I was totally imagining a scarf.

I already have pictures to contribute. . .

I already have pictures to contribute. . .

And you've sent me ones that qualify before too. I just need to work out how to label and present it so I don't get creepy approaches and pictures.

It hasn't been too bad so far. I had one guy send me a naked picture of himself, and one other try and ask me about how much I like men's feet. As long as any fetishists don't over-share, over-inquire, or over-demand, I'm good.

Trader Joe's DC report:

It's on 25th and L, just a few blocks from the Foggy Bottom metro stop. It was bigger than I expected, but not huge -- one aisle of fruits and vegetables and fancy cheese, a bakery section and a dairy section in the back, a freezer aisle with open freezers that really don't seem to be keeping the food frozen, and two or three aisles of other grocery stuff. Plus a wine section which looked pretty decent.

Thanks for the report Hil. That sounds pretty much like the Annapolis store, except for the wine. In other words, not big enough for all one's grocery needs. It's so annoying that Maryland TJs don't carry wine.

And my pent up rage continues to boil over. Dad ran a copy of the doctor's orders over to the jail. The deputy called the nurse who admitted that she, "oops, FORGOT" to give my brother his medication last week. Oh, but it's ok if he waits another FOUR DAYS until she comes in on Tuesday. The deputy tells dad they can't pay the nurse to come in on the weekend.

Dude, she FORGOT to give someone his medication! She shouldn't get paid and should have to drag her ass in and give him the injection tonight. *sigh* If J were having seizures or going into diabetic shock, they'd take him to the ER. For fuck's sake, people (those people, not you people).

Dad's afraid to piss off the people who have my brother's life in their hands and can make it a living hell for the next 90 days. At least J's not in there alone. My nephew is serving 90 days for DUI and is keeping a close eye out. He'll call if something goes wrong. Mom's going to visit tomorrow and Dad's going in on Tuesday to see the nurse and make sure she does give J his meds.

If anything happens between now and then, those fuckers are liable. My twin sister is going to draft a letter to the county sheriff and ask his doctor to draft a letter as well.

I'm four hours away, else I'd be up in their grill tonight demanding they call someone in to give my brother his fucking medication.

Your assertion that I've changed my point is a straw man.

ita, I disagree, largely because it's impossible to get straw from nothing but mist, but also because of the what is documented about the practice of using corpses for sex. Granted, the taboo is so pervasive, there must be more undocumented than documented instances, but we can only talk about what's known. I'll back off my question you've called a straw man assertion, and get back to what you have said, and what's known.

You've said you take no issue with it, see no point in it being illegal, and although you find it gross that does not mean it is wrong. In the abstract, I agree with that last point; gross (to me) doesn't automatically mean something is wrong. But, just because using corpses for sex is so very gross, doesn't mean it's too busy being gross to also manage to be wrong. I can't make you take issue with it. I will try to discuss the point in making/keeping it illegal.

Claims that making this act illegal seem to ignore the reality of situations in which corpses are used in such a manner. The case files are not overflowing with tales of spouses, lovers and friends, having one for the road. In more than half the documented cases, the perp is a person who works a job as an orderly, morgue worker, cemetery worker, or the like--where he will have access to corpses in order to use for sex. In one study of a group of perps, 42% of them murdered the person whose corpse they then used. Either the victims were murdered by the perp so he could procure a corpse for sex, and/or the murderer was aroused by committing the murder, then used the corpse.

Then there's the matter of rights to someone's corpse. Even if all a deceased's rights terminate at death, his next-of-kin's rights don't terminate. A person could claim this is a victimless crime, except that the crime has the capacity to cause mental anguish for the survivors. Levying judgments against people who cause mental anguish to others is not outside the realm of the legal system. Legislating proper treatment of a corpse is not merely an exercise in "keeping spirits up." The law regularly renders judgments regarding mental anguish, and will award damages in such cases where mental anguish is proved, even when physical injury is absent. I take it from your earlier charge (that I was making an emotional appeal) that you recognize there's at least some potential for mental anguish among the survivors, in the wake of this act.

Additionally, probate is a state concern. If there's a valid will, the state upholds it. If there is not, the state prescribes how the estate is distributed among the survivors. Now, a person's body surely belonged to him in life, more than any other object he has left to someone in his will. The state cannot even allow autopsies (which only serve to help advance medicine for all of us) without the proper consents (from next of kin) and/or circumstances (they can in case of a crime).

Criminalizing this sort of violation of the dead meat which was, in life, the one thing the owner owned-more-than-anything-else-he-ever-owned, is more logical than not doing so.

Let me try a simpler analogy. I support the legality of gay sex. This does not mean I support *every* instance of gay sex. Do you? Does it weaken my initial point to not support same-sex rape?

Of course not, but for me, this analogy doesn't hold water. I accept it no more than I accept the arguments that any consensual adult sexual activity is the slippery slope to consent-absent paraphilias such as pedophilia and necrophilia.

Typical use of the word "sex" (as opposed to "rape") carries with it the connotation of consent. Consent (and who has the capacity for consent) features prominently in laws governing sexual acts. Typically, minors cannot consent as far as the law is concerned, neither can intoxicated adults, nor the unconscious. Nor the dead.

The only time I can see any logic in decriminalizing the act would be in the event the (continued...)

( continues...) deceased had left instructions that a particular party (or parties) could use his or her corpse, thusly. Then it's just gross, disgusting, deplorable, and hopefully a threat to public health, such that it can still be outlawed, because it's so gross.

I'm four hours away, else I'd be up in their grill tonight demanding they call someone in to give my brother his fucking medication.

Ack, Cashmere. What is wrong with people? It's to EVERYONE'S benefit if they give J his medication, even their own.

am home.

damn Cash. those people all suck. so sorry.

Cashmere, that just sounds like a nightmare. I hope the situation gets resolved soon. At least your brother has so many loved ones to look out for and advocate for him. Imagine the poor souls who don't. Not that you should have to be doing all this, but still. Fuckers.