Dec 262012
 

Don’t Watch On The Road Just For The Sex

If you’re planning to watch On the Road for the sex scenes, think again.

One of the film’s stars, Kristen Stewart, says as individual moments, the sex scenes are “fairly ridiculous.” They make sense within the context of the movie, though. Obviously. And Stewart says she doesn’t regret the scenes at all.

“Actresses love to stand up and say, after they’ve shown their t**s in a movie, that it was done tastefully and that it was, you know, far from gratuitous,” she recently told The Huffington Post. “I mean, projects that really require it are really few and far between. I think that in this case, it needed to be.”

Why, though?

“The book celebrates being alive and it celebrates being human, and if you want to cover up and deny any aspect of that, you’re denying the spirit of the book,” she said, explaining that refusing to dive into those scenes would have only been because she was afraid to disappoint her Twilight fans.

On the Road is an adaptation of Jack Kerouac’s book by the same name. Stewart plays Marylou, a girl who married Dean Moriarty (Garrett Hedlund), but has sex with both Dean and Sal Paradise (Sam Riley).

The book, published in 1957, was a defining piece of postwar Beat generation fiction. The book and movie tell a story parallel to that of the friendship between Kerouac and Neal Cassady. Marylou’s actions may seem scandalous now, but for the beat generation, the laid-back attitude toward love and sex was completely natural. The only thing that ought to be more entertaining than the movie is the soundtrack. The Beat movement was connected to and spawned from the jazz scene.

The sex scenes might cause some controversy (don’t they always?), but Kristen doesn’t mind.

“I wanted to do it,” she said after the premiere. “I love pushing, I love scaring myself.”

Hopefully, On the Road will mark the return of the Kristen Stewart from Adventureland… a far more entertaining acting effort than films from the Twilight Saga.

RSSLoading Feed...
Dec 242012
 

Kristen Stewart’s sex scenes in “On the Road” are “fairly ridiculous” to watch as isolated moments, according to the actress.

In a new interview with Indiewire, Stewart said that though those sex scenes are difficult to watch, they fit in with the film as a whole.

“To be honest, I think if you were to isolate the scenes, it’s fairly ridiculous watching yourself fake have sex,” she said. “But within the movie, watching the movie, I do get so caught up in this one. I’ve seen it three times, and that’s not typical for me. I have to complete the process, I need to watch the movie at the end of it.”

In the new adaptation of Jack Kerouac’s “On the Road,” Stewart plays Marylou, a young woman who marries Dean Moriarty (played by Garrett Hedlund), and has sex with both Dean and Sal Paradise (Sam Riley). As Stewart told HuffPost Entertainment, it was imperative to keep the nudity and sex scenes in the film.

“Actresses love to stand up and say, after they’ve shown their t*ts in a movie, that it was done tastefully and that it was, you know, far from gratuitous,” she told HuffPost Entertainment. “I mean, projects that really require it are really few and far between. And I think that in this case, it needed to be. This book celebrates being alive and it celebrates being human, and if you want to cover up and deny any aspect of that, you are denying the spirit of the book. I think that it would have been so wrong to shy away from anything in this movie. I think that I would have gotten flak for that. I think that it would have been that I was scared to disappoint my ‘Twilight’ fans or something.”

Stewart said the experience of making “On the Road” was one that she wouldn’t soon forget.

“I wanted to do it,” she said after the film’s premiere at the Cannes Film Festival in May. “I love pushing, I love scaring myself.”

RSSLoading Feed...
Aug 222012
 

MAHASTHANGARH, Bangladesh (AFP) — When Abdus Sattar built his house in Mahasthangarh village in northern Bangladesh, he used materials that once laid the foundations of one of the world’s oldest and greatest cities.

“I just shovelled into the ground, got these bricks and used them in my new house,” Sattar, 38, said. “All three rooms of the house were made of the old bricks we found here within the village boundary.”

Mahasthangarh sits on what was once the ancient city of Pundranagar, built 2,500 years ago and, at its height, a renowned seat of learning whose monasteries attracted monks from China and Tibet and trained them to spread Buddhist teachings across south and east Asia.

The oldest archaeological site in what is now Bangladesh, the ruins of the fortified city are a major tourist attraction, but experts fear there will soon be little left for visitors to see.

The stripping away of sections of the ruins by residential encroachment and the casual looting of artifacts has threatened to erase the remains of a city that stood for millennia.

In May, the Global Heritage Fund, which promotes the preservation of historic architectural treasures around the world, listed Mahasthangarh among Asia’s top 10 most endangered sites facing “irreparable loss and destruction”.

