Episode 35: Talks from SkeptiCamps Past
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Laura Creek Newman talks about supposed "superfoods" and Anlina Sheng tells us everything there is to know about polyamory.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: Nutritional Facts and Fallacies: "Superfoods" | Polyamory and Questioning Mononormative Assumptions | PolyWinnipeg | SkeptiCamp Winnipeg (2010, 2011, 2012)
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
18 October 2012
12 February 2012
LUEE Episode 13: What Is Love?
Episode 13: What Is Love?
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, just in time for Valentine's Day, Laura Targownik ponders the nature of love with Laura Creek Newman, Robert Shindler, and Mark Forkheim.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: 18-Year-Old Miraculously Finds Soulmate In Hometown | Soulmate Dropped for New, Better Soulmate | Acupuncturist Claims Cervical Cancer Is for Prostitutes | Straw Vulcan | Darwin Day | Oldest Known Primate | Chiropractic Neurology | Oxytocin and Love
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, just in time for Valentine's Day, Laura Targownik ponders the nature of love with Laura Creek Newman, Robert Shindler, and Mark Forkheim.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: 18-Year-Old Miraculously Finds Soulmate In Hometown | Soulmate Dropped for New, Better Soulmate | Acupuncturist Claims Cervical Cancer Is for Prostitutes | Straw Vulcan | Darwin Day | Oldest Known Primate | Chiropractic Neurology | Oxytocin and Love
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
29 January 2012
LUEE Episode 11: Alternative Marriage
Episode 11: Alternative Marriage
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, host Laura Targownik discusses some secular and skeptical perspectives on non-traditional marriage with Ashlyn Noble, Jeff Olsson, and Anlina Sheng.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: Winnipeg Sun "Editorial: Rainbow conniption over 'queer' pledge" | Winnipeg Free Press "Three's Company: Polyamory in Winnipeg" | Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan & Cacilda Jetha | The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Fundamentalism in Canada by Marci McDonald | Leaving Faith Behind by Jeffery Olsson
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, host Laura Targownik discusses some secular and skeptical perspectives on non-traditional marriage with Ashlyn Noble, Jeff Olsson, and Anlina Sheng.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: Winnipeg Sun "Editorial: Rainbow conniption over 'queer' pledge" | Winnipeg Free Press "Three's Company: Polyamory in Winnipeg" | Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan & Cacilda Jetha | The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Fundamentalism in Canada by Marci McDonald | Leaving Faith Behind by Jeffery Olsson
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
08 January 2012
LUEE Episode 8: Why Feminism Matters
Episode 8: Why Feminism Matters
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Richelle McCullough, Leslie Saunders, Ashlyn Noble and Robert Shindler discuss the relevance of feminism in Canada and why feminism should matter to skeptics.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: Economic Inequality in Canada | Being a Woman on Twitter | "Elevatorgate" | An Example of "Nice Guy Syndrome" | Another Example of "Nice Guy Syndrome" | Manboobz | Sex Offenders and Lads' Magazines Use the Same Language
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Richelle McCullough, Leslie Saunders, Ashlyn Noble and Robert Shindler discuss the relevance of feminism in Canada and why feminism should matter to skeptics.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: Economic Inequality in Canada | Being a Woman on Twitter | "Elevatorgate" | An Example of "Nice Guy Syndrome" | Another Example of "Nice Guy Syndrome" | Manboobz | Sex Offenders and Lads' Magazines Use the Same Language
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
01 December 2011
SkeptiCamp Winnipeg 2011: The Videos, Part 3
SkeptiCamp Winnipeg 2011: The Videos, Part 1
SkeptiCamp Winnipeg 2011: The Videos, Part 2
SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.
Scientific Spirituality
Dr. Ali Ashtari obtained his Bachelors and Masters degrees in Electrical Engineering from Sharif University of Technology in Tehran, Iran, and his Ph.D in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of Manitoba. He currently holds a post doctoral fellowship at the University of Manitoba. He describes himself as a "militant atheist", and has recently developed an interest in meditation and the scientific study of spirituality.
