Monthly Archives: February 2017

February 9, 2017 · 6:38 am

Universal Basic Income: A Sexy Idea For The Future?

Whenever a bold, ambitious new ideas comes along, there are sure to be skeptics and critics. It’s an unfortunate part of human nature. Our caveman brains get too comfortable with a situation, even if that situation is terrible and involves us shitting in a ditch. We’ll resist change at every turn until it becomes exceedingly inconvenient.

While I imagine there was plenty of resistance to those who introduced ideas like democracy, gender equality, and circumcision, some ideas make so much sense that people have to go out of their way to make excuses. Granted, they’ll still find those excuses. People are tragically adept at clinging to outdated ideas, even when they’ve been thoroughly debunked. Just look at creationists.

There’s no question that our current situation in the world has room for improvement. It’s true, although you’d never know it by watching Fox News for more than five minutes, that the human race is getting better. It’s also true that there’s still a lot of suffering.

According to GlobalIssues.org, there are over one billion people living in poverty. I’m not just talking about the kind of poverty that makes a Big Mac seem like a luxury either. According to UNICEF, around 21,000 children die a day because of poverty-related issues. I think most of us can agree that when children are dying, it’s a big freaking issue.

Even rich countries, like the United States, can’t escape the effects of poverty. According to the most recent census data, about 13.5 percent of the population, which amounts to approximately 43.1 million people, are living in poverty. For a country where people get rich for making a pet rock, that’s just inexcusable.

Poverty is a very serious, very unsexy issue. I could spend multiple posts whining and lamenting about the breadth of this problem. However, if you’ve been following this blog for any length of time, you know I find whining to be right up there with dry heaves, severe head trauma, and clown porn in terms of utterly unsexy wastes of time.

I’m not big on lamenting over problems. I like contemplating the solutions. The crazy creative side in me that comes up with sexy stories just loves to imagine bold new ways to solve overwhelming problems. Could there be such a solution to a problem as big as poverty? Well, there might be and it’s not just some crazy musing of an aspiring erotica/romance writer.

Ladies, gentlemen, and those of unspecified gender, I give you the Universal Basic Income. Like assless chaps, it’s exactly what it sounds like. It’s the idea that the state shouldn’t waste time trying to distribute resources based on need, requiring a bureaucracy that makes the DMV look like a goddamn day spa. Instead, it should just provide a bare minimum cash payment to every citizen, regardless of wealth or need.

If that sounds too simple, then don’t bother bracing yourself. For once, it really is that simple. If you’re a legal citizen, you get a monthly cash payment. It’s not enough to help you afford a golden toilet seat, but it is enough to keep you from starving to death.

If it sounds familiar, it should. The United States has had something similar, but it’s reserved for those lucky enough to live beyond a certain age. It’s called Social Security and, by and large, it’s one of the most popular social programs the United States has ever created. Yes, it’s even more popular than programs that study the economic structures of World of Warcraft.

A Universal Basic Income, or UBI for those who hate excessive syllables, just takes social security a step further. It ditches the whole age requirement, exotic math formulas, and bureaucracy components and just gives a simple, flat payment to everyone. It could come in the mail. It could be sent via PayPal. Even the government can’t screw that up too much.

If it sounds like the kind of radical idea that emerged from one of Bernie Sanders’ fever dreams, then settle down and drink some tea. This idea is actually older than 99 percent of all the nations that currently exist today. Like so many other crazy ideas, it emerged in different times under a different label.

Way back in 483 BC, a time when Bernie Sanders was still fighting for the rights of serfs and peasants, the ancient Athenians came up with something called a Citizens Dividend. It’s basically the same concept, saying that the state should pay its citizens for its use of communal property and various resources.

Sure, the Athenians didn’t adopt the idea and went back to warring with the Persians, but the concept didn’t end there. It re-emerged again through the works of an influential Founding Father by the name of Thomas Paine, a man Glen Beck goes out of his way to admire.

In his essay, “Agrarian Justice,” Paine argues for a citizens dividend wherein the wealth of some obscenely rich landowners would go to some of the poorer citizens to alleviate poverty. It wasn’t a universal income, but it was a method for raising the floor, so to speak, on the poorest citizens.

Again, it wasn’t adopted and for good reason. Rich landowners generally don’t like the idea of having the government take their money and give it to poor people. That has never sat well with super rich folk who need these poor people toiling in the fields so they can bathe in gold and concubines.

However, that might be changing because, unlike the days of Ancient Athens and Thomas Paine, technology is making it so we don’t need a massive underclass of peasants toiling in factories or in fields. Machines are rapidly becoming advanced to a point where even jobs such as trucking, mining, and ordering a Big Mac is destined to become automated.

Last year, the White House issued a report that stated that approximately 47 percent of the existing jobs will become automated in the next decade or so. That’s a lot of jobs that will leave a lot of people out of work with no money and nothing to do. That’s a recipe for disaster, as those enduring Greece’s recent economic troubles can attest.

The UBI could be a way to effectively bridge the gap between the era of making poor people work their asses off to prop up the rich and the era where machines do all the work so people can do more productive things with their time. That means more time for aspiring erotica/romance writers to write sexy stories. Isn’t that a future worth fighting for?

This isn’t just a matter of technology. This is basic economics. Machines don’t get tired, don’t take sick days, and until Skynet becomes active, they don’t unionize. Why else would Amazon be investing so heavily in using robots to operate its warehouses? At some point, you won’t be able to blame immigrants or minorities for taking your job. It’ll be a robot and you’re not going to win a fight with a robot.

