlook the numerous sexual alternatives to intercourse and to its risks of STDs and pregnancy. Good sex is about more than intercourse; it's about passion and pleasure. And though "orgasm" is no more synonymous with "good sex" than is "intercourse" with "sex", it is worth noting that a significant percentage of people can only achieve orgasm through non-intercourse sex. This is why it is important to learn about these alternative methods and about manual sex in particular. Manual sex can take numerous forms, ranging from solo masturbation to mutual masturbation and fisting. Each of these carries its own benefits and associated risks, so it is worth exploring them one at a time. Solo Masturbation If you possess a functional set of genitalia, as most people do, then you probably already know about and have experienced solo masturbation. It's about as ordinary as picking your nose; the body part is there, and you're prone to fiddle with it. Masturbation provides a good opportunity for self discovery, and the knowledge of one's own sexual anatomy and pleasures gleaned from masturbation can be directly applied towards successful sex with one's partner. Mutual Masturbation Mutual masturbation is slightly more complicated than solo masturbation, because of two considerations: the simultaneous coordination of two individuals manipulating each other's bodies and the novelty of manipulating what is (for heterosexual couples) comparatively unfamiliar body parts. Inexperienced men, for example, might not immediately comprehend how to stimulate female genitalia, because such an act is qualitatively different from stimulating one's own penis; instead of wrapping one's hands around a shaft, the appropriate course of action typically involving insertion of one's fingers into the vaginal orifice. In order to get an advanced sense of how the act properly proceeds, you can perform a small experiment for yourself: insert your index finger into one of the nostrils of your nose. Move it around gently and explore. The warmth and moisture of your nose approximate the ambient conditions of a typical vagina, and the distribution of nerve endings is sufficiently similar that you can practice appropriate manual technique with an awareness of any adverse sensations your partner might experience because of improper technique. Slowly move your finger in and out of your nose in a slow but deliberate rhythmic fashion; proper rhythm is the secret to good manual sex. Fisting Fisting is an extreme but rewarding form of manual sex -- whereas simple masturbation might involve the external stimulation of genitalia or the minor insertion of individual fingers, fisting consists of the insertion of an entire hand into the vagina or anus. Because this is a non-trivial physical act, special precautions should be taken to ensure safety and success. Proper and copious lubricant is a must, because improper or insufficient lubricant might result in the tearing or rupturing of sensitive genital tissues and organs. Without appropriate preparation, an unpleasant experience is all but guaranteed. To illustrate and clarify some of the issues involved, try an experiment: take your index and middle fingers, hold them pressed against each other, and insert them both into one of the nostrils of your nose. Because they are unlubricated and therefore dry, you should experience considerable difficulty and much discomfort; this is the result of using no lubrication at all. Next, remove the fingers, insert them into your mouth in order to wet them with saliva, and then reinsert them into your nose. Because they are somewhat lubricated but because saliva is an inadequate lubricant, your nose should again experience discomfort but not as much as before. Finally, dip your fingers into an appropriate lubricant such as Vaseline or vegetable shortening and reinsert them into your nose; the result should be a pleasant and painless insertion, allowing you finally to turn your attention to the separate but related issue of distending a small orifice with such a large object. Again, you'll find that your nose and your partner's genitals will thank you for proceeding slowly and cautiously, making no sudden movements and maintaining constant communication and trust. Conclusion Manual sex can be an exciting and satisfying addition to any couple's sexual repertoire. Though your partner might at first feel reluctant, explain the benefits and mechanics, including the above nasal exercises. With proper technique and a strong emotional grounding, your sexual experiences should rise to new heights and attain new dimensions. When it comes to auto racing games, few franchises can claim a following as vast and as loyal as Sony's Gran Turismo series. The original entry in this series pushed the envelope for games of this type, featuring stunning visuals that stressed the limits of the original Playstation's capabilities. The sequel Gran Turismo 2 left the original engine basically unchanged, but threw in a lot more cars, tracks, and racing options, not to mention a pulsing soundtrack featuring many of today's hottest artists. With the advent of the next-generation Playstation 2, one of Sony's top priorities was to move Gran Turismo to the new system in a way that showcased the incredible graphics performance of the system while maintaining the balance and sheer fun of the previous games. Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec is the result of that effort. How did Sony do? Adequacy.org lays it on the line for you. Note: GT3 screenshots are courtesy of Justin Gould. Used with permission. First of all, if you're a fan of the layout and the general gameplay of the previous games, you won't be disappointed. In terms of structure, the game is nearly identical to the previous games in the series; as before, there is an Arcade mode that allows you to pick and choose between different cars and tracks and race against the computer or a friend. However, chances are you'll spend most of your time in the Simulator mode, wherein you're given an initial outlay of $18,000 and must embark on a racing career. You can visit dealerships, buy cars, soup the cars up, go to driving school to get licensed to race in five different classes, and run different tests on your vehicles (such as seeing how fast it will run the standing quarter mile.) You can even wash your car and give it an oil change (which is highly recommended, by the way.) All of this will be familiar to fans of the series. The game is played by starting off with a fairly modest car, winning lots of races, and building up your bankroll so that you can buy more powerful cars. You win races, which get you trophies, cash, and in many cases, bonus cars. You move up the ranks in the racing world, and progress from a small-time Sunday racer to a full-fledged driver with a 1,400 horsepower race car and a certified pit crew. And as before, there is a dizzying array of modifications that you can perform to your vehicles; if you want to supercharge your engine, you can -- for a price. The available modifications range from the obvious (such as putting on high-performance tires) to the esoteric (such as adding a carbon driveshaft or a molybdenum flywheel.) The hallmark of the Gran Turismo series is meticulous realism and an uncompromising physics model, and that has not changed in Gran Turismo 3. The most obvious and dramatic change in Gran Turismo 3 is the graphics. The capabilities of the Playstation 2 have allowed Sony to take their existing addictive gameplay and realistic handling and overlay it with visuals that in many cases are indistinguishable from actual television racing coverage. As with the previous games, Gran Turismo 3 features a replay mode that allows you to sit back and watch a race once you have finished it. As before, the camera angles and points of view are user-customizable. The game features hundreds of cars, each of which are composed of an obscene number of polygons, and the Playstation 2's polygon-pushing capabilities are certainly put to the test. The result is a game that is a treat to watch; the scenery includes everything from lens flare effects from the sun to racing banners waving in the wind to heat ripples rising off of the racetrack. However, be warned: a lot of this scenery is difficult to digest at 200 miles per hour. The sound in Gran Turismo 3 is also impressive. The game has been designed to take full advantage of Dolby surround technologies; if you play the game with a good set of surround speakers and a