Science & Media: A Love Story
Richelle McCullough is a medical student at the University of Calgary and is graduating with a Masters degree in Physiology from the University of Manitoba this spring. She blogs at Subspecies and for the Winnipeg Skeptics, and is proud that she is frequently trolled by people who think that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Realities and Myths About Sex Work
Anlina Sheng is a freelance graphic and web designer, a feminist, and a sex-workers' rights advocate.
How to Change Minds
Mike Innes is former born-again Christian, and is now a passionate activist for skepticism and equality. He is the father of two boys, and he spends much of his time building more computers than he knows what to do with. The text of this presentation is also available on the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.
SkeptiCamp Winnipeg 2011: The Videos, Part 2
SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.
Scientific Spirituality
Dr. Ali Ashtari obtained his Bachelors and Masters degrees in Electrical Engineering from Sharif University of Technology in Tehran, Iran, and his Ph.D in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of Manitoba. He currently holds a post doctoral fellowship at the University of Manitoba. He describes himself as a "militant atheist", and has recently developed an interest in meditation and the scientific study of spirituality.
Science & Media: A Love Story
Richelle McCullough is a medical student at the University of Calgary and is graduating with a Masters degree in Physiology from the University of Manitoba this spring. She blogs at Subspecies and for the Winnipeg Skeptics, and is proud that she is frequently trolled by people who think that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Realities and Myths About Sex Work
Anlina Sheng is a freelance graphic and web designer, a feminist, and a sex-workers' rights advocate.
How to Change Minds
Mike Innes is former born-again Christian, and is now a passionate activist for skepticism and equality. He is the father of two boys, and he spends much of his time building more computers than he knows what to do with. The text of this presentation is also available on the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.
Labels:
media,
new age,
science,
sex,
skepticamp,
skepticism
24 April 2011
What was the "Sin of Sodom"?
I'm an avid fan of Robert Price, as you may remember. I recently discovered that he has a podcast called The Bible Geek Show, and it is fascinating.
I recently sent the following email to Dr. Price:
It turns out that the so-called Sin of Sodom probably had nothing to do with sex.
Curious? Dr. Price was kind enough to elaborate, and if you want to know what one particular Biblical scholar thinks on the subject, here's your answer—and it's a very interesting one. (Fast forward to 08:14 if you're impatient.)
I recently sent the following email to Dr. Price:
Greetings, Dr. Price.
I'm currently going through your podcast archives (and enjoying it very much). On your episode from 7 November 2009, when discussing the Bible's view of homosexuality, you briefly went into the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and stated that the Sin of Sodom was its neglect of needy travellers.
That's in accordance with Ezekiel 16:49, and I can see no problem with that. But you go on to say, "Every one of [the men of Sodom] comes to interrogate and lynch the visitors, whom they do not know to be angels." I'm unfamiliar with that interpretation of Genesis 19:5. It had always been my understanding that the men of Sodom were feeling a little... frisky. Indeed, the 2011 edition of the NIV says, "They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" Certainly not as euphemistic as the KJV's, "bring them out unto us, that we may know them". Is this a mistranslation? I don't know how the NIV holds up to scrutiny, but I can only assume that it's better than King James.
But if the Sodomites (sigh...) were out for nothing more than a good, old fashioned lynching, why would Lot offer his virgin daughters to them, instead? (Granted, one might ask why he would offer his daughters to a rape gang, but at least that interpretation seems to make more sense in context, at least to me.) Would you mind elaborating on this a bit?
And on a completely unrelated note, I came across an audiobook recording of you reading "The Dunwich Horror" a few months ago, and I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoyed it. Thanks!
Gem Newman
Organiser, Winnipeg Skeptics
It turns out that the so-called Sin of Sodom probably had nothing to do with sex.
Curious? Dr. Price was kind enough to elaborate, and if you want to know what one particular Biblical scholar thinks on the subject, here's your answer—and it's a very interesting one. (Fast forward to 08:14 if you're impatient.)
23 November 2010
The TSA and Transgendered Passengers
The National Center for Transgender Equality has a summary of important information about the new TSA procedures and how it affects transgendered people.
