Opining Online

Apparently the FCC has defined buttocks as a part of our anatomy that is a sexual organ. Or an excretory organ. It’s unclear whether the fine is $1.4 million for each station or if that’s the total for all 52 ABC stations.

The fine stems from an NYPD episode where “multiple, close-up views” of the woman’s “nude buttocks” were depicted.

From Volokh:

The agency [FCC] said the show was indecent because “it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs , specifically an adult woman’s buttocks. The agency rejected the network’s argument that “the buttocks are not a sexual organ.”

From Tigerhawk:

This is strange, because the buttocks is not actually an organ. It is “either of the two rounded prominences on the human torso that are posterior to the hips and formed by the gluteal muscles and underlying structures.” Yes, they can be attractive, but they can also be repulsively unattractive. The same might be said — and it often is — of thighs. Are they, too, sexual organs?

This sort of hair-splitting silliness is what comes from regulating that which should not be regulated.

From my brother:

Why don’t you post a lot of  photos of buttocks and I’ll let you know my conclusions.

Science Daily reports: Mothers Trade Child Quantity for Quality.

An intriguing headline. My first though was I’d be reading about mothers dropping off all but their favorite(s) at the local adoption center.

Wrong, it’s an article about fertility rates over time. Frankly, we do not need research and science to tell us this:

The researchers also found evidence for an evolved relationship between a mother’s fertility and the fertility of her children — the more offspring a woman has, the larger her overall family will be. This means that women having fewer children will ultimately have fewer grandchildren.

 All together now, in harmony - DUH!