Dolby Digital reciever, you're in for a treat. If you're in the middle of a race and you have a Mustang SVT Cobra hot on your tail, you can hear the throaty growl of the engine behind you. If you are unfortunate enough to be passed, you will actually hear the sound of your competitor's engine move from behind you to beside you to in front of you .. an auditory reminder that perhaps you need to spend a few dollars upgrading your vehicle. As with the previous games, Gran Turismo 3 features a soundtrack containing songs by many top rock artists. The game's opening sequence features a remix of the popular "Are You Gonna Go My Way" by Lenny Kravitz; other tracks include "Turbo Lover" by Judas Priest and "Kickstart My Heart" by Motley Crue. The game even features a brand new track by Snoop Dogg called "Dogg's Turismo III" wherein "Snoop" raps about Gran Turismo 3 and all of the features that it offers. This is unfortunate, because rap "music" is essentially a sanctioned form of African-American hatred directed at Caucasians; one would have hoped that such a blatant political statement could have been left out of this game. Unfortunately, it gets worse. The game's soundtrack also includes a Goldfinger cover of the song "99 Luftballoons", which was a popular anti-nuclear song in the 1980s. Pardon me if I'm out of line here, but am I the only one that is getting sick and tired of anti-nuclear propaganda coming out of Japanese video games? I played Metal Gear Solid and am considering purchasing its Playstation 2 sequel, but the amount of sheer liberal anti-nuclear preaching in the original game was enough to make me physically ill. The scary thing is that many of the people who play these games are young and impressionable teenagers who will actually believe the rubbish that games like Metal Gear Solid and Gran Turismo 3 trowl out. This crap was at least related to the events of Metal Gear Solid, which was, after all, a game about a walking nuclear tank. But what the hell do nuclear weapons have to do with auto racing? Namco didn't embed liberal messages like "save the whales" into Ms. Pac Man, for Christ's sake. Now, I am aware of the standard objection from the liberal "politically correct" crowd on this point: "Japan is the only nation to have been targeted and attacked by nuclear weapons, so they have a unique perspective on this issue." Bah. "Unique perspective", my ass. Harry Truman may have been a Democrat, but he somehow made the right decision. If we hadn't nuked Japan, then countless American lives would have been lost in the eventual invasion. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets, and their destruction brought about the end of World War II. Hey, Japan? You got nuked. Deal with it. If the United States had not done what it did, then chances are that Japan would still be ruled by Emperor Hirohito's iron fist to this day. It is only because of the United States that Japan is the economic superpower that it is today; and it is only because of the United States that Japan is one of the leaders in crap racing games. You'd think that these jerks could show us a little bit of goddamned gratitude. Instead, what we get is an endless lecture about policy. Well, I for one am sick of it. I am sick and tired of being lambasted for heroic action that brought this planet out of one of the darkest chapters of its history. Japan needs to realize that they were on the wrong side of that particular conflict. The fact that they are using video games to try to make the United States a scapegoat is most unfortunate. However, rest assured that their transparent attempts to villify us will fail. Bottom line: The silly, sorry sons of bitches that put this turkey together deserve to be banned from the video game industry permanently. Don't buy this game. It was made by a bunch of vindictive assholes. Insider trading's been in the news lately. But what exactly is it? Let's look at the current example: Enron's directors had been selling off their Enron stock, knowing that the company had grossly inflated estimates of its value. They came out of it with millions in ill-gotten loot. Meanwhile, the bosses sent off emails to employees, encouraging them to keep investing their retirement money in Enron stock. Just before Enron's price began to fall in early 2001, the company froze the employees' right to sell their Enron stock. Now that Enron's delisted, thousands have lost their life savings. Insider trading is what turns our fair free-market system into a soulless oligopoly, making us the laughing-stock of communist hippies everywhere. And that, my friends, is why we should legalize insider trading by the government. American intelligence agencies have long had more information than other investors. Although the U.S. government claims not to use information gathered by Echelon and other tools to aid American corporations, the Europeans say otherwise. Now, there's "Magic Lantern", a new FBI keylogger. With the aura of 9/11 damping accusations of unconstitutionality, this program presents the FBI with its biggest-ever moneymaking opportunity. It's naive to think that Our Government will limit Magic Lantern to protecting us from terrorist attacks on our soil. As the economy gets worse, more government agents will dip their hands into the cookie jar. By setting up a nationally owned investment house that trades using government info, the U.S. can harness the profit of insider trading for the public interest. Let's look at insider trading in the hands of private corporations. It was one thing when insider information existed largely in the heads of business-persons, their associated contractors, concubines, and toadies, and on pieces of dead tree. Today, though, it's accessible to thousands of computer hackers. These criminals, available to the highest bidder, justify their activity through unfortunate notions about the nature of information. Yes, the Internet lets any corporation to spy effectively on its competitors, allowing more and more investors insider trading opportunities. And, with the incredible popularity of the stock market among ordinary Americans, this insider trading affects more people than ever. As we have seen with Enron, giving corporations control over what information they can disclose can hurt all of the investors -- and damage the public interest. In fact, a market based on a faulty flow of information is likely to crash. After the 1929 market crash, the government set up the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to force businesses to disclose honest information about performance. Unfortunately, there's no way that a government agency can enforce disclosure after-the-fact in an Internet age. That's why we should legalize -- and nationalize -- the government's own insider trading. How it could work Taking a page from the anti-terrorism book, the SEC should announce that it will use all government-obtained data to openly spy on all publicly traded corporations, at all times. Aided by appropriate legislation, the SEC can use this information to launch a sort of "federal investment house." It won't be typical Wall Street - National Security Administration data miners will work alongside intelligence operatives and regular stockbrokers. Some of these people will use the huge wealth of government info to invest in major world stock markets. As federal employees, they'll work without commission, trying to use their insider information to make as much revenue as possible for the Federal Government. Others will use the data to isolate cases of illegal trading by corporate insiders. In fact, any time a corporation's executives try to hide its real earnings, this "SEC investment house" will be prepared to catch them. The SEC may also hire agents, informants, and spies in the world of business, giving them financial rewards or limited access to government market data as a reward. In these ways, the government will dominate the "market" of insider information, making a previously illegal practice that benefitted the richest 2 percent of Americans exclusively work for us all. Some Possible Problems - and Answers Some people claim that it's unethical for the government to invest taxpayer dollars in the stock market. In my view, though, it's crazy not to do so. As the arguments in favor of privatizing Social Security show, the stock market, which continually increases over the long term, is a better investment than government bonds. Any tax-revenue that the government intends to save should be invested