So long as automation increases profits and efficiency, it’ll keep happening. Along the way, more and more people will struggle to find work. Sure, those who are well-educated and well-connected will find something to do, even if it means just getting grossly overpaid for speaking gigs. For everyone else, though, the options are limited.

The UBI could be the key to truly alleviating poverty on a mass scale while providing even more incentives to get machines to do the work that crushes one too many souls. It will require a rough transition. A UBI doesn’t exactly fit with the old “Protestant Work Ethic” that some people still go by, but like the Catholic Church’s position on masturbation, it might be one of those concepts we just shrug off.

A world where people don’t have to work to survive is a very different world, one that’s hard to imagine in an America that glorifies working yourself to death while those lazy Europeans enjoy things like paid vacation, maternity leave, and unlimited sick time. However, that image will eventually clash with trends in technology and our need to alleviate poverty to keep society from strangling itself.

This is a world I do hope to see in my lifetime. I may be old, gray, and shitting in bags by then, but I’d like to see what this world would inspire. Would not having to work as much or as hard mean more meaningful relationships? Would it mean more time for sex and intimacy? We can only hope. As always, though, an aspiring erotica/romance can come up with some pretty kinky fantasies.

11 Comments

Filed under Jack Fisher's Insights

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 8, 2017 · 6:39 am

Food and Sex: A (Non-Kinky) Precedent?

Loosen your pants and untuck your shirt because I’m going to talk about food and sex. No, this isn’t going to be that kind of discussion. I know there’s an entire sub-genre that mixes food and sex in a way that is bound to confuse multiple body parts. I’ll save that topic for another day. For now, I want to have a different kind of discussion.

Like it or not, knowing that some will like it a bit too much, food and sex are intrinsically related. They are both vital components in our two primary drives as living beings, survival and reproduction. We need food to survive. We need sex to reproduce. These are as basic a drives as any animal can have.

As such, it’s also fitting that both topics have their fair share of taboos and I’m not just talking about create ways to use whipped cream. Even our old, uptight friends at the Catholic Church have linked food to one of their moral sins. In the same way they condemn excessive sex through lust, they also condemn excessive eating through gluttony.

Granted, the Catholic Church doesn’t make a big deal about gluttony anymore. I figure they know that too many of their adherents have grown fond of buffets, McDonalds, and ice cream. They can still get away with condemning sex because the basic functions of sex still apply today as much as they did 2,000 years ago. However, that may not be the case for much longer.

As I discussed in an earlier post, science is rapidly progressing to a point where we won’t even need sex to reproduce. There will be far safer, less strenuous options that don’t result in stretch marks and mood swings. The most promising is the artificial womb. This technology is the ultimate endgame in terms of decoupling sex from reproduction entirely.

If that term sounds familiar, it should and not just because Gweneth Paltrow used something similar in a way to make herself even less likable. It’s actually a term that I’ve referenced before because it was used frequently in Ray Kurzweil’s book, “The Singularity Is Near.” I’ve lauded this book many times before on this blog and parts of this issue are closely tied to the topics he explores.

In his book, he cites advances in contraception as the catalyst for this growing disconnect between sex and reproduction. He’s not wrong to cite such advances because we’ve spent the last 60 years or so adjusting to a world that contraception has created. It’s a world where women and men have more control than ever in when and how they have children. Such control was truly unprecedented.

Considering how birth control in the past involved pulling out, crocodile poop, and condoms made of animal entrails, we’re still in uncharted territory as a species. We humans have never lived in an age where we had this much control over our facility. The rise of the birth control pill was ground-breaking in terms of its effects on society. We’re still struggling to build a new foundation with those effects.

There’s no question that contraception technology will continue to improve, as Kurzweil discussed. It may get to a point where we have a perfect form of contraception for men and women alike, one that’s as easy to get as aspirin and just as easy to take. Such a time would truly be the Catholic Church’s worst nightmare.

However, despite Kurzweils’ many discussions on contraception and fertility, he never mentioned artificial wombs. To be fair, it’s still an emerging technology with a lot of hurdles. Contraception technology is likely to take priority over the next couple of decades, if only because it has so much momentum. At some point, though, artificial wombs will enter the equation.

This technology will do much more than make it easier for women to avoid getting pregnant when they don’t want to, thereby freeing them up to just enjoy the toe-curling pleasure of sex. It will give society an entirely new way grow. For some, it’ll be strange, sterile, and cold. For others, it offers a bold new vision for the future of the human race.

It’s hard to imagine. As such, it’s easy for writers like Aldous Huxley to have overly-dystopian visions of it in his book, “Brave New World.” Even radical feminists and ardent traditionalists, most of whom are men, worry that this technology will render the other gender completely obsolete. It’s scary, I know, but there is a precedent for this sort of thing. Society can adapt to these kinds of dramatic upheavals. It’s done so before.

This brings me back to food. Here’s a quick question for everyone to contemplate. When was the last time you had to worry about a harvest going bad or not having any animals to hunt? Take as much time as you need. I’ll wait.

Are you done rolling your eyes? Good, because the answer to that question, at least in first-world industrial societies, is pretty clear. They stopped worrying about famine, harvests, and hunting a long time ago. Today, food is cheap, plentiful, and so easy to get that our primary problem is that we eat too much of it.

Compare this with 99 percent of human history. From hunter/gatherer societies to early agricultural societies, the most pressing concern from kings to peasants was having enough food. Every year, societies all over the world lived with the constant dread that a harvest would go bad and they would all starve to death. Famine was like a bad blizzard. It was just a fact of life that you had to endure, accept, and dig out of.