Thanks to my friend Jessica for the link.
Thanks to my friend Jessica for the link.
21 November 2010
Pope Says 'Your St. Peter Can Wear a Miter'. Catholics Rejoice.
Breaking news!
After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the pontiff will end the Catholic Church's absolute ban on the use of condoms.
He will say that it is acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention is to "reduce the risk of infection" from Aids.
...
Asked whether "the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms," he replies: "It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution.
This is a step in the right direction. Agreed. Perhaps, when the word gets out, this can finally stem the HIV epidemic in Africa.
But. This seems to simply be, yet again, an example of secular societal pressure dragging religion kicking and screaming away from their wholehearted embrace of dangerous dogma.
And the cynic in me can't help but think that perhaps the pontiff is throwing us a bone (as it were) to distract us from the other horrific things with which he's been involved. I'm happy about this decision—I'm ecstatic that lives will be saved!—but Ratzinger still doesn't get a pass on covering up child-rape.
Jeff Olsson, President of the Humanist Association of Manitoba, was just five minutes ago on Winnipeg radio station CJOB discussing this very issue. Two very misinformed callers just brought up the "fact" that HIV travels through the pores in latex condoms. Even after the Ratzinger flip-flops on condoms, the organised Catholic campaign of misinformation is still doing damage.
Tip o' the... you know... to Jen McCreight at Blag Hag and Jeffrey Olsson at HAM.
17 November 2010
The Transit Service Authority's Naughty Bits
Bug Girl talks about the new TSA scanners, which take nude pictures of your body using ionizing radiation and store them for an undisclosed amount of time. It's a very good read.
Although sometimes I think he's a little too paranoid, going to tentatively side with Cory Doctorow on this one. (If you haven't read Little Brother, by the way, I highly recommend it.)
To be clear, I agree that the TSA are within their rights to require passengers to submit to these scans if they so choose: I don't think that anyone has classified flying as a universal human right. Although I've been through the machines before, I think that next time I'm going to opt for having my testicles fondled instead. But I'm also disturbed by the fact that in some cases travelers opting out of screenings have not been allowed to simply walk away from their flight, but have instead been threatened with fines or detainment.
I find this whole "illusion of security" that's been shoved down our throats over the last nine years troubling. The restriction on liquid thing really bothers me, because it is so transparently useless. Does anyone think that's anything more than an inconvenience? How could that possibly stop terrorism?
It seems to me that the TSA shouldn't be misleading travelers as to the efficacy, risks, or uses of their scanning devices. I also think that they have a responsibility to the public to be accountable for their decisions, and those decisions should be founded on sound research. The bottom line is that there's no evidence (that I've been able to find) that the scanners are effective in countering terrorism, the TSA has lied repeatedly about whether they store and transmit the scans (hint: they do), and it's always a good idea to minimise one's exposure to ionizing radiation (reports vary with regard to safety).
And hey, what's a little testicular cupping between complete strangers?
Edit: There's a new article up at the Wall Street Journal Online with some bearing on the matter. Here's a snippet:
Hat tip to Ashlyn Noble for the SkepChick article and Boing Boing for the Wall Street Journal piece.
Edit: Here's another one that is tangentially related:
Tip o' the hat to Shunjie Lau.
Best Edit Ever: According to an article in the UK's Daily Mail, the full body scanners are just as likely to kill you as a terrorist:
Hat tip to Brendan Curran-Johnson, who remarked that it was bizarre that we accept thousands of deaths each year in Canada alone from motor vehicle collisions, while the only acceptable death-rate for air travel is zero.
Another Edit: Back in 2002, Penn Jillette also had something to say on the subject of airport groping:
Penn, of course, objected. He is an Objectivist, after all.
Again, thanks to B.C.J. for the link.
Although sometimes I think he's a little too paranoid, going to tentatively side with Cory Doctorow on this one. (If you haven't read Little Brother, by the way, I highly recommend it.)