in high-growth securities. Won't the government invest too aggressively when it wants to spend money? It's important to keep political arguments away from this nonpolitical, agency-based initiative. The money the government invests in this way should be kept in trust for Social Security, Medicare, and other long-term plans, or it should be kept out of the regular budget for at least ten years. What about the use of clandestinely gathered information and operatives? If we ever get around to privatizing Social Security, we will have to address this issue anyway. The government can't be expected to invest any amount of money in the market without being tempted to use its information. It's better to have spy-influenced "independent" government traders than to contract with a particular private firm to do the government's trading. There are other good reasons for using this information. SEC chair Harvey Pitt has called for "reform of the accounting profession" in order to prevent another Enron debacle. "The present system, which has been in effect for 67 years, doesn't provide for 'current disclosure.' Financial disclosures are dense, impenetrable," claims Pitt. An SEC database of insider information about corporations would certainly help keep accountants and corporate leaders honest. Finally, there is the argument that the government should stay out of private enterprise. Sorry to burst your bubble, folks, but the government spends more on corporations than on all direct public assistance programs combined. With such a huge portion of our annual budget going to corporations, the government can justify "taxing" them by using their advantages to play the market. Do you like this idea? Write your representatives and ask them to draft a bill on this issue! While the Enron scandal is still fresh in everyone's mind, these proposals have a chance. Notorious Norwegian hacker Jon Johansen has finally been charged with breaking into another's locked property, using his illegal "DeCSS" hacker tool. Johansen's arrest comes after years of pleas from the beleaguered Motion Picture Association of America for the authorities to do something about the wave of property theft caused by Johansen and his Lunix gang members. The hacker defense fund, the GNU/Electronic Frontier Foundation, has responded with shrill insistence that the films Johansen stole were his "own property", and that he is being persecuted merely for making use of what is rightfully his. This line of propaganda has been dutifully swallowed by such "news" organizations as ZDNet, CNN, and even MSNBC, who seem to understand "property" to be nothing more than the equivalent of "possession". The MPAA represents the Hollywood movie studios behind the finest entertainment created anywhere in the world today. Indeed, the films given us by these American artists are so sought-after that some of the most brilliant minds outside the US have grown wicked and rotten with envy and desire to possess them. Rather than respectfully purchase these movies under the terms offered by their creators, the twisted minds of the world's hackers have grown feverish in their plots to take what isn't theirs, and to do so in the most contemptuous way possible. While it is the official editorial policy of Adequacy.org to remain neutral in disputes involving intellectual property, we note that terrorist hackers, who have emerged as the main threat to modern civilization in the 21st century, have never created anything original of genuine artistic merit. In contrast, Hollywood has given us for over 75 years the films that define the beauty and truth of our lives. If these hacker terrorists are allowed to bleed the creative arts to death by brazenly appropriating such landmark films as The Nightmare Before Christmas or Amilie. It sends a cold chill through our bodies to envision a future without films of any kind, save perhaps for an inadequate selection of ill-wrought GNU/Films, rent and torn with obvious plot holes, released before they are finished, and limited to nothing but subjects that geeks will work on for free, like masturbatory medieval fantasy, and fighting robots with enormous metal breasts. Jan Johansen faces the trivially light sentence of two years in prison. He will no doubt spend his time in the joint learning new criminal techniques from other hacker terrorists, and be back to give the creative talents of the world another kick in the teeth. Though we take some comfort in knowing this one miscreant will be off the streets for a short time, we have nothing but fear and dread for the future. Like most American parents, I have been diligently saving for my childrens' education since the day when each was born. Believing, as we are told, that a college education is not merely desirable, but actually necessary for the betterment of my offspring, I knew I was doing the only responsible thing a parent could do. With six wonderful children, it was not unreasonable, I felt, to expect to be the only family in town to give rise to a lawyer, a doctor, a quarterback, an elementary school teacher, a cheerleader and a nurse. Over the past few years, however, my dreams of academic success have begun to look a more than a little naive. A growing disapproval of the manner in which our college educated young present themselves began a process of disillusionment which ended with my decision to refuse my eldest the "advantage" of college this coming Fall. The events that brought this situation to a head occurred last Thanksgiving, when my neighbour's daughter, Blair, returned home for the first time since she had left to attend MIT that year. I remember watching Blair grow up alongside my own children. Though older than them all, she was a fine playmate for my girls, and since her parents are quite devout, I had no qualms about her giving my children any strange ideas. I remember a freckled and knee-skinned eight year old, riding bikes with my eldest daughter on our avenue beneath the sycamores in their Springtime glory. I watched her as she went through her awkward teenage years, uncertain and confused. The proudest memory we have of her is as a young woman, freshly home from finishing school, before she was sent off to receive a higher education. I had my qualms about her parents' decision to allow her to attend MIT, a notoriously secular university, but these were settled when some brief investigation revealed that MIT was considered to be even more conformist than Berkeley. So, it was with a proud smile and a merry wave that my family watched young Blair leave our town to seek her destiny in the halls of academe. Little did we realise that the girl who would return to us would not be the same radiant young woman whose memory we had cherished. It wasn't until Thanksgiving dinner, which our families traditionally eat together, that I met young Blair again. The aggrieved expression on her father, Miles' face was all the first hint that this would not be the joyful reunion we had expected. Minutes later, Blair was coaxed downstairs by her mother. The sight of her left us all quite taken aback. Gone was the long, strawberry-blonde hair that had made her the envy and delight of all her peers. It had been cropped to barely shoulder length and dyed fiercely black. Her once radiant skin was now sickly pale, giving the impression, I felt, of a subterranean lifestyle. She dressed in the anti-social style of a militant nonconformist; in purple boots, grey army-style pants and a heavy, drab wool sweater. Throughout dinner, young Blair was a sullen presence at the table, casting a pall on what should have been a convivial evening. She was monosyllabic in her replies to questions about college. Her face was constantly downturned, as though she wanted to pretend there was nobody else present at the table. When I asked her about the boys she had met at college, and if she was having finding any good husband material, she finally looked up, only to give me the most angry, hurt stare I have ever had from a young woman. The whites of her eyes were very red, as though she had been crying for hours, and her lip trembled, as if she were on the verge of saying something, but she obviously thought better of it, and returned to resolutely studying her dinner plate. It was then that I realised that something terrible had happened to her at college, most likely at the hands of heartless college men. How could a few months of college change a person so completely? As much as it hurt me, I knew that I could not allow the