"Concerned Women" want XXX domain BANNED from the internets

[Bluebear]

Wouldn't it be easier to keep porno sites at "XXX" and one could block access to .xxx sites? :shrug:

====

WASHINGTON, June 6 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Concerned Women for America (CWA) says the plan by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to create a XXX domain for Internet porn sites is an idea that should be canned because it creates more problems than it can possibly solve.

"This idea has been kicked around for several years and the only possible winners are in the porn industry," said Jan LaRue, CWA's chief counsel. "Because it's voluntary, the porn site operators have the best of both worlds. They can double their pleasure, double their fun by locating on this domain and remain on any of the other domains on which they're registered.

"The only restriction on XXX domain participants is for any sexually explicit content to feature only adults, but there's no requirement to block access to kids. It legitimizes pornography and makes it even easier for kids to find it. It won't make software filters any more effective," LaRue added. "People who equate this with zoning brick-and-mortar sexually oriented businesses are clueless about cyberspace and how it operates.

"Most of the porn sites offer hard-core porn that is prosecutable under federal law. Giving them a XXX domain makes as little sense as giving illicit drug cartels a domain," LaRue concluded.

http://www.earnedmedia.org/cwfa0606.htm

[sasquatch]

1. Fuck those fascist, sheeplike, ding bats

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

2. Problems?

You mean these repressed women might be tempted to take a peek?

[FreedomAngel82]

42. All these people think about is sex!!

Oh good grief. :crazy: I think they either need to get a new hobby or get laid seriously. Why don't you ever hear them talking about the enviornment? Education? Public parks or something? It's always something with sex. It bogles my mind. Oh and that picture of that girl in the original post really scares me.

[underpants]

3. CWA's husbands neverously look at each other

pssst can't you keep her quiet?

I....(looks around) I'm trying to...... (breaks off eye contact) .....(signals the first guy to call him)

[corbett]

31. Hilarious!

If those wackos had any idea just how pervasive Internet porn is, they'd support this idea. It's actually more difficult to avoid online porn than to find it!

[Walt Starr]

4. It hink the real answer is for parents to take responsibility

for monitoring their children's activities on the internet.

But then again, I'm a fascist if you ask some DUers.

:shrug:

[supernova]

14. And the easiest way

do that is to have the computer in the kitchen or the family room where you can watch what what Web sites your child is visiting.

I don't have a problem with this at all.

My 3 yo niece has a computer in her room, but it's not online. She can only play her games and programs on that box, which is fine.

[Walt Starr]

17. I don't have kids, but I won't need the box to be where I can see it

All activity will be logged.

[supernova]

20. See I would rather surf with them, so to speak

and engage them about what material is meaningful and what is not (and not necessarily only what would be "age appropriate"). I'm a firm believer in getting into the hard stuff if parents are around to talk about it.

If I simply logged what they did, I'd have to smack them later, and I'd rather say outright why I thought a Website was inappropriate and/or not useful.

Besides the porn, there's just a lot of useless crap out there too. This is the perfect opportunity to teach discernment about what constitutes solid, meaningful information, and what is just dreck that might look pretty.

[Walt Starr]

23. Depends on the age

While young, I agree with you. When they are teenagers, I'd rather let them surf alone and log it all. Then I can have the loggin box simply message me when some key events or site surfs happen.

[Warpy]

28. Why not just teach them about porn?

It exists because there's a market for it, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what real life is like, just like cartoons.

Porn is only a real problem for teenagers when they expect real women to act like that and are disappointed (and violent) when they don't.

[FreedomAngel82]

43. Exactly

At my church a couple years ago the preacher talked about the internet and porn and all that and gave some really nice tips for parents who do worry about that stuff. Basically to keep the computer in a room with other people around (like a family living room or den) and then there are a lot of interent providers who have ad blockers and parential guidance on there (I know AOL does for sure). It's all about personal responsibility. Same thing with the television, music and movies.

[paineinthearse]

5. Isn't CWA Schaffley's group?

http://www.cwfa.org/coreissues.asp

Our Core Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerned Women for America confronts many issues facing American citizens. We divide these into six different categories and have accordingly divided our web content here for you.


Definition of the Family
CWA believes the traditional family consists of one man and one woman joined in marriage, along with any children they may have. We seek to protect traditional values that support the Biblical design of the family.

Sanctity of Human Life
CWA supports the protection of all life from conception until natural death. This includes the consequences resulting from abortion.

Education
CWA seeks to reform public education by returning authority to parents.

Pornography
CWA endeavors to fight all pornography and obscenity.

Religious Liberty
CWA supports the God-given rights of individuals in the United States and other nations to pray and worship without fear of discrimination or persecution.