A lot of that changed over the past 150 years. Going all the way back to the 1800s, advances in agriculture technology and farming techniques allowed fewer people to grow more food, so much so that there was time and land to grow cash crops like tobacco, cotton, and weed. It happened slowly, but it picked up steam thank to someone others have called, “The greatest human being who ever lived.”

His name is Norman Borlaug. He’s the father of the so-called green revolution. He’s also the primary reason why billions of people aren’t starving to death. He worked tirelessly to advance agricultural science to a point where even non-industrial societies can grow abundant food, so much so that famine isn’t just rare. It’s an aberration that warrants big budget fundraisers.

As a result, the act of growing, procuring, and preserving food is basically an afterthought in our society. We’re at a point in human civilization where we don’t eat to survive. Hell, we sometimes eat when we’re not even hungry, sometimes for a holiday, sometimes for social purposes, and sometimes just because we damn well fell like it.

Technology gave us this luxury. Technology will continue to improve, ensuring that our growing population will never have to till a field, pick fruit, or kill a deer for anything other than sport. Food is no longer as vital to survival as having a job or knowing where the dumpster behind a fast food restaurant is located.

With this in mind, apply the same concept to sex. Try to keep your pants on, but still try to imagine the world that would emerge. Sex is no longer quite as complex in the sense that people have to worry about the physical, social, and biological implications. In the same way they no longer worry about harvesting food, they don’t have to worry about any major consequences from sex.

In this world, sex isn’t linked to reproduction anymore. It’s just a physical act that two people do for whatever reason they want. It can be romantic. It can be social. It can just be for the hell of it. That’s really all there is to it. There’s no constant worry that it will lead to pregnancy, thanks to improved contraception. There’s also no worry that the population will stagnate because artificial wombs will take care of that.

As a result, the very concept of reproduction is very different from the concept of sex. Society may get to a point where the idea of making someone endure nine-months of pregnancy, and all the physical hell that comes with it, downright inhumane.

Now there will be those who contemplate this world and faint. I imagine many of them are affiliated with the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, or the Duggars. However, like food production before it, science will change the way we think about sex, reproduction, and intimacy. It’s a matter of when and not if. I do hope it comes in my lifetime because that means the market for erotica/romance is sure to grow.

2 Comments

Filed under Jack Fisher's Insights

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 7, 2017 · 6:29 am

Artificial Wombs: The Solution To Gender Equality?

Let’s face it. There’s a lot to whine about these days. As much as I despise whining, I don’t deny that this world gives us plenty of reasons. From war, famine, injustice, to poor wi-fi, there are a lot of issues that upset us on multiple levels.

When it comes to issues between the sexes, the whining and anger is that much more amplified and for good reason. Biologically, we’re very different. One sex has organs that hurt like hell when they’re kicked. Another has organs that hurt like hell when bringing a new life into the world. Despite these differences, we have powerful drive that urges us to come together, form intimate bonds, and even have sex if we’re lucky.

It’s because of these differences and that powerful drive that there’s so much conflict between men and women. It’s a driving force behind every sitcom, from “Leave It To Beaver” to “Modern Family.” It also fuels every conflict in every romantic comedy ever made, even the ones with Matthew McConaughey.

These conflicts are still an annoyingly persistent part of our political discourse. Modern feminism is driven, in large part, by these differences that manifest in everything from the wage gap to boob sizes on comic book characters. These differences can become so profound that it leads to genuine upheaval, as we saw with the Women’s March.

These upheavals have been with us for years and, given how the last election turned out, it’s likely to stay with us for years to come. There seems to be no end to it. Are men and women doomed to always be at odds?

Well, I try to be more optimistic about the future. I like to think a few extra miles past the finish line to imagine solutions that don’t necessarily always solve the problem, but do essentially render it obsolete. In the same way cell phones made LAN lines obsolete, some problems can just cease at some point.

In that spirit, I believe I’ve found something that would effectively end most ongoing conflicts between genders. It wouldn’t just level the playing field for men and women. It will effectively remove the many excuses that both sides make to hate, despise, and denigrate each other.

It’s not a legal solution. It’s not some ambitious social revolution either that requires everyone to sit through a gender studies class either. It’s a purely technical solution, one that is achievable. Some bold scientists are already working on it as we speak. Ladies, gentlemen, and those of unspecified gender, I give you the Artificial Womb.

I hope it doesn’t need too much of an explanation. It’s exactly what it sounds like. While it’s still on the drawing board, an artificial womb’s function is pretty simple. It’s an external device that allows for the growth, development, and eventual delivery of an infant outside of a physical womb. It’s basically all the joys of creating life, but with none of the stretch marks or morning sickness.

It’s not a new idea. In fact, there has been work on the development of embryos outside the womb going on for years now. It’s also a concept explored in fiction, most family by Aldous Huxley in his book, “Brave New World.” However, that book was basically a dystopian fever dream. I prefer to assess artificial wombs on a more constructive level.

Let’s ditch the dystopian fears and the horrors of some traditionalists who believe that life should only ever be created when a penis and vagina are involved. Instead, let’s think for a moment what an artificial womb would mean for men and women.

First and foremost, an artificial womb would remove one of the main driving forces behind that wage gap I mentioned earlier. When women get pregnant, they need to take time off to deal with their health and their newborn. This means they can’t work as much as men. As such, they don’t make as much money or have as many opportunities.

It’s not a patriarchal conspiracy. It’s basic biology. However, when you circumvent that biology, then suddenly women are free to compete with men more equally. They can still have babies, but they don’t need to put their bodies through nine months of hardship that has been tragically fatal for countless women over the centuries.