drastically altered attitudes of young Blair to affect my family. I would not allow my children to be so irrevocably damaged. With heartfelt apologies to Miles, I told my children that they were not allowed to see Blair ever again. The strident complaints of my three daughters told me I had made the correct decision. Already they had begun to be drawn to her attitude of teenage rebellion. It felt good to know that I had acted in time to save them. Of course, I was shaken enough by the events of Thanksgiving to begin reassessing the pros and cons of a college education for my children. The misgivings I had been feeling over the past few years now seemed more well-grounded, while the benefits of college had taken on the aspect of wishful thinking. Was it really worth the risk, to send my children away, to pay tens of thousands for an education that they might not even get? Americans have not always harboured college ambitions for their progeny. Until the 1960s, it was not common to meet college graduates. Even though the GI benefits program provides for college education for returning soldiers, most of those who survived WW2 did not exercise those particular benefits. College ambition was simply not part of the American culture, until the Sixties. It was thanks to the Vietnam war that college became the expected continuation of a middle class child's life. With the new SAT program opening possibilities that had once been restricted to the children of privileged families, more students took it upon themselves to seek acceptance in tertiary institutions. Coupled with the fact that college entry delayed the draft for as long as the child was at college, it is easy to see why America in the Sixties saw such a massive rise in college applications. A rise so unexpected and so large that the nation was forced to almost bankrupt itself to build state colleges to accept the middle class children fleeing the war. What did this leave us with? A well educated middle class? Alas, no. The result of the boom in education has been a tide of smug, mistaught state college graduates, who consider themselves to be the example of the modern intellectual, despite having spent their entire three years at college indulging their basest appetites and avoiding any form of learning. Not that avoiding learning is difficult in America's state colleges. These institutions have never been known for their high academic standards.After the war ended, the college system's primary function -- to provide a shelter from the draft -- ceased. Even so, the state colleges have remained little more than degree mills and pretentious sleep-away schools for spoiled middle American teenagers who want to delay growing up for a few more years. As the college graduates of those turbulent years raise their own children to college age, they of course look back on their college years as the best time of their lives. Having based much of their self-esteem on their all-but-worthless degrees, they naturally see college as the logical next step for their children, and encourage them to attend whatever liberal arts course they feel like. No doubt, they imagine college will transform their child into the next Susan Sontag or P. J. O'Rourke. Of course, they have forgotten that their presence at college was not for the sake of education, but was born of the cowardice that bought our nation its first ever military defeat. It is this misapprehension about the purpose of education that has sustained our college system through the last three decades, however, as the nineties drew to a close, the tide of children born of parents who had attended college in the Sixties began to dry up. America's colleges and even our most revered universities have begun to feel the squeeze, as too many institutions compete for too few students. It is this highly competitive environment that has caused some of our most respected institutions to start selling degrees. It was not long after I first began using the internet that I received my first offer of a college degree for no more than twenty dollars. Apparently, this practice has become common among educational institutions, and the only difference now between a Harvard degree and one from a degree mill such as Carnegie-Mellon is the price you pay. A depressing state of affairs, offering no plausible benefits to my children. I will not have my flesh and blood participate in this hypocrisy. And what of the supposed benefits of education? While the dreams of success that draw hundreds of thousands to college may be compelling, the facts are not so attractive. Most college graduates don't amount to much more than a mediocre success in the real world. On the other hand, we are always hearing tales of people such as Bill Gates who did not attend college -- or sometimes even finish high school -- achieving incredible wealth and fame. The educational institutions of America have little to offer but disillusionment and corruption. While a properly educated elite is necessary for society to function well, the state college system has done little to advance the education of our leaders, and much to undermine not only knowledge and truth in these United States, but also the prestige that education brings. Offering literally hundreds of soft option courses such as psychology and astrophysics, the modern American student has become renowned not for learning, but for indolence and immaturity. Even the SAT examination -- the basis of college entry -- has been "updated" to be composed almost entirely of multiple choice questions, so easily guessed that cheating (not to mention learning) is almost pointless. American revolving door colleges are quite clearly making a mockery of our nation's proud heritage. In our modern colleges, children are turned against their parents, and taught to hate society. Loving and respectful young men and women are returned to their parents hateful and withdrawn. So-called sexual "liberation" (really a euphemism for institutionalized rape) abounds within college dormitories, and no effort is made to control underage drinking and drug abuse. I shiver at the thought of what might befall poor Blair when she returns to college. When we see her again I worry that she will have become addicted to narcotics such as marijuana, heroin or smack. I cannot allow my children to fall into the same trap. Since the illusion of college has been so effectively shattered for me, I have revised my expectations for my children. None will attend college, but instead, they will find jobs in the industries that made America great. The industries upon which our nation was built. I will be proud to be the first father in my town to count among my children an auto-worker, a soldier, a steel miner, a secretary, a beautician and a waitress. These are noble and honest trades, despite their unglamorous image. If I were a more powerful man, I would do more. I would call for the dismantling of the state college system. I would demand a drastic reduction in our government's education budget. I would fight tooth and nail to keep our nation's children out of college. I am, however, no more than a humble father of six, and I can only try to protect what is my own. Bla bla bla
For too many people, "sex" is synonymous with "intercourse". Though intercourse is a popular and perhaps archetypal form of sex, it is inappropriate and potentially harmful to overlook the numerous sexual alternatives to intercourse and to its risks of STDs and pregnancy. Good sex is about more than intercourse; it's about passion and pleasure. And though "orgasm" is no more synonymous with "good sex" than is "intercourse" with "sex", it is worth noting that a significant percentage of people can only achieve orgasm through non-intercourse sex. This is why it is important to learn about these alternative methods and about manual sex in particular. Manual sex can take numerous forms, ranging from solo masturbation to mutual masturbation and fisting. Each of these carries its own benefits and associated risks, so it is worth exploring them one at a time. Solo Masturbation If you possess a functional set of genitalia, as most people do, then you probably already know about and have experienced solo masturbation. It's about as ordinary as picking your nose; the body part is there, and you're prone to fiddle with it. Masturbation provides a good opportunity for self discovery, and the knowledge of one's own sexual anatomy and pleasures gleaned from masturbation can be directly applied towards