To be clear, I agree that the TSA are within their rights to require passengers to submit to these scans if they so choose: I don't think that anyone has classified flying as a universal human right. Although I've been through the machines before, I think that next time I'm going to opt for having my testicles fondled instead. But I'm also disturbed by the fact that in some cases travelers opting out of screenings have not been allowed to simply walk away from their flight, but have instead been threatened with fines or detainment.
I find this whole "illusion of security" that's been shoved down our throats over the last nine years troubling. The restriction on liquid thing really bothers me, because it is so transparently useless. Does anyone think that's anything more than an inconvenience? How could that possibly stop terrorism?
It seems to me that the TSA shouldn't be misleading travelers as to the efficacy, risks, or uses of their scanning devices. I also think that they have a responsibility to the public to be accountable for their decisions, and those decisions should be founded on sound research. The bottom line is that there's no evidence (that I've been able to find) that the scanners are effective in countering terrorism, the TSA has lied repeatedly about whether they store and transmit the scans (hint: they do), and it's always a good idea to minimise one's exposure to ionizing radiation (reports vary with regard to safety).
And hey, what's a little testicular cupping between complete strangers?
Edit: There's a new article up at the Wall Street Journal Online with some bearing on the matter. Here's a snippet:
It's the same kind of trade-off TSA implicitly provided when it ordered us to take off our sneakers (to stop shoe bombs) and to chuck our water bottles (to prevent liquid explosives). Security guru Bruce Schneier, a plaintiff in the scanner suit, calls this "magical thinking . . . Descend on what the terrorists happened to do last time, and we'll all be safe. As if they won't think of something else." Which, of course, they invariably do. Attackers are already starting to smuggle weapons in body cavities, going where even the most adroit body scanners do not tread. No wonder that the Israelis, known for the world's most stringent airport security, have so far passed on the scanners.
Hat tip to Ashlyn Noble for the SkepChick article and Boing Boing for the Wall Street Journal piece.
Edit: Here's another one that is tangentially related:
"As the TSA agent was frisking plaintiff, the agent pulled the plaintiff's blouse completely down, exposing plaintiffs' breasts to everyone in the area," the lawsuit said. "As would be expected, plaintiff was extremely embarrassed and humiliated."
The suit said the woman filed an administrative claim against the TSA, but the agency never responded, sparking the lawsuit.
...
"One male TSA employee expressed to the plaintiff that he wished he would have been there when she came through the first time and that 'he would just have to watch the video,'" the suit said.
Tip o' the hat to Shunjie Lau.
Best Edit Ever: According to an article in the UK's Daily Mail, the full body scanners are just as likely to kill you as a terrorist:
Peter Rez, from Arizona State University, said the probability of dying from radiation from a body scanner and that of being killed in a terror attack are both about one in 30 million.
He said: 'The thing that worries me the most, is not what happens if the machine works as advertised, but what happens if it doesn't.[']
A potential malfunction could increase the radiation dose, he said.
Hat tip to Brendan Curran-Johnson, who remarked that it was bizarre that we accept thousands of deaths each year in Canada alone from motor vehicle collisions, while the only acceptable death-rate for air travel is zero.
Another Edit: Back in 2002, Penn Jillette also had something to say on the subject of airport groping:
He reached around while he was behind me and grabbed around my front pocket. I guess he was going for my flashlight, but the area could have loosely been called "crotch." I said, "You have to ask me before you touch me or it's assault."
He said, "Once you cross that line, I can do whatever I want."
Penn, of course, objected. He is an Objectivist, after all.
Again, thanks to B.C.J. for the link.
Labels:
sex,
skepticism
14 February 2010
Adventures in Sex City
One of the joys of living in Canada is that our government doesn't do everything in its power to prevent students from learning about human sexuality. I'm sure that some parents are now, more than ever, wishing that it did.
So, the Middlesex-London Health Unit in Ontario has put together a computer game that aims to teach high school kids about safe sex. As we are all no doubt aware, educational computer games tend to suck (classics like Number Munchers and Crosscountry Canada aside). Also, adults seem to have a difficult time relating to younger audiences—often hilariously so. But this takes the cake. It is called Adventures in Sex City.