National Sovereignty
CWA believes that neither the United Nations nor any other international organization should have authority over the United States in any area, including economics, social policy, military, and land ownership.

Miscellaneous
CWA also deals with a variety of other issues that don't comfortably fit into a category, yet are important to address.

[jonnyblitz]

10. nope. Beverly La Haye is. her husband writes "left behind" series

they have been around for awhile. If you read an histories of the rise of the wacko/fundie right in the 70's etc. you will see her and her husband Tim's name featured often.

[Bridget Burke]

57. Bev & Tim met at Bob Jones University

And they're big in the Dominionist movement.

She founded Concerned Women to fight the Equal Rights Amendment. The site continues as a good source of stories you'll soon be seeing in many places. Remember "We can't say Merry Christmas anymore"? Concerned Women were some who started that ball rolling.

Beverly does resemble Phyllis Schlafly in one way--they have both built careers out of traveling the country, telling other women to stay at home with the kiddies. Even after the kiddies are grown.

[Caution]

6. How freakin clueless are these morans?

Seriously. The whole point to the .xxx domain is so that parents can simply block access to the entire domain. This move should be considered a HUGE win for them, rather than as it is now when site like http://www.whitehouse.org used to be a porn site. Nothing but stupidity going on here.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

60. it was whitehouse.com that was the porn site...

as my red-faced boss discovered one day. :rofl: Whitehouse.org has always been the fine voice of the government that it remains to this day.

[DrDebug]

7. Actually it's a good idea

At least then you know that a site is a porn site and if you don't want the kids to see it, then added the line xxx 127.0.0.1 in your hostfile and your done.

Stupid Christian woman. I guess they want to see porn :rofl:

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

8. CWA is the acronym for Communication Workers of America

Maybe they should sue these dingbats like the World Wildlife Federation sued the pro wrestling group.

[fob]

9. LET THE MARKET DO IT'S JOB! Damn people just can't get on the

correct side of capitalism.

I just re-read that last line from the snippet provided, and I found some common area for agreement! Let's get a .pot extension going too.

[dweller]

11. jeesh...

i guess they're showing breastfeeding pics there, right?

dp

[Coexist]

12. and I am sure these repressed idiots will be gleefully monitoring

for the XXX content.

[Mad_Dem_X]

59. Yep - they'll be on there night and day

"for the sake of the children," of course. :eyes:

[realisticphish]

13. my god!

they're right! cause porn is so hard to find on the internet!

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Because clearly there is no greater threat than pictures of nekkid boobies

clearly.

[noamnety]

16. Are these the same folks

That want to ban the existence of nipples?

It's so hard to keep them all straight.

[Merope215]

30. "It's so hard to keep them all straight"

So to speak. I think lots of their problems stem from trying to keep themselves straight.

[BR_Parkway]

18. When I googled "Christian Wire Service" - I got the most interesting

description:

#
Christian News Wire

National news release wire service distributing up-to-the-minute news issued directly from The White House, government agencies, Congressional offices, NGOs, non-profit interest groups, associations and other news sources to media and online ... Christian. Communication ... Copyright © 1999-2005 Christian Communication Network. All Rights Reserved ...
www.earnedmedia.org/cws.htm - More from this site - Save - Block

[earthboundmisfit]

24. Hmmm well is there a Buddhist News Wire or Muslim News Wire that rates

" new issued directly from the White House,government agencies, Congressional offices..."? Answer: Hell, no.

[FreedomAngel82]

44. Good find!

That is interesting. Now who from the White House??

[undeterred]

19. Does that include lesbian porn?

I'm just askin'.

[Walt Starr]

21. They are probably more against lesbian porn than any other form of porn

since both homosexual women AND heterosexual men look at lesbian porn.

I'm just sayin'.

[Bluebear]

22. Lesbian porn is God's gift to heterosexual men.

Lesbians exist *only* for the fantasy that a man can have two women entertain him, not one. Bubba 2:11-14

[plcdude]

62. I hope not

that is some of the best stuff on the internet

[okieinpain]

25. man that picture freaks me out. you should take it down immediately

GOSH....

[Kipling]

26. Groan...

It takes a very odd sort of person to look around the world at the war, the starvation, the death, the suffering, the disease, the ignorance, and the poverty, sit there for a while, scratch their heads and then turn round and explain that the real problem is dirty pictures.

[Senior citizen]

35. Very odd sort of person checking in!

See, I put most wars, starvation, suffering, disease, poverty, etc., down to overpopulation. Overpopulation is a problem that ecologically nonviable species like our own have because they are incapable of controlling their population growth in accordance with available resources, the way viable species do.