successful sex with one's partner. Mutual Masturbation Mutual masturbation is slightly more complicated than solo masturbation, because of two considerations: the simultaneous coordination of two individuals manipulating each other's bodies and the novelty of manipulating what is (for heterosexual couples) comparatively unfamiliar body parts. Inexperienced men, for example, might not immediately comprehend how to stimulate female genitalia, because such an act is qualitatively different from stimulating one's own penis; instead of wrapping one's hands around a shaft, the appropriate course of action typically involving insertion of one's fingers into the vaginal orifice. In order to get an advanced sense of how the act properly proceeds, you can perform a small experiment for yourself: insert your index finger into one of the nostrils of your nose. Move it around gently and explore. The warmth and moisture of your nose approximate the ambient conditions of a typical vagina, and the distribution of nerve endings is sufficiently similar that you can practice appropriate manual technique with an awareness of any adverse sensations your partner might experience because of improper technique. Slowly move your finger in and out of your nose in a slow but deliberate rhythmic fashion; proper rhythm is the secret to good manual sex. Fisting Fisting is an extreme but rewarding form of manual sex -- whereas simple masturbation might involve the external stimulation of genitalia or the minor insertion of individual fingers, fisting consists of the insertion of an entire hand into the vagina or anus. Because this is a non-trivial physical act, special precautions should be taken to ensure safety and success. Proper and copious lubricant is a must, because improper or insufficient lubricant might result in the tearing or rupturing of sensitive genital tissues and organs. Without appropriate preparation, an unpleasant experience is all but guaranteed. To illustrate and clarify some of the issues involved, try an experiment: take your index and middle fingers, hold them pressed against each other, and insert them both into one of the nostrils of your nose. Because they are unlubricated and therefore dry, you should experience considerable difficulty and much discomfort; this is the result of using no lubrication at all. Next, remove the fingers, insert them into your mouth in order to wet them with saliva, and then reinsert them into your nose. Because they are somewhat lubricated but because saliva is an inadequate lubricant, your nose should again experience discomfort but not as much as before. Finally, dip your fingers into an appropriate lubricant such as Vaseline or vegetable shortening and reinsert them into your nose; the result should be a pleasant and painless insertion, allowing you finally to turn your attention to the separate but related issue of distending a small orifice with such a large object. Again, you'll find that your nose and your partner's genitals will thank you for proceeding slowly and cautiously, making no sudden movements and maintaining constant communication and trust. Conclusion Manual sex can be an exciting and satisfying addition to any couple's sexual repertoire. Though your partner might at first feel reluctant, explain the benefits and mechanics, including the above nasal exercises. With proper technique and a strong emotional grounding, your sexual experiences should rise to new heights and attain new dimensions. When it comes to auto racing games, few franchises can claim a following as vast and as loyal as Sony's Gran Turismo series. The original entry in this series pushed the envelope for games of this type, featuring stunning visuals that stressed the limits of the original Playstation's capabilities. The sequel Gran Turismo 2 left the original engine basically unchanged, but threw in a lot more cars, tracks, and racing options, not to mention a pulsing soundtrack featuring many of today's hottest artists. With the advent of the next-generation Playstation 2, one of Sony's top priorities was to move Gran Turismo to the new system in a way that showcased the incredible graphics performance of the system while maintaining the balance and sheer fun of the previous games. Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec is the result of that effort. How did Sony do? Adequacy.org lays it on the line for you. Note: GT3 screenshots are courtesy of Justin Gould. Used with permission. First of all, if you're a fan of the layout and the general gameplay of the previous games, you won't be disappointed. In terms of structure, the game is nearly identical to the previous games in the series; as before, there is an Arcade mode that allows you to pick and choose between different cars and tracks and race against the computer or a friend. However, chances are you'll spend most of your time in the Simulator mode, wherein you're given an initial outlay of $18,000 and must embark on a racing career. You can visit dealerships, buy cars, soup the cars up, go to driving school to get licensed to race in five different classes, and run different tests on your vehicles (such as seeing how fast it will run the standing quarter mile.) You can even wash your car and give it an oil change (which is highly recommended, by the way.) All of this will be familiar to fans of the series. The game is played by starting off with a fairly modest car, winning lots of races, and building up your bankroll so that you can buy more powerful cars. You win races, which get you trophies, cash, and in many cases, bonus cars. You move up the ranks in the racing world, and progress from a small-time Sunday racer to a full-fledged driver with a 1,400 horsepower race car and a certified pit crew. And as before, there is a dizzying array of modifications that you can perform to your vehicles; if you want to supercharge your engine, you can -- for a price. The available modifications range from the obvious (such as putting on high-performance tires) to the esoteric (such as adding a carbon driveshaft or a molybdenum flywheel.) The hallmark of the Gran Turismo series is meticulous realism and an uncompromising physics model, and that has not changed in Gran Turismo 3. The most obvious and dramatic change in Gran Turismo 3 is the graphics. The capabilities of the Playstation 2 have allowed Sony to take their existing addictive gameplay and realistic handling and overlay it with visuals that in many cases are indistinguishable from actual television racing coverage. As with the previous games, Gran Turismo 3 features a replay mode that allows you to sit back and watch a race once you have finished it. As before, the camera angles and points of view are user-customizable. The game features hundreds of cars, each of which are composed of an obscene number of polygons, and the Playstation 2's polygon-pushing capabilities are certainly put to the test. The result is a game that is a treat to watch; the scenery includes everything from lens flare effects from the sun to racing banners waving in the wind to heat ripples rising off of the racetrack. However, be warned: a lot of this scenery is difficult to digest at 200 miles per hour. The sound in Gran Turismo 3 is also impressive. The game has been designed to take full advantage of Dolby surround technologies; if you play the game with a good set of surround speakers and a Dolby Digital reciever, you're in for a treat. If you're in the middle of a race and you have a Mustang SVT Cobra hot on your tail, you can hear the throaty growl of the engine behind you. If you are unfortunate enough to be passed, you will actually hear the sound of your competitor's engine move from behind you to beside you to in front of you .. an auditory reminder that perhaps you need to spend a few dollars upgrading your vehicle. As with the previous games, Gran Turismo 3 features a soundtrack containing songs by many top rock artists. The game's opening sequence features a remix of the popular "Are You Gonna Go My Way" by Lenny Kravitz; other tracks include "Turbo Lover" by Judas Priest and "Kickstart My Heart" by Motley Crue. The game even features a brand new track by Snoop Dogg called "Dogg's Turismo III" wherein "Snoop" raps about Gran Turismo 3 and all of the features that it offers. This is unfortunate, because rap "music" is essentially a sanctioned form of African-American hatred directed at Caucasians; one would have hoped that such a blatant political statement could have been left out of this game.
