If you haven’t heard, Sade has a new album coming out! Here’s the first single. Thoughts?

Maybe he got the idea from the movie Role Models: Tiger Woods and Ambien sex. The first mistress, Rachel Uchitel, gives her side of the story.

In response to the controversy around people having sex in public, San Francisco officials have suggested “sex tents.”

In HIV news….Unfair: protests against ban on gay men’s blood donations. Horrifying: HIV positive man injects wife with his infected blood as she sleeps so she won’t leave him. Hope: Is mass circumcision a good idea? Uplifting: help raise funds for a camp for kids with HIV with one click.

International news….“Six Meter Long Schlong” becomes center of political battle in Germany. Chinese government opens gay bar.

One woman’s fascinating tale about what having a baby can do to your sex life. What depression can do to your sex life. And things learned after 4 year of unintentional celibacy.

More insights into asexuality, the 4^th orientation.

The latest hypocritical Republican: calls gay sex “deviate” but chokes and beats his girlfriend mid-coitus.
Rachel Maddow owns a guest who claims he can treat homosexuality.

Can they do that? Rights group renames the female hymen.

In media….Douchebags are reaching maximum saturation. The realities of teens and sexting

10 reasons to use condoms you may not have heard of yet!

Questions? Comments? Violent Reactions? Email Timaree at sexwithtimaree@gmail.com See more at SexwithTimaree.com

Today, President Obama will land in Norway, where he will officially accept the Nobel Peace Prize. Now that the President has committed 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, my mild annoyance and amusement about the Norwegian gag gift has sprouted into full-fledged outrage. How can a president who is not only managing but escalating unnecessary wars receive an award as an agent of peace? Even more absurd is the reaction from the Left, which has failed to call Obama on the carpet for the very policies and practices for which we lambasted President Bush.

Like George W. Bush, Barack Obama’s Afghanistan policy is rooted in a belief that military escalation and indefinite occupation are the keys to global security and the expansion of democracy. Like Bush, Obama has refused to substantively invest in Afghani jobs, housing, and education, all of which are traditional keys to an effective counter-insurgency strategy. Like Bush, Obama has dipped into the reservoir of fear, scaring Americans into thinking that military aggression, even the pre-emptive sort, is the only thing that will keep Americans safe. Yet somehow, despite these and other eerie similarities to President Bush, the anti-war Left has sat on its hands while President Obama operates.

Even more disturbing than Obama’s warmongering is the blatant calculation behind it. Unlike Bush, whose wrongheadedness was at least borne out of a coherent (though perverted) set of principles, Obama appears willing to act out of pure political expediency. After getting public pressure from his generals and bloodthirsty Republicans for his “dithering” (a Bushian term used to mock the President’s audacious use of facts, evidence, and wise council) Obama finally caved to his rivals and sent troops. Then, in order to satisfy the anxious anti-war left, Obama promises a withdrawal date. Sound good? Sure, except for one catch: He never promised a completion of the withdrawal, which hinges upon the ability of a severely compromised Karzai government and woefully underprepared Afghani troops to take over the military reigns. In short, Obama, like Bush, has American troops and innocent Afghani citizens in harms way without a clear or reasonable exit strategy.

In fairness, Obama has never lied about his desire to go into Afghanistan. Despite what many Obamaphiles want to believe, the President was not “anti-war”, but rather “anti-Iraq war.” Now that Obama has fulfilled his hawkish promise, the ball is in our court. Were we against President Bush or were we against his policies? Were we against the war in Iraq or all unnecessary wars? When we elected Obama, were we looking for a new driver or a new direction? Based on what I’ve seen so far, the answer isn’t pretty.

Perusing an article about how Tiger Woods’ little Whoopsie Daisy moment(s) and how his affairs are distancing him even further and further from Black people, I couldn’t help but be struck by the weirdness. The man, after all, is mostly Asian.  But when it comes to a minority group, one that must make identity a major issue in order to survive, you take heroes where you can.

Another minority group that comes to mind is, as always, the gays. LGB folks have to march up and down the place demanding to get the right to enter the sacred union Tiger so blithely tossed aside. And while it was probably his fame, athletic prowess and billionaire status, rather than his heterosexuality, that granted him the sense of grandiose entitlement one must feel to have not one, not two, but a whole harem of mistresses (10 at this writing), it’s another slap in the face of loving, committed couples who just fucking want to file their goddamn taxes together.

Then there’s the allegations made by some of his side gigs that he was only in the marriage for the façade, along with the latest leaks about his attempts to buy some more time with Elin. It appears the guy never really wanted to be married in the first place: it was the thing he had to so he could pursue the career he wanted and get everyone off his back.

Because that’s what marriage is, both historically and to this day: an economic contract, a financial agreement between parties to secure a better position for both individuals and their respective tribes.

A friend of mine related a story from a documentary he had seen. He said the members of an indigenous tribe was taken to New York City (for some reason or another) and at one point was asked about marriage between same-sex individuals in their culture. They quickly replied that this would never happen, as marriage was for babies.

The openly gay New Yorkers assembled in the conversation were a little nonplussed: disheartened by this apparent prejudice but wanting to be good hosts. A tribesman noticed the reaction and quickly clarified the tribe did not, however, put rules on love.

And if two people wanted to be together and they were the same sex, that was totally fine.

And this is because the tribe understood the clear differentiation between marriage as a contractual arrangement and marriage as a union of souls in love. One is the concern of the governing body of a tribe (or a country) and one is a matter between two people.

What opponents of same-sex marriage fail to recognize is that their battle is hardly different from starting a legislative referendum to mandate that First Communion must be in 2^nd grade.

What Americans are becoming increasingly aware of is the damage done to marriage by greed, selfishness and entitlement. It’s philandering, abuse and neglect that tarnish the beauty of a union of lovers, not both people having outies or innies.

At  the very least, if Tiger Woods and his drama are in any way our business to discuss and we can draw any peace from this, he isn’t one of those hypocritical conservative jackasses against gay marriage. Golf fans, take note.

Questions? Comments? Violent reactions? Email sexwithtimaree@gmail.com. See more at http://sexwithtimaree.com

Today’s video of the day comes from the O’Reilly Factor, where I discussed Obama, health care reform, and the immigration crisis.