After a Bangladesh court handed down an order against illegal squatters early this year, houses like Sattar’s began to be demolished, but archaeologists say much of the damage already done is now irreversible.

“The villagers destroyed some of the ruins so badly that it’s now impossible to say what exactly was on this site,” said Shafiqul Alam, former head of the government’s archaeology bureau.

“Many of the mounds described in cartographic sources have since disappeared,” said Alam.

Despite the court order, “the destruction continues… and villagers steal antiquities and bricks from the ruins to sell them in the market,” he added.

Antiquities found at the site suggest it was founded sometime in the 4th century BC and came to prominence during the great Mauryan dynasty that held sway over much of the Indian subcontinent until 185 BC.

Its golden period stretched from the 4th to the 7th century when, as part of the Gupta and Pala kingdoms, it was one of the largest cities in the world and a major centre of Buddhist teaching and studies.

The fortified area was still in use as late as the 18th century, but its influence had waned and it was eventually abandoned and consumed by the surrounding vegetation.

The site was rediscovered in 1879 by British archaeologist Alexander Cunningham.

The current chief government archaeologist at the site, M. Sadequzzaman, said encroachment began around 50 years ago and acknowledged that the early warning signs of serious degradation were ignored.

While some 500 houses were built inside the ancient city walls themselves — mostly using excavated materials — numerous villages sprang up in adjoining areas of equally important archaeological interest.

“The houses were built before the authorities could take a serious stand on conservation,” Sadequzzaman said. “We were late to wake up. Had we tried to stop this before, we could have saved many valuable artifacts.”

Mahasthangarh’s modern-day residents, like Sattar, believe they have been unfairly treated and deny that they took over the land illegally.

“My three children were born here,” Sattar said, pointing to the bulldozed remains of his home.

“If we were illegal encroachers, why did they allow us to build the house in the first place?”

Sattar said his father purchased the plot from a farmer and argued that scavenging on the site had always been an accepted way of making a living.

“Hundreds of houses were built from these old bricks. We didn’t steal them, they are everywhere here. Everyone does it. Nobody barred us from doing it,” he said.

“Families have always picked things like beads, stones, coins that come to the surface after heavy rains. They are like endless resources, they never end,” he added.

(By Kamrul Hasan Khan)

RSSLoading Feed...
Aug 182012
 

Friday, 17 August 2012: For many women, pregnancy can be a monumentally joyous occasion. There are lots of positive things that expectant mothers can look forward to, but most would agree that morning sickness isn’t one of them. Fortunately there is a psychologist out there that may have found a cure to the ailment in sperm, specifically through ingesting sperm.

I have little doubt that someone out there right now is pondering to themselves “How can a person ingest sperm?” To put it tactfully, if you have to ask that question you’re not old enough to be reading this article.

Believe it or not, there is actually someone out there encouraging pregnant women suffering from morning sickness to perform oral sex to combat feeling sick. The hypothesis stems from the belief that women are sometimes sick during the first trimester of pregnancy because their bodies view the embryo as a foreign object that doesn’t belong in their body.

It is almost as if their bodies are having a strong negative reaction to the man’s sperm. The hypothesis (can’t stress it enough that it’s only a hypothesis) suggests that since the sperm a woman digests is the same chemical makeup as the sperm used to fertilize the mother’s egg, a woman could potentially ward off morning sickness by simply increasing her sperm intake. Yes, I did just say “increasing her sperm intake.” Try not to laugh.

The father of this theory (see what I did there?) is a man by the name of Gordon Gallup, a psychologist at SUNY-Albany. According to an article for the NY Daily News, Gallup specializes in human reproductive competition and behavior.

According to a Daily Mail article, Gallup is arguing that the more sperm a woman consumes while pregnant, the more tolerance that woman’s body will develop for the sperm in general, thus eliminating the nauseating feeling commonly referred to as morning sickness (which, by the way, does not only occur in the morning). There is somewhat of a necessary stipulation: the woman must perform the intimate act on the father of the child she is carrying, otherwise performing the act defeats the purpose. The genetic makeup of the sperm taken in orally must match that of the sperm taken in during normal sexual intercourse in order for the pregnant woman to build an immunity of sorts.

The psychologist’s reasons for urging women who are “with child” to engage in this highly personal activity are based off of research from the National Center for Biotechnology information, according to a CBS News article. That research made a correlation between oral sex and preeclampsia, a disorder that causes high blood pressure in expectant mothers and protein to be found in their urine, and states oral sex may decrease a pregnant woman’s chances of getting the condition. On the other hand, it is important to mention that Gallup’s theory, which tells soon-to-be mothers to perform fellatio on the baby’s father in order to build immunity to sperm, has never been tested.