Unfortunately, it gets worse.
The game's soundtrack also includes a Goldfinger cover of the song "99 Luftballoons", which was a popular anti-nuclear song in the 1980s. Pardon me if I'm out of line here, but am I the only one that is getting sick and tired of anti-nuclear propaganda coming out of Japanese video games? I played Metal Gear Solid and am considering purchasing its Playstation 2 sequel, but the amount of sheer liberal anti-nuclear preaching in the original game was enough to make me physically ill. The scary thing is that many of the people who play these games are young and impressionable teenagers who will actually believe the rubbish that games like Metal Gear Solid and Gran Turismo 3 trowl out. This crap was at least related to the events of Metal Gear Solid, which was, after all, a game about a walking nuclear tank. But what the hell do nuclear weapons have to do with auto racing? Namco didn't embed liberal messages like "save the whales" into Ms. Pac Man, for Christ's sake. Now, I am aware of the standard objection from the liberal "politically correct" crowd on this point: "Japan is the only nation to have been targeted and attacked by nuclear weapons, so they have a unique perspective on this issue." Bah. "Unique perspective", my ass. Harry Truman may have been a Democrat, but he somehow made the right decision. If we hadn't nuked Japan, then countless American lives would have been lost in the eventual invasion. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets, and their destruction brought about the end of World War II.
Hey, Japan? You got nuked. Deal with it.
If the United States had not done what it did, then chances are that Japan would still be ruled by Emperor Hirohito's iron fist to this day. It is only because of the United States that Japan is the economic superpower that it is today; and it is only because of the United States that Japan is one of the leaders in crap racing games. You'd think that these jerks could show us a little bit of goddamned gratitude. Instead, what we get is an endless lecture about policy. Well, I for one am sick of it. I am sick and tired of being lambasted for heroic action that brought this planet out of one of the darkest chapters of its history. Japan needs to realize that they were on the wrong side of that particular conflict. The fact that they are using video games to try to make the United States a scapegoat is most unfortunate. However, rest assured that their transparent attempts to villify us will fail. Bottom line: The silly, sorry sons of bitches that put this turkey together deserve to be banned from the video game industry permanently. Don't buy this game. It was made by a bunch of vindictive assholes. Insider trading's been in the news lately. But what exactly is it? Let's look at the current example:
Enron's directors had been selling off their Enron stock, knowing that the company had grossly inflated estimates of its value. They came out of it with millions in ill-gotten loot.
Meanwhile, the bosses sent off emails to employees, encouraging them to keep investing their retirement money in Enron stock. Just before Enron's price began to fall in early 2001, the company froze the employees' right to sell their Enron stock. Now that Enron's delisted, thousands have lost their life savings.
Insider trading is what turns our fair free-market system into a soulless oligopoly, making us the laughing-stock of communist hippies everywhere.
And that, my friends, is why we should legalize insider trading by the government.
American intelligence agencies have long had more information than other investors. Although the U.S. government claims not to use information gathered by Echelon and other tools to aid American corporations, the Europeans say otherwise.
Now, there's "Magic Lantern", a new FBI keylogger. With the aura of 9/11 damping accusations of unconstitutionality, this program presents the FBI with its biggest-ever moneymaking opportunity.
It's naive to think that Our Government will limit Magic Lantern to protecting us from terrorist attacks on our soil. As the economy gets worse, more government agents will dip their hands into the cookie jar.
By setting up a nationally owned investment house that trades using government info, the U.S. can harness the profit of insider trading for the public interest.
Let's look at insider trading in the hands of private corporations.
It was one thing when insider information existed largely in the heads of business-persons, their associated contractors, concubines, and toadies, and on pieces of dead tree.
Today, though, it's accessible to thousands of computer hackers. These criminals, available to the highest bidder, justify their activity through unfortunate notions about the nature of information.
Yes, the Internet lets any corporation to spy effectively on its competitors, allowing more and more investors insider trading opportunities. And, with the incredible popularity of the stock market among ordinary Americans, this insider trading affects more people than ever.
As we have seen with Enron, giving corporations control over what information they can disclose can hurt all of the investors -- and damage the public interest.
In fact, a market based on a faulty flow of information is likely to crash. After the 1929 market crash, the government set up the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to force businesses to disclose honest information about performance. Unfortunately, there's no way that a government agency can enforce disclosure after-the-fact in an Internet age.
That's why we should legalize -- and nationalize -- the government's own insider trading.
How it could work
Taking a page from the anti-terrorism book, the SEC should announce that it will use all government-obtained data to openly spy on all publicly traded corporations, at all times.
Aided by appropriate legislation, the SEC can use this information to launch a sort of "federal investment house." It won't be typical Wall Street - National Security Administration data miners will work alongside intelligence operatives and regular stockbrokers. Some of these people will use the huge wealth of government info to invest in major world stock markets. As federal employees, they'll work without commission, trying to use their insider information to make as much revenue as possible for the Federal Government.