Beyond the job opportunities, an artificial womb means a woman has more control over her body. If she doesn’t want the stretch marks from pregnancy to undermine her rock-hard abs, then she doesn’t have to. She can keep looking like a young Janet Jackson while still having kids.

Beyond employment and vanity, though, an artificial womb does something else that might be even more profound. It effectively uncouples sex from reproduction. At the moment, even with things like in vitro fertilization, sex is the primary method for how we reproduce.

Granted, it’s extremely imperfect and prone to error. Then again, you could say the same thing about our immune systems until antibiotics and vaccines came along. In that instance, technology allowed us to rely on something other than the limits of our own biology. An artificial womb is just the next step in that process.

When that process plays out, it effectively changes everything we think we know about sex, which isn’t saying much for some people. Even though we humans have all sorts of reasons for having sex, rather it’s for love or a step in landing a big movie role, we can’t really escape the part where it leads to babies. Sure, we have contraception, but even that only goes so far.

An artificial womb won’t just change how genders relate to one another. It’ll change our fundamental concept of what it means to be intimate. What happens when sex just becomes an act of intimacy and not reproduction? What will that do to our love lives? What will that do to a new generation of children born in these wombs? What will it do for aspiring erotica/romance writers like me?

These are all difficult questions that are worth contemplating, even if they can’t be answered. I know artificial wombs are probably a ways off, but I do think this is one of those technologies that could occur in our lifetime. The next generation may very well be the first to never know the rigors of entering this world through a vagina. What kind of generation will that be? I don’t know, but I hope I have a chance to write sexy stories about it.

19 Comments

Filed under Jack Fisher's Insights

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 6, 2017 · 6:39 am

Happy Super Bowl Afterglow!

What a game, eh? The Super Bowl is over. Congrats to the New England Patriots and Gisele Bunchen’s husband for winning, crafting the greatest comeback in Super Bowl History. Now, the NFL season is over.

As a lifelong football fan, it’s a momentous, yet bittersweet moment. A champion has been crowned. A season has ended. For NFL fans and football fans in general, it’s the end of a beginning and the beginning of an end.

I hope everyone enjoyed the game. I certainly did. How could I not? Between the snacks, the beer, and the Lady Gaga halftime show, I achieved the true sport nirvana. As a man, it’s an amazing feeling. I won’t say it’s as good as sex. I’ll just say it’s a damn close second.

As such, today is a day of recovery. I am in no condition, physically or mentally, to discuss any overly sexy topics. Hell, even unsexy topics would be pushing it. Right now, I’m just letting my mind and body recover. I encourage everyone to do the same.

Don’t worry. I’ll be back to discussing exceedingly sexy topics soon enough. For now, get some rest, settle in for the off-season, and enjoy the post-Super Bowl afterglow. We’ve earned it.

5 Comments

Filed under Jack Fisher's Insights, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

February 5, 2017 · 8:28 am

Sexy Sunday Thoughts: Super Bowl Edition

Today’s the day. The most sacred of games to all sports fans. For some, it’s the alpha and omega of manly competition. For others, it’s just another excuse to drink beer and eat buffalo wings. It’s not exactly sexy, but it’s as big a deal as any holiday where gifts, decorations, and alcohol are involved.

That’s right, it’s Super Bowl Sunday. The Atlanta Falcons and the New England Patriots have fought, clawed, and (in the case of the Patriots) potentially cheated to get to this moment. They endured a rigorous regular season. They made it through the playoffs. Now, this is it. This is the end of the line. It’s the Super Bowl.

It’s a day that reduces many men to the maturity of an 7-year-old watching cartoons on a sugar rush. It’s also a day where some women basically lock their panties, hide the children, and wait out the storm. However, it’s the women bold enough to watch the game alongside the men that help make this day special. To those women, I tip my hat to you.

I’ll certainly be indulging my inner sports fanatic. I’ve got a case of beer, bags of chips, and enough to greasy food to clog my arteries until mid-March. I’m going to have a damn good time.

Before kickoff, though, and before the hangover that’s sure to follow, I’d like to share my Super Bowl edition of Sexy Sunday Thoughts. It may not get you in the mood for football, but it’ll get you in a mood. That much, I’m certain of.

Another term for friends with benefits is mutual orgasm exchange.

I’m at all not against the concept of “friends with benefits.” I’m okay with any and all efforts of any two people to freely and responsibly pursue the toe-curling pleasures of intimacy. That said, I think the label is overly coy.

Let’s not mince words or beat around the bush. Aspiring writers, even those who use colorful metaphors for female genitalia, don’t like that. A friend with benefits is partner in a transaction and the currency is orgasms. That’s a hell of a benefit for a hell of a friend.

Eating too much makes you fat, but having sex counts as exercise so it’s possible to balance things out if you’re willing to be that horny.

There’s an ongoing debate about just how many calories that sex burns. Much like food, it depends on the quality and quantity of the goods involved. Whatever the case, sex does get the heart going and that will burn calories. Those who have a hard time holding back at a buffet table may want to keep that in mind when contemplating how they’ll stay in shape. Let’s face it. A rigorous workout through sex beats going to the gym.

In a perfect world, good breath and good oral sex skills would be closely correlated.

We don’t live in a perfect world, I know. Being an aspiring erotica/romance writer, it’s only natural to contemplate just how amazing such a world would be. For a sexy mind like mine, that world means those generous enough to give oral sex are rewarded beyond the satisfaction of pleasing their partner.