The Characters
In this educational game (designed with high school kids in mind, remember), you play as one of four members of the elite Sex Squad: Wonder Vag ("promotes abstinence until marriage"), Willie the Kid ("massive rock hard strength"), Power Pap ("a strong believer in getting tested"), or Captain Condom ("when used correctly is 98 percent effective"). Your adversary? The Sperminator, a flying burly white guy in a Speedo and Mexican wrestling mask, with two giant penises* for arms. His stated goal is to "infect everyone with his evil sperm".
Gameplay
This is a quiz game. Each round, you are asked a true-or-false question. If you get the answer wrong, The Sperminator spews STI-infected sperm onto your character, causing your character to utter phrases such as "Eww, that's sticky!" or "Aagh, right in the face!". Again, I can't stress this enough: I am not joking.
Let's be clear: I'm not against a game like this in theory. Games can be wonderful learning tools. That said, this isn't really a game. It's a true-or-false sex-ed exam with a really bizarre hook. I'm sure that's the point: the designers want it to be so over-the-top ridiculous that people are clamouring to play it even though it's a terrible game—and in playing it, these people might actually learn something. As terrible as the game is, I'm convinced that it will likely accomplish its goal.
But still.
In case you missed the link above, the game is embedded in an article here, and here is a direct link to the .SWF file.
* I maintain that the etymologically correct plural of "penis" is "penes". (Similarly, "gymnasia" and "octopodes". Yes, I'm a pedant.) I use the more common "penises" here so that the verbiage won't distract you from the main point: the guy has genitalia for arms!
Edit: I feel like I should have titled this post something like Sex Ed WIN? Ah, well. Happy Valentine's Day, everyone!
Edit: Blag Hag also has some interesting thoughts on, among other things, the subject of vilifying those infected with STIs. Check it out!
So, the Middlesex-London Health Unit in Ontario has put together a computer game that aims to teach high school kids about safe sex. As we are all no doubt aware, educational computer games tend to suck (classics like Number Munchers and Crosscountry Canada aside). Also, adults seem to have a difficult time relating to younger audiences—often hilariously so. But this takes the cake. It is called Adventures in Sex City.
The Characters
In this educational game (designed with high school kids in mind, remember), you play as one of four members of the elite Sex Squad: Wonder Vag ("promotes abstinence until marriage"), Willie the Kid ("massive rock hard strength"), Power Pap ("a strong believer in getting tested"), or Captain Condom ("when used correctly is 98 percent effective"). Your adversary? The Sperminator, a flying burly white guy in a Speedo and Mexican wrestling mask, with two giant penises* for arms. His stated goal is to "infect everyone with his evil sperm".
Gameplay
This is a quiz game. Each round, you are asked a true-or-false question. If you get the answer wrong, The Sperminator spews STI-infected sperm onto your character, causing your character to utter phrases such as "Eww, that's sticky!" or "Aagh, right in the face!". Again, I can't stress this enough: I am not joking.
It doesn't look like Captain Condom will prepare his prophylactic in time.
Let's be clear: I'm not against a game like this in theory. Games can be wonderful learning tools. That said, this isn't really a game. It's a true-or-false sex-ed exam with a really bizarre hook. I'm sure that's the point: the designers want it to be so over-the-top ridiculous that people are clamouring to play it even though it's a terrible game—and in playing it, these people might actually learn something. As terrible as the game is, I'm convinced that it will likely accomplish its goal.
But still.
Me too, big guy. Me too.
In case you missed the link above, the game is embedded in an article here, and here is a direct link to the .SWF file.
* I maintain that the etymologically correct plural of "penis" is "penes". (Similarly, "gymnasia" and "octopodes". Yes, I'm a pedant.) I use the more common "penises" here so that the verbiage won't distract you from the main point: the guy has genitalia for arms!
Edit: I feel like I should have titled this post something like Sex Ed WIN? Ah, well. Happy Valentine's Day, everyone!
Edit: Blag Hag also has some interesting thoughts on, among other things, the subject of vilifying those infected with STIs. Check it out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