Others will use the data to isolate cases of illegal trading by corporate insiders. In fact, any time a corporation's executives try to hide its real earnings, this "SEC investment house" will be prepared to catch them.
The SEC may also hire agents, informants, and spies in the world of business, giving them financial rewards or limited access to government market data as a reward.
In these ways, the government will dominate the "market" of insider information, making a previously illegal practice that benefitted the richest 2 percent of Americans exclusively work for us all.
Some Possible Problems - and Answers
Some people claim that it's unethical for the government to invest taxpayer dollars in the stock market.
In my view, though, it's crazy not to do so. As the arguments in favor of privatizing Social Security show, the stock market, which continually increases over the long term, is a better investment than government bonds. Any tax-revenue that the government intends to save should be invested in high-growth securities.
Won't the government invest too aggressively when it wants to spend money?
It's important to keep political arguments away from this nonpolitical, agency-based initiative. The money the government invests in this way should be kept in trust for Social Security, Medicare, and other long-term plans, or it should be kept out of the regular budget for at least ten years.
What about the use of clandestinely gathered information and operatives?
If we ever get around to privatizing Social Security, we will have to address this issue anyway. The government can't be expected to invest any amount of money in the market without being tempted to use its information. It's better to have spy-influenced "independent" government traders than to contract with a particular private firm to do the government's trading.
There are other good reasons for using this information. SEC chair Harvey Pitt has called for "reform of the accounting profession" in order to prevent another Enron debacle.
"The present system, which has been in effect for 67 years, doesn't provide for 'current disclosure.' Financial disclosures are dense, impenetrable," claims Pitt.
An SEC database of insider information about corporations would certainly help keep accountants and corporate leaders honest.
Finally, there is the argument that the government should stay out of private enterprise.
Sorry to burst your bubble, folks, but the government spends more on corporations than on all direct public assistance programs combined. With such a huge portion of our annual budget going to corporations, the government can justify "taxing" them by using their advantages to play the market.
Do you like this idea? Write your representatives and ask them to draft a bill on this issue! While the Enron scandal is still fresh in everyone's mind, these proposals have a chance.
Notorious Norwegian hacker Jon Johansen has finally been charged with breaking into another's locked property, using his illegal "DeCSS" hacker tool. Johansen's arrest comes after years of pleas from the beleaguered Motion Picture Association of America for the authorities to do something about the wave of property theft caused by Johansen and his Lunix gang members.
The hacker defense fund, the GNU/Electronic Frontier Foundation, has responded with shrill insistence that the films Johansen stole were his "own property", and that he is being persecuted merely for making use of what is rightfully his. This line of propaganda has been dutifully swallowed by such "news" organizations as ZDNet, CNN, and even MSNBC, who seem to understand "property" to be nothing more than the equivalent of "possession".
The MPAA represents the Hollywood movie studios behind the finest entertainment created anywhere in the world today. Indeed, the films given us by these American artists are so sought-after that some of the most brilliant minds outside the US have grown wicked and rotten with envy and desire to possess them. Rather than respectfully purchase these movies under the terms offered by their creators, the twisted minds of the world's hackers have grown feverish in their plots to take what isn't theirs, and to do so in the most contemptuous way possible.
While it is the official editorial policy of Adequacy.org to remain neutral in disputes involving intellectual property, we note that terrorist hackers, who have emerged as the main threat to modern civilization in the 21st century, have never created anything original of genuine artistic merit. In contrast, Hollywood has given us for over 75 years the films that define the beauty and truth of our lives. If these hacker terrorists are allowed to bleed the creative arts to death by brazenly appropriating such landmark films as The Nightmare Before Christmas or Amilie.
It sends a cold chill through our bodies to envision a future without films of any kind, save perhaps for an inadequate selection of ill-wrought GNU/Films, rent and torn with obvious plot holes, released before they are finished, and limited to nothing but subjects that geeks will work on for free, like masturbatory medieval fantasy, and fighting robots with enormous metal breasts.
Jan Johansen faces the trivially light sentence of two years in prison. He will no doubt spend his time in the joint learning new criminal techniques from other hacker terrorists, and be back to give the creative talents of the world another kick in the teeth. Though we take some comfort in knowing this one miscreant will be off the streets for a short time, we have nothing but fear and dread for the future.
Like most American parents, I have been diligently saving for my childrens' education since the day when each was born. Believing, as we are told, that a college education is not merely desirable, but actually necessary for the betterment of my offspring, I knew I was doing the only responsible thing a parent could do. With six wonderful children, it was not unreasonable, I felt, to expect to be the only family in town to give rise to a lawyer, a doctor, a quarterback, an elementary school teacher, a cheerleader and a nurse.
Over the past few years, however, my dreams of academic success have begun to look a more than a little naive. A growing disapproval of the manner in which our college educated young present themselves began a process of disillusionment which ended with my decision to refuse my eldest the "advantage" of college this coming Fall. The events that brought this situation to a head occurred last Thanksgiving, when my neighbour's daughter, Blair, returned home for the first time since she had left to attend MIT that year.
I remember watching Blair grow up alongside my own children. Though older than them all, she was a fine playmate for my girls, and since her parents are quite devout, I had no qualms about her giving my children any strange ideas. I remember a freckled and knee-skinned eight year old, riding bikes with my eldest daughter on our avenue beneath the sycamores in their Springtime glory. I watched her as she went through her awkward teenage years, uncertain and confused. The proudest memory we have of her is as a young woman, freshly home from finishing school, before she was sent off to receive a higher education. I had my qualms about her parents' decision to allow her to attend MIT, a notoriously secular university, but these were settled when some brief investigation revealed that MIT was considered to be even more conformist than Berkeley. So, it was with a proud smile and a merry wave that my family watched young Blair leave our town to seek her destiny in the halls of academe. Little did we realise that the girl who would return to us would not be the same radiant young woman whose memory we had cherished.