Do you think it is a coincidence that the person behind this theory is a man? I think not, however, I’ll let you all decide.

(BY NICOLE JAMES; Courtesy: newjerseynewsroom.com

RSSLoading Feed...
Aug 182012
 

Aug 9, 2012 : The media’s coverage of scientific research into same-sex animal behaviour promotes negative stereotypes of gay and lesbians, say researchers.

Dr Andrew Barron from Macquarie University, and Dr Mark Brown from Royal Holloway University of London, present their analysis today in the journal Nature.

“People who identify with these minority groups in a human population see themselves presented for titillation, humour and not to be taken seriously,” says Barron.

He and Brown identified 11 recent scientific papers on key areas of same-sex animal behaviour research. They then searched for media coverage of these papers and chose 48 representative press reports to analyse in detail.

“Consistently any scientific report of same-sex sexual contact in any animals is reported as gay or lesbian behaviour,” says Barron. “It’s presented for titillation, often for humour, regardless of what the science actually is.”

“Gay and lesbianism is more than same-sex copulation in humans. Let’s not turn this animal behaviour into something that it isn’t,” he says. “Scientists would never call it gay.”

And Barron says in many cases the animals in the scientific study didn’t even copulate but simply showed some form of atypical male or female behaviour.

“It’s not just a simplification but a gross misrepresentation of the science and it’s having a negative effect,” he says.

Pathologising

Barron says sometimes the media portray homosexuality as something that is a result of a genetic fault and then coverage “goes from being derogatory to downright dangerous”.

He quotes a study in which female mice that had a certain gene knocked out exhibited some male typical sexual behaviour.

The Telegraph presented this as ‘Female mice can be turned lesbian by deleting gene’,” says Barron.

“If we’re saying we can induce lesbian behaviour by a mutation then we are, by extension, saying lesbian behaviour is a pathology,” he says. “That’s neither an accurate or positive message about lesbians. It perpetuates profoundly homophobic attitudes.”

Another study of neurobiological features associated with male-male sexual behaviour in domestic rams was reported in the media under the headlines “Brokeback Mutton” and “Gay sheep may help explain biology of homosexuals”.

Barron says media reports portrayed the research as being part of an effort to “cure” homosexuality in sheep, which “could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans”.

Appeal to scientists

Barron says scientists can make a difference by being careful about what they say to journalists.

“When scientists themselves … used the term ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’, ‘she-male’, ‘transvestite’ or ‘drag’ it was lept on by the popular media,” says Barron.

He contrasts this with reports on the work of researcher Lindsay Young, who studied pairs of female albatross involved in caring for their young.

While one press report referred to “Lesbian albatrosses”, most used the term “same-sex couples” and reported Young’s active denial that the findings were relevant to humans.

She was regularly quoted as saying “Lesbianism is a human term. The study is about albatross. The study is not about humans.”

Barron says Young managed to get a lot of media coverage despite not sensationalising her research.

“Research on sexual behaviour in animals does not need to be sensationalised to catch public attention,” conclude Barron and Brown.

Double bind

Science in the media expert, Dr Joan Leach of the University of Queensland, welcomes the study and agrees some of the examples of media coverage given by Barron and Brown are “outrageous”, but thinks their analysis of the problem is simplistic.

She says reports on scientific research have to prove newsworthiness in a very competitive media environment, which likely encourages sensationalism.

But beyond this, it is not just the media that is to blame for such coverage, says Leach.

She says press officers and press releases play a major role in shaping the messages about research.

And scientists themselves are pressured to think about the impacts and implications of their research when talking to journalists, says Leach.

“Scientists are in a double bind,” she says. “They have all been to media training and been told to make their work relevant … and interesting to the general public. Talking about sex is definitely a way to do that,” says Leach.

And Leach says in some fields of research – for example evolutionary psychology – scientists are actively linking human behaviour to animal behaviour.

“You read this stuff not just about gay behaviour but about female versus male behaviour and it’s irritating,” she says.

“I get really tired of evolutionary psychology explanations that my behaviour has to do with hunters and gatherers.”

(By Anna Salleh, Courtesy: ABC Science)

RSSLoading Feed...
Aug 182012
 

Aug 16, 2012 (Reuters) – A federal study on the sexual behavior of young Americans released on Thursday countered a widespread belief that oral sex was increasing and vaginal sex decreasing among teenagers due to fears of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Two in every three young Americans have engaged in oral sex, about the same percentage as those who have engaged in vaginal intercourse, the study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Center for Vital Statistics found.