I don’t know what good breath from oral sex might smell like. For men, maybe it’s a mix of rose petals and lavender. For women, maybe it’s a mix of mint, sea salt, and taffy. It’s sad we don’t live in a world where we can find out, but it’s still fun to contemplate.

Money can’t buy happiness directly. But since it can buy prostitutes and prostitutes give orgasms, then it’s logical to say it can buy happiness indirectly.

Prostitution is a controversial issue for men and women alike. It always has been. They don’t just call it the world’s oldest profession because it caters to one of the oldest demands, although that is a big part of it.

Controversy or not, at its core, prostitutes deliver a certain brand of direct happiness to their customers. It’s all for a price and, regardless of how costly it is or what act is involved, that transaction occurs out of a desire for that happiness. For those prostitutes who do their job and do their job well, they are proof that money can truly buy happiness.

Woman have had it rough over the years, but they’ll never know the agonizing strain of having to hide a boner during gym class in high school.

Women, I know you deal with a lot of issues. Some are so serious that you have to hold big marches to raise awareness. I’m not undercutting the importance of these struggles. They are worth fighting for.

That said, a woman will never know the struggle men face in hiding awkward erections. Talk to any man who survived high school. They’ll talk about having to conceal awkward boners as if they were war stories. It’s more harrowing than it sounds.

It’s not that some people just hate dancing. They just know that they dance in a way that makes everyone around them less horny.

I’m not a dancer. I’ve never been big on dancing unless I have a significant amount of alcohol in my system. I get criticism every now and then for my reluctance to dance. I think there are many men and women in the same boat as me who avoid it not because we’re bad at it. It just sends the wrong message to those we’re trying to impress. Bad dancing is right up there with projectile vomit in terms of things that kill the mood.

For a man, true love is never having to apologize to his partner when he cops a feel.

I’m a romantic at heart. That’s not just because I write erotica/romance either. A part of me purrs like a kitten in a yarn factory when I contemplate the beauty of true love. There are all sorts of magical elements to it. Being able to cop a feel is one of the more underrated aspects of love. I think it deserves more recognition. To those of you with lovers, I hope you make this part of your Valentine’s Day celebration.

Softcore porn is like cake with no icing. It’s still pretty damn good, but not as good as we wish it were.

There’s a near infinite variety of porn. Some involve bondage. Some involve elaborate costumes. Some involve clown makeup and will give most people nightmares for the rest of their lives. That variety, like the kinds of chocolate, are a big part of what makes life worth living.

Then, there’s softcore porn. Anyone who has ever stayed up late to watch Cinemax knows what I’m talking about. It has almost everything we want in porn, except the really tasty bits. Much like a cake, we’ll still eat it without the icing. We’ll even enjoy it. It’s just that we really want that icing.

There you have it. Hope that gets everyone in the mood. Enjoy the big game!

Leave a comment

Filed under Sexy Sunday Thoughts

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

February 4, 2017 · 8:05 am

Celebrating Women: An Ode To Leslie Knope

It’s been a long, busy week and not just because people can’t shut up about the Super Bowl. I’ve spend an unhealthy chunk of time talking about things like abortion and anti-sex crusaders who would put erotica/romance writers like me out of business. These are not rosy topics, I know. I also know that I don’t want this blog to get overly serious on overly political bullshit. I want this blog to be fun, sexy, and enjoyable.

In that spirit, I’d like to cap off this week with something that I think fits in nicely with all my recent discussions of women’s issues. Make no mistake. These are extremely sensitive issues. They’re not going away anytime soon. The next four years is sure to bring more protests, more controversies, and maybe even some more pussy grabbing. For women, it’s going to be tough.

It’s during times like this that it helps to turn to the women who truly inspire us. I come from a family of many strong women. I’m pretty sure all of them could kick my ass, even on a bad day, if I gave them a reason. I’ve always been surrounded by tough women, many of which could easily lead their own march and not let politically correct bullshit get in the way.

Beyond the kick-ass women of my family, there is one woman from the fictional world that inspires me in very special ways that don’t entirely involve my penis. She’s a woman who is strong, likable, competent, sexy, and sex-positive. She’s a character with flaws, but one who finds ways to overcome them in ways that both men and women can respect.

Her name is Leslie Knope, the alpha woman of one of my favorite shows, “Parks and Recreation.” While a part of me is still saddened that this show has been over for nearly two years now, Leslie Knope still has a special place in my heart.

She embodies so much of what a strong, ambitious woman can be. On top of that, she can do it without busting any man’s balls, at least not more than they deserve. She, along with ultra alpha male Ron Swanson, were the heart and soul of the show. They were both testaments to their gender, finding novel ways to get along, despite their differences.

That, in many ways, is the greatest legacy of “Parks and Recreation.” It showed us how great strong men and strong women could be. For that, I thank Leslie Knope for inspiring me and so many others, even those who aren’t aspiring erotica/romance writers. In honor of this legacy, here is a video I found that offers a fitting tribute to everything that makes Leslie Knope so awesome.

2 Comments

Filed under Jack Fisher's Insights

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 3, 2017 · 6:23 am

Pro-Life Vs. Anti-Sex: Why The Difference Matters

I promise I’m almost done talking about abortion on this blog. Again, I hate talking about this issue. I want to be very clear about that. As a man, I have nothing to contribute to issues of women’s health. I couldn’t be less qualified to talk about this issue if I were a disembodied squirrel.

With that said, there is one last component to the abortion issue I want to address. Unlike the various other complexities of this exceedingly controversial issue, this issue does affect me, albeit indirectly. It affects me because it involves attitudes towards sex and, being an erotica/romance writer, that’s kind of critical to my job.