It wasn't until Thanksgiving dinner, which our families traditionally eat together, that I met young Blair again. The aggrieved expression on her father, Miles' face was all the first hint that this would not be the joyful reunion we had expected. Minutes later, Blair was coaxed downstairs by her mother. The sight of her left us all quite taken aback. Gone was the long, strawberry-blonde hair that had made her the envy and delight of all her peers. It had been cropped to barely shoulder length and dyed fiercely black. Her once radiant skin was now sickly pale, giving the impression, I felt, of a subterranean lifestyle. She dressed in the anti-social style of a militant nonconformist; in purple boots, grey army-style pants and a heavy, drab wool sweater.
Throughout dinner, young Blair was a sullen presence at the table, casting a pall on what should have been a convivial evening. She was monosyllabic in her replies to questions about college. Her face was constantly downturned, as though she wanted to pretend there was nobody else present at the table. When I asked her about the boys she had met at college, and if she was having finding any good husband material, she finally looked up, only to give me the most angry, hurt stare I have ever had from a young woman. The whites of her eyes were very red, as though she had been crying for hours, and her lip trembled, as if she were on the verge of saying something, but she obviously thought better of it, and returned to resolutely studying her dinner plate. It was then that I realised that something terrible had happened to her at college, most likely at the hands of heartless college men.
How could a few months of college change a person so completely? As much as it hurt me, I knew that I could not allow the drastically altered attitudes of young Blair to affect my family. I would not allow my children to be so irrevocably damaged. With heartfelt apologies to Miles, I told my children that they were not allowed to see Blair ever again. The strident complaints of my three daughters told me I had made the correct decision. Already they had begun to be drawn to her attitude of teenage rebellion. It felt good to know that I had acted in time to save them.
Of course, I was shaken enough by the events of Thanksgiving to begin reassessing the pros and cons of a college education for my children. The misgivings I had been feeling over the past few years now seemed more well-grounded, while the benefits of college had taken on the aspect of wishful thinking. Was it really worth the risk, to send my children away, to pay tens of thousands for an education that they might not even get?
Americans have not always harboured college ambitions for their progeny. Until the 1960s, it was not common to meet college graduates. Even though the GI benefits program provides for college education for returning soldiers, most of those who survived WW2 did not exercise those particular benefits. College ambition was simply not part of the American culture, until the Sixties.
It was thanks to the Vietnam war that college became the expected continuation of a middle class child's life. With the new SAT program opening possibilities that had once been restricted to the children of privileged families, more students took it upon themselves to seek acceptance in tertiary institutions. Coupled with the fact that college entry delayed the draft for as long as the child was at college, it is easy to see why America in the Sixties saw such a massive rise in college applications. A rise so unexpected and so large that the nation was forced to almost bankrupt itself to build state colleges to accept the middle class children fleeing the war.
What did this leave us with? A well educated middle class? Alas, no. The result of the boom in education has been a tide of smug, mistaught state college graduates, who consider themselves to be the example of the modern intellectual, despite having spent their entire three years at college indulging their basest appetites and avoiding any form of learning. Not that avoiding learning is difficult in America's state colleges. These institutions have never been known for their high academic standards.After the war ended, the college system's primary function -- to provide a shelter from the draft -- ceased. Even so, the state colleges have remained little more than degree mills and pretentious sleep-away schools for spoiled middle American teenagers who want to delay growing up for a few more years.
As the college graduates of those turbulent years raise their own children to college age, they of course look back on their college years as the best time of their lives. Having based much of their self-esteem on their all-but-worthless degrees, they naturally see college as the logical next step for their children, and encourage them to attend whatever liberal arts course they feel like. No doubt, they imagine college will transform their child into the next Susan Sontag or P. J. O'Rourke. Of course, they have forgotten that their presence at college was not for the sake of education, but was born of the cowardice that bought our nation its first ever military defeat.
It is this misapprehension about the purpose of education that has sustained our college system through the last three decades, however, as the nineties drew to a close, the tide of children born of parents who had attended college in the Sixties began to dry up. America's colleges and even our most revered universities have begun to feel the squeeze, as too many institutions compete for too few students. It is this highly competitive environment that has caused some of our most respected institutions to start selling degrees.
It was not long after I first began using the internet that I received my first offer of a college degree for no more than twenty dollars. Apparently, this practice has become common among educational institutions, and the only difference now between a Harvard degree and one from a degree mill such as Carnegie-Mellon is the price you pay. A depressing state of affairs, offering no plausible benefits to my children. I will not have my flesh and blood participate in this hypocrisy.
And what of the supposed benefits of education? While the dreams of success that draw hundreds of thousands to college may be compelling, the facts are not so attractive. Most college graduates don't amount to much more than a mediocre success in the real world. On the other hand, we are always hearing tales of people such as Bill Gates who did not attend college -- or sometimes even finish high school -- achieving incredible wealth and fame.
The educational institutions of America have little to offer but disillusionment and corruption. While a properly educated elite is necessary for society to function well, the state college system has done little to advance the education of our leaders, and much to undermine not only knowledge and truth in these United States, but also the prestige that education brings. Offering literally hundreds of soft option courses such as psychology and astrophysics, the modern American student has become renowned not for learning, but for indolence and immaturity. Even the SAT examination -- the basis of college entry -- has been "updated" to be composed almost entirely of multiple choice questions, so easily guessed that cheating (not to mention learning) is almost pointless. American revolving door colleges are quite clearly making a mockery of our nation's proud heritage.
In our modern colleges, children are turned against their parents, and taught to hate society. Loving and respectful young men and women are returned to their parents hateful and withdrawn. So-called sexual "liberation" (really a euphemism for institutionalized rape) abounds within college dormitories, and no effort is made to control underage drinking and drug abuse. I shiver at the thought of what might befall poor Blair when she returns to college. When we see her again I worry that she will have become addicted to narcotics such as marijuana, heroin or smack. I cannot allow my children to fall into the same trap.
Since the illusion of college has been so effectively shattered for me, I have revised my expectations for my children. None will attend college, but instead, they will find jobs in the industries that made America great. The industries upon which our nation was built. I will be proud to be the first father in my town to count among my children an auto-worker, a soldier, a steel miner, a secretary, a beautician and a waitress. These are noble and honest trades, despite their unglamorous image.
If I were a more powerful man, I would do more. I would call for the dismantling of the state college system. I would demand a drastic reduction in our government's education budget. I would fight tooth and nail to keep our nation's children out of college. I am, however, no more than a humble father of six, and I can only try to protect what is my own.