" /> Pop!: July 2007 Archives

« June 2007 | Main | August 2007 »

July 24, 2007

Illustrations from a sex manual published in 1942

sex manual illustration

Here are some illustrations from The Modern Sex Manual by Edward Podolsky, MD. The book, published in 1942, employs a conversational "Q&A" style to discuss the sorts of things people wanted to know back then, but were afraid to ask. For instance:

Does masturbation have anything to do with dulling sexual feeling during intercourse?

Yes. Masturbation, if it has been indulged in excessively before marriage maybe be a cause of lack of orgasm during coitus. In women, masturbation brings into play abnormal channels of nerve stimulation, and as these are not stimulated during the normal act, the woman fails to achieve and orgasm. In most cases if masturbation is dropped completely and normal sexual activity substituted for it, the normal channels of nerve stimulation will in time bring about a normal enjoyment of the act.

Well, okay, Doc, if you say a clitoris is an "abnormal channel of nerve stimulation," that's good enough for me. Hands off, ladies!

Of the seven illustrations I've scanned in, the most elaborate is this detailed infographic that shows how to use the rhythm method, which is shaded to show how clean and fertile you are according to "Jewish or Mosaic code" and the "Ogino-Knaus" rules for intercouse.

Other illustrations show everything from how blowing some oxygen through a woman's fallopian tubes can clear up sterility issues, and how a bifurcated penis might interfere with "successful intercourse."

sex manual illustration sex manual illustration

sex manual illustration sex manual illustration

sex manual illustration sex manual illustration

sex manual illustration

My copy of this book has been in the family for generations (and it's served us well), but if you'd like to pick up a later edition for yourself, you can find it at biblio.com, or you can settle for this PDF of the above images.

July 19, 2007

Why is MediaBistro advising people to use Wikipedia for public relations?

I was reading a post on TV Newser today when I noticed a peculiar advertisement:

media bistro ad

It advertises MediaBistro's $15 video "course" on how to use Wikipedia to raise your media profile. The preview video raises the specter of the Seigenthaler controversy, and offers to "explain what Wikipedia is, how it works, and how people and businesses can increase and influence an identity on it" [emph added] and describes three "rewards of being on Wikipedia":

  • Lends credibility
  • Maintains public awareness
  • Put forth clear and factual information

Setting aside the debatable parts of points 1 and 3, let's continue. The course synopsis says:

It's only a matter of time before you or your business finds its way onto Wikipedia's pages. But what approach should you take toward creating or developing these pages? Are you allowed to influence your own Wikipedia presence?

Well, that's a great question. The point of the video seems to be that you can influence your own Wikipedia presence. Although the preview is to brief to identify the precise methods endorsed, the instructor says, in regards to the Seigenthaler controversy, "with a little bit of foresight and effort, this does not have to happen to you."

The instructor in the video is identified as Manoush Zomorodi, a voice-over talent, former reporter for the BBC, and media consultant for Hardy Robin Media, which claims to be "a consultancy that specializes in media training and new media strategy."

I think if Hardy Robin Media were such an expert on Wikipedia and new media strategy, they would know that manipulating Wikipedia for purposes of public relations is widely considered unethical and is strongly discouraged, and that those who have been caught editing their own entries (including Microsoft, David Pogue (allegedly), Adam Curry, and even Jimbo Wales himself) have paid a price for getting caught with their hand in that particular cookie jar.

MediaBistro should also know better than to offer courses that skirt ethical guidelines like this one does. It undermines its own credibility.

July 15, 2007

The Enemy

Next time you are wondering how terrorists rationalize the killing of innocent civilians, have a look at this quote from a Marine who is a witness at a murder trial for a fellow soldier who shot an unarmed, 52-year-old Iraqi at point-blank range:

"I don't see it as an execution, sir," he told the judge. "I see it as killing the enemy."

He said Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the insurgency. [source]