Granted, sex and abortion are link. Without sex, abortion is a moot point. Abortion without sex is like a car without an engine. One doesn’t work without the other. It’s in this inescapable link that we find a stark divide in the pro-life/anti-abortion movement. It’s a divide in which one side is honest and the other has a mansion built upon a foundation of  wet horse shit.

There are those on one side of the abortion who can call themselves honest and genuine. These are the people who genuinely believe that abortion constitutes murder. They believe that the concept of personhood begins at conception. At the moment the sperm meets the egg in a woman’s womb, the issue ends for them. That’s a human life. Ending it in any way is no different than murder.

That’s a perfectly clear, easily understandable position. It passes through the Simpson Filter with ease. It makes ethical sense, even to our caveman brains. It appeals to both emotion and logic, a rare combination in any bit of political discourse. Granted, the actual science of when life begins is not at all settled, but as a clear position on an issue, this part of the pro-life is both clear and genuine.

If this was where the argument ended, then there wouldn’t be anything left to talk about. I could end this post here and go back to talking about the joys of sleeping naked. Unfortunately, there is another contingent of the pro-life crowd and they’re about as genuine as a Nigerian prince.

This contingent of the pro-life group will make the same claims. They’ll say abortion is evil on par with any notorious spammer. They’ll even march with others who sincerely believe that life begins at conception and abortion is murder. However, in the back of their minds, being pro-life is a form of glorified clown makeup. It just a convenient excuse to hide the fact that they’re anti-sex.

By that, I don’t mean they aspire to live in a world of nuns and eunuchs. By anti-sex, I mean they are vehemently opposed to any form of sexual expression that wouldn’t occur off-scene during a “Father Knows Best” rerun.

In their world, the only kind of sex that is permissible involves a married couple, a dark room, and a maximum of three minutes in the missionary position with the sole intent of producing a child who will grow up into a tax-payer. Orgasms are entirely optional in this case. Anything that deviates from this narrative even slightly is the moral equivalent of being sodomized by demons.

In that context, it’s easy to see why some use the pro-life movement as a cover. History has shown that even in the most repressive periods in history, human sexuality is difficult to contain. Being anti-sex is a losing battle on par with being against blue skies on sunny days. With the pro-life crowd, they can claim, “We’re not against sex! We’re against dead babies!”

This doesn’t just make their position inherently dishonest and insincere. It also has implications that go far beyond those I’ve discussed before on this issue. It’s easy to craft a message that passes the Simpson Filter, but sometimes the implications of that message go far beyond the content of that message, so much so that it’s in the same zip code as basic fraud.

For the anti-sex crowd, it means that abortion is less about dead babies and more about controlling sexuality in general. Make no mistake. This does happen. Some even go so far as to admit it outright. Major presidential candidates have even gone on record as saying they oppose contraception because it permits evil sexual practices, namely those that people might enjoy.

This is the part of the pro-life movement that has zero moral authority. They are about as honest and sincere as hungry lion running a hospital for wounded zebras. They may use politics or religion to justify their sentiment. That doesn’t make it less invalid.

In some cases, it makes parts of the pro-life crowd into outright hypocrites. As I’ve said before, we tolerate a lot of bullshit in our society, but hypocrisy is one of the few lines where the stench cannot be ignored.

In the case of the anti-sex crowd pretending to be pro-life, they cement their hypocrisy by also being against contraception. While most pro-life people don’t oppose contraception, those that do are akin to being football fans who hate contact sports. It’s just not possible for the position to make any sense, logically or morally.

This is where a lot of religion gets into the mix. The Catholic Church is, by far, the most famous entity for opposing both abortion and contraception. Again, it’s the implications that make this position wholly dishonest. To understand those implications, just do the same thing reporters do with lobbyists and follow the money.

For a church, or any religious organization, to thrive it needs money and adherents. Since most religions don’t sell anything tangible, they need to rely on adherents giving them money. Naturally, this creates an incentive to want them to procreate. The more babies they have, the more future adherents the religion will get. More future adherents means more money. In the end, wanting to control sexuality is all about money.

Imagine for a moment that someone claimed that killing puppies was wrong because it cost too much money to bury them. If someone bases their puppy-killing morality on that foundation, we wouldn’t think very highly of them. Hell, we’d probably train our dogs to use that person’s yard as a toilet.

It’s for this reason, and many more that I’m woefully unqualified to explore, that it’s so vital to distinguish those who are genuinely pro-life and those who just don’t want people having sex in ways they don’t like. One has a moral basis for their position. The other has a web of excuses, deceit, and hypocrisy.

If good, decent people truly wins out in the end, then it should be clear which side has the moral authority. There are those who deserve to march in support of their believes and there are those who should be marched over, spit on, and left to whither under the weight of their hypocrisy. In the end, no matter what excuses some people make, hypocrisy will never be appealing or sexy.

13 Comments

Filed under Jack Fisher's Insights

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 2, 2017 · 6:42 am

My Reaction To The March For Life

When you live within a short drive of Washington DC, you tend be numb to all the demonstrations, protests, and what not. Talk to most folks who live in and around the DC area and they’ll tell you the same thing. Protests and detour signs are hard to distinguish.

That said, when protests are so big they enter the six or seven-figure range, it’s a lot harder to ignore. In fact, it’s a clear sign that it shouldn’t be ignored. This was the case with the Women’s March that took place last week. I’ve already reacted to that. However, there was another march right after that, namely the March For Life.