It also showed that the rates of both practices among the U.S. youth have dropped since a decade ago.

The study showed that about equal numbers of young women and men aged between 15-24 have had oral sex, and that about a quarter – 26 percent of women and 24 percent of men – had first had oral sex before engaging in vaginal intercourse.

Around a quarter of youth had likewise had oral sex only after first experiencing vaginal intercourse, the study said.

The belief that oral sex was being practiced more and vaginal sex less to avoid pregnancy and STDs has gained traction in recent years.

“Now we know that’s not necessarily true,” Monica Rodriguez, president and chief executive of the nonprofit group, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, told Reuters.

“Now we have some real data,” she said after reviewing the new study based on 6,346 interviews conducted between 2007-2010.

LESS SEX

Teenage oral sex has declined slightly since 2002, as has vaginal sex, the author of the CDC study Casey Copen said. She attributed the drop to a “decreasing trend in sexual experience among teens.”

The study also revealed differences in experiences linked to race, education and income.

White youth and those from more educated, two-parent homes are more likely than others their age to engage in oral sex first, the study showed. It found that 44 percent of white youth had oral sex before vaginal sex, compared to 30 percent of black youth.

“A higher percentage of females and males who had oral sex, but not yet had vaginal intercourse, had mothers who had some college education or higher,” the study found.

Also, females who had oral sex, but had not yet had vaginal intercourse, were more likely than others their age to live with two biological parents, according to the study. (By David Beasley)

RSSLoading Feed...
Aug 182012
 

Fidelity is a tough promise to keep. So whenever a woman has dared to stray from her relationship, she’s done it for love. But now the trend is changing. Like men, even women are craving for casual sex outside.

Love, excitement, money, loneliness or revenge — there are so many ways to justify why women are unfaithful to their husbands and boyfriends. But have you wondered why sex doesn’t figure on this list? Well, that’s because we’ve been conditioned to believe that women are ’emotional’ creatures and it’s only men who cheat for sex. However, the reality seems a little different from that.

 Just a few weeks ago, Twilight star Kristen Stewart came under intense criticism, when she was captured with her Snow White And The Huntsman director Rupert Sanders, (who is 19 years her senior, and married with two children), in what the media termed a ‘marathon makeout session’ in her car one afternoon! Naturally, this came as a shocker, as the pretty actress was dating Hollywood heartthrob Robert Pattinson for the past four years. In fact, just two days after her steamy rendezvous, she was spotted with Pattinson at an award function, where she looked calm and composed, almost blase about the affair. What’s more, when her infidelity was exposed by the paparazzi, Kristen immediately issued a public apology to her boyfriend stating that it was a “momentary indiscretion” and that she’s still in love with him.

While Kristen’s infidelity came as a shock, (she and Pattinson were the perfect young celebrity couple),what was more scandalous was the fact that she acknowledged she had succumbed to the temptation and that it was a result of bad judgment. While the puritans are busy playing the blame game and have bestowed the scarlet letter on Kristen, die-hard fans are still wondering what made her cross the boundary of her stable and seemingly happy relationship, just to enjoy a few moments of physical gratification!

If you think that cheating for sex has always been a man’s prerogative, think again. It’s not only men who compartmentalise sex and emotions separately; today women too are trying to do that. Love aside, the fairer sex can also look past their stable relationships, and indulge in an affair, which promises pure lust! And you’re naive if you think only celebrities or women with an adventurous streak or lifestyle look for sexual pleasures in an affair — you could be a bored, stay-at-home mom or a busy working woman too.

So, why is this happening? Today, the gap between the two genders is diminishing, and it’s not just at the workplace. Dr Anjali Chhabria, psychiatrist says, “Women are becoming more aggressive. Traditionally, we believe that women are emotional fools, while men only think from their d*cks, but now you can’t rule out the fact that it’s possible for women to cheat for sex, as they also have desires. It’s just that these desires are subconscious and when a woman is faced with a tempting situation, she is bound to give in. Believe it or not — nowadays, sex is equally important, just like love.” It’s little wonder then, even if women are in perfectly happy relationships, they can still venture out, to quench their lust for better sex!

Sometimes, it’s the adrenaline rush random sex provides that becomes a reason to give in. Seema Hingorrany, relationship expert, comments, “Women can have random sex, and not sex just for love or materialistic reasons. They are simply doing it for the thrill it provides. They believe, if men can do it, why can’t they?” Whoever said men and women are from different planets?
By, Purvaja Sawant; Courtesy: Times of India

RSSLoading Feed...