For those in the DC area, two big marches are like two all-night drinking benders. One alone is hard enough to handle. Two is really pushing it. At some point, you run out of energy and your body runs out of vomit to adequately process something. In the interest of fairness, though, I think I should react to this march as well because, like the Women’s March, it had a powerful message.

This means I have to talk about abortion again. I know. I don’t want to do it either. Nothing makes people less horny than talking about abortion, but it’s kind of hard to avoid when you’re reacting to a pro-life/anti-abortion march.

Again, even though it has come up before, I hate talking about this topic. I’m a man. I don’t get pregnant. I have nothing to contribute to this issue. This is one of those issues that affects women. Therefore, policies and decisions on abortion should be made by women. The fact that men make these laws is kind weird when you think about it.

I say all this with the hope that everybody uses this opportunity to brace themselves. I know this topic sucks and it riles people up in the worst possible way. Comedian Dennis Miller once commented that if America fights another civil war, it’ll likely be over abortion. Sadly, I think he’s right in the least funny way possible.

It’s controversial. It’s emotional. It literally deals in matters of life and death. It also deals with the most fundamental of freedoms in being able to make decisions on the most important issues affecting your life. This is not protests and outrage over the season finale of the Walking Dead last year. This is a powerful issue that affects women, children, and the most fundamental aspects of our society.

It’s for those very reasons that a major protest is entirely warranted. Abortion is an unresolved issue in this country, to say the very least. Some parts of the country are so vehemently anti-abortion that their state only has one functional abortion clinic. Overall, abortion clinics are being closed all over the country, sometimes directly and sometimes through shady TRAP laws.

In that context, the pro-life crowd is winning the war, even though Pew regularly reports that a majority of people are pro-choice. In some sense, the March For Life last week was a celebration of their recent victories and a push for more victories. For the pro-choice crowd, they are on the ropes. They are losing and, given the current regime in DC, those losses will continue.

Given this situation, it’s hard for someone like me to make sense of it. Again, I’m a man. I have next to nothing to contribute to this topic. However, being an erotica/romance writer, it does kind of affect me because abortion is linked to sex. For an abortion to occur, sex needs to occur. It’s just basic biology. Granted, it’s a sexy kind of biology that I love exploring, but it’s still biology.

So when I see these anti-abortion protests and the gains made by the pro-life movement, how do I react? How can I react? Well, I’ll let Steve Carell take convey the sentiment better than I ever could with words.

That, my friends, is a professional level blank stare. I’m only an amateur. My blank stare can only be so strong, but it’s enough to get the point across.

What exactly is that point? What sort of sentiment does a blank stare convey in the face of such a sensitive, emotionally charged issue like abortion? Well, allow me to explain.

A blank stare is not the same as being confused or ignorant. Think of Jenny McCarthy’s reaction to a quantum physics lecture. That is confusion. That is ignorance. A blank stare is the look we all give when we expect something more from a conversation.

It’s the natural response to something that we feel is incomplete. Someone ends a conversation mid-sentence, we’re going to be somewhat frozen in place, waiting for that final piece of the puzzle to come into place. It’s how our brains work. It makes connections and recognizes patterns.

With the abortion debate, which is very much incomplete, the pro-life side of the argument has a difficult oversight that’s hard to ignore. It’s easy to say you’re pro-life. It’s easy to say you’re against abortion. It’s easy to say you think abortion is murder and dead babies are wrong. These are all simple, basic sentiments that check every box of the Simpson Filter. It’s easy for everyone to understand and rally behind.

The problem that makes this issue so incomplete are the implications. These implications are reflected in the actual practice of abortion. In liberal states, there’s more abortion, but fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer divorces. In conservative areas, it’s the reverse. There are fewer abortions, but the extra unplanned pregnancies create unstable family structures and are highly correlated with poverty.

In both cases, the people are subject to the same forces, namely the desire to have sex and procreate. This is the only unifying factor in the abortion debate. This force remains in place, regardless of whether abortion is punishable by death or available on every street corner. It’s also the factor that the pro-life movement cannot circumvent, although it sure as hell tries.

Their response to this issue is as simple as it is misguided. They just shrug it off by saying, “Then don’t have sex!” That approach might work for kids who eat paste, but not for one of the most fundamental drives in nature.

This best manifests in how many conservative, pro-life communities champion abstinence-only sex education, which has been proven time and again to not work. It turns out teenagers are very horny. For some reason, this is news to the pro-life crowd.

This is the reason why I have a hard time reacting to pro-life arguments and the overall spirit of the March for Life. I agree. Life is great. Life should be protected and cherished. However, this isn’t just about life. This is about abortion. There are two lives involved, the potential child and the mother. When you focus too much on one, you undermine the other.

I could process the rhetoric to some extent if the pro-life crowd was also the most vocal proponent of contraception and effective sex education, but that’s not part of their message. If anything, they make every effort to gloss over that part of the message, as though human sexuality can ever be truly glossed over.

Many have tried in that effort, attempting to circumvent human sexuality. All have failed. Human beings are wired for sex. They’re also wired to enjoy it, shockingly enough. Until the pro-life movement confronts this issue, then their current victories will not last. At some point, the human desire to just make love will overpower them. It won’t be sexy for them, but it will be for everyone else.

6 Comments

Filed under Jack Fisher's Insights

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 1, 2017 · 6:40 am

Appealing To The Masses: The Simpson Filter

ct-homer-simpson-live-pizza-debate-met-0517-20160516

I was going to make this part of my last post where I gave some tips and advice to the people behind the Women’s March. I am serious about being on their side on most major issues. I want them to succeed in protesting the current regime in Washington DC. I think it’s good for freedom and democracy when there’s a healthy opposition to established power structures.

At the moment, though, I don’t think their message is getting through. I also think their approach needs refinement. The tips I offered in my last post were fairly basic. This tip requires a bit more explanation because it applies a mix of caveman logic, sales techniques, and good old fashioned cunning. It’s basically the same technique people use to sell time shares and get laid. If it works for that, then it works for politics as well.

I’ve even given this bit of advice a name, one that I hope is easy to remember. I call it “The Simpson Filter.” It’s not quite as original as “Caveman Logic” and not just because it deals with something that is heavily trademarked and protected by an army of Fox’s lawyers. I promise there is a legitimate reason behind this label and I hope to make that reason abundantly clear by the end of this post.

So what exactly is the Simpson Filter? Well first off, in order to understand it, you need to know who the Simpsons are. If you’ve been near a TV it all in the past 30 years, that should be the easy part.

Most everybody on each side of the political spectrum knows who the Simpsons are. For the purposes of this tip, I’m going to focus on what they represent. By and large, the Simpsons are not the Waltons. They’re not happy, wholesome, and functional. They’re not the Bundy’s either. There is a sense love, sincerity, and family. On the spectrum of cartoon families, the Simpsons are somewhere in the middle.

Why is this important? Well, despite being fictional and full of exaggerated dysfunction, the Simpsons perfectly embody the sentiment of the average American. In fact, the show itself even acknowledged this in Season 2, Episode 16, “Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?” where Homer’s brother, Herb, wants him to design a car for the average American.

Yes, Homer Simpson fails miserably in that effort, but that only further highlights what makes him the perfect archetype for the average guy. He’s not an expert in a given field. He’s not smart enough to understand the complexities of big issues, be they social, political, or economic. Unless it involves beer and donuts, it’s not going to be a priority for Homer Simpson.

The same applies to Marge Simpson, the more thoughtful and less obnoxious part of the family. Marge also embodies an important component of the average American in that she’s focused primarily on keeping her family intact and semi-functional.

Given the various antics of her family, this is a herculean task, even on a good day. Her uncanny ability to manage her family often shows when she’s not around. This is best shown in Season 3, Episode 14, “Homer Alone,” in which Marge decides to go on a vacation and her family struggles mightily in her absence.

In that sense, Marge embodies the side of American society who struggle daily to keep their family intact and functioning for another day. It’s not that big issues involving the economy, politics, or social issues don’t interest her. It’s that she doesn’t have the time or resources to prioritize them. She can only focus on her more immediate concerns, namely preventing Homer from freaking out about the boogeyman.

Given this context, we can create the particulars of the “Simpson Filter.” If we’re going to use this fictional, animated, overtly dysfunctional family as a model, then any message we craft has to resonate with them. If it’s too much for Homer and Marge Simpson to handle, then it’s too much for most Americans.

For the Women’s March, this is vital. They don’t need to appeal to affluent, college-educated people living in cities and earning more than the median wage. They need to appeal to the vast swaths of less-affluent, less-educated people that occupy the non-urban parts of the country. In short, they need to cater their message to many Springfields of this Country and the Simpson families who live in them.

To appeal to them, it’s not enough to just shout anger and outrage at major protests. It’s not enough to hold large public lectures to inform these people either. Homer Simpson doesn’t do lectures and Marge is too worried about her family to even show up at one.

For any message to work on Homer or Marge Simpson, it can’t just have hard facts about the harsh realities of the world. It’s not enough to list, detail by detail, why the principles and policies they favor are worth supporting.

Homer Simpson doesn’t care for details. Marge can only care so much, given her many other concerns. So for every message about every issue, the contents need to go through a filter to make sure they’ll resonate. That filter includes the following provisions:

  • Get the attention of the Homer and Marge Simpsons of the world, but do it in a way that doesn’t shame or denigrate them for not supporting the message in the first place

  • Don’t assume that the Homer and Marge Simpsons of the world are racist, ignorant, or misogynistic and presume, by default, that they are decent people who just want to get by

  • Keep the message incredibly simple in that if it can’t fit into a commercial between a football game, then Homer and Marge aren’t going to care enough about it

  • Craft the message in a way that appeals to the feelings of Homer and Marge as appealing to emotions is the primary method of generating interest

  • Keep the facts secondary, but never let them be tertiary because in the long run, substance will help strengthen the emotions

  • Make sure the simple, emotional message inspires hope because Homer and Marge are more likely to support something that makes them feel hopeful

  • Link the more complex issues in your message with the simpler issues that affect Homer and Marge directly, ensuring they can associate these issues with their own lives

  • Avoid using language and rhetoric that Homer and Marge don’t understand or makes them feel alienated from those you want them to support

  • The message shouldn’t require that Homer and Marge change who they are, but it should make them want to be better

There are probably many more components to this filter that I haven’t articulated yet. Like Caveman Logic, I hope to refine it in future posts. In following the events of the Women’s March and the issues that will likely be more prominent over the next four years, the Simpson Filter will be a good way of revealing how successful or how flawed a message is.

At the end of the day, how right or valid your message is can only ever be secondary. If it fails to resonate or convince anyone, then it has as much impact as a history lecture by Ben Stein.

It’s an unfortunate, but unavoidable aspect of the human species. It’s not enough to be right or moral. You still have to communicate that message in a way that gets flawed, uninformed, and sometimes misguided humans on your side. If you can’t get Homer and Marge Simpson on your side, then your message has no chance.

9 Comments

Filed under Jack Fisher's Insights

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,