In our species, I believe the reason we are nonviable is due to patriarchy because it subjugates women so that most females are not able to exercise control over whether or not to have kids, and don't have access to the relevant information on which to make such decisions anyway. The more educated and egalitarian the society, the less overpopulation.

Since, in my opinion, pornography or dirty pictures (as opposed to erotica) encourages male to objectify and subjugate females, I really do see it as exacerbating the real problems of the world.

[blogslut]

36. Who gets to decide

what is porn and what is erotica?

[Senior citizen]

37. Me, of course.

If you can let young men see it without having to worry that they might get unrealistic expectations with regard to sex and females that could leave to violence, it is erotica. Otherwise it's porn.

[mongo]

38. uh huh....

If you can let young men see it without having to worry that they might get unrealistic expectations with regard to sex and females that could leave to violence, it is erotica. Otherwise it's porn.

Because young men never learned the difference between FANTASY and REALITY?

Why is it, that in any other context, an idea like this would be ridiculous? We don't expect that people will go on a killing spree after watching A Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but if an 18yo sees some demeaning porn, the first thing they will do is go out and emulate it.

[FreedomAngel82]

46. I don't get it either

:shrug: They can buy violent war video games but they're not allowed to see sex? What about R rated movies? Are they going to try to ban sexual scenes in those? Some R movies reveal more then others.... :shrug: And what about romantic r&b songs like from Boys II Men where they talk about making love with women? These people have no life.

[noiretextatique]

61. actually it's not ridiculous

and some people don't ever learn the difference between fantasy and reality. some people do get ideas from what they watch, and some people do act on those ideas. i don't think that is true just of pornography. i agree with some others about teaching kids what pornography, rather than pretending it doesn't exist, or that it has no effect on people...good or bad.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. porn leads to violence like pot leads to heroin.

actually, even less so- at least pot and heroin are both drugs (as are alcohol and asprin). Violence is to mainstream porn as golf is to airports. Unless you consider the act of sex to be a violent one, you don't see violence, implied or otherwise, in most mainstream porn. Certainly nothing like you would get in mainstream NON XXX films.

The old Ed Meese "porn causes violence" saw is completely bogus, has never been seriously presented by anyone without a censorship agenda, and is not borne out by any rational analysis of the facts. The idea that looking at pictures of people having sex, and getting off on it, somehow makes people violent is utterly, totally absurd. If anything, I think it is sexual repression that leads to violence, particularly in young men.

Yes, people should treat other people with dignity, but -as far as I'm concerned- trying to pass laws against the way other people get their jollies because you happen to not like it is NOT treating other people with dignity.

I worked for many years helping run a small chain of indie video stores, and believe me, I dealt with my fair share of smut- and smut customers. Men, women, couples.. all kinds of people happen to enjoy visual erotica-- or pornography, whatever name you want to hang on it. You can float all the justifications you want to argue that consenting adults shouldn't be able to look at pictures of other consenting adults having sex, but in my mind it all boils down to one word: censorship.

[jayctravis]

45. Make it simple:

Pornography is imagery of genitalia in "action".

Imagery of naked adult humans is erotic. If the imagery depicts explicitly the manipulation of genitalia, it's pornographic.

Not that anything is wrong with that.

Breasts are not considered genitalia for purposes of the definition. Someone can make a movie about breast-feeding and have it win an Oscar.

[eridani]

67. That's easy. If I like it, it's erotica.

If you like it, it's porn.

[GiovanniC]

51. Maybe If More Men Masturbated to Naked Pictures on the .XXX Domain

That would help alleviate some of that overcrowding that is the root of all other ills you speak of.

[HockeyMom]

27. Concern Women for America = Wives of the Promise Keepers

[Roland99]

29. "US coalition of conservative women which promotes Biblical values"

Like they didn't have hot monkey sex in the days of Jesus.

[FreedomAngel82]

47. Nah

All the babies were born of a virgin mother.

[Fleshdancer]

32. A separate domain doesn't legitimize porn....

the fact that it's a multi-billion dollar industry is what legitimizes it. Capitalism doesn't give a shit about morality. I'll be one of the first women to agree that pornography certainly has its problems and I would probably get pretty damn offended by some of the crap that's on the net, but attempting to make it go away is a waste of time and effort. If you can't stop it, you might think about attempting to regulate it.

[blogslut]

33. Dirthy, filthy internet pornographer

I happen to be one.

My industry is not thrilled with the xxx TLD. Sure, it's voluntary now but who is to say in six months or a year, legislators like Sam Brownback won't introduce a bill that forces adult sites into the xxx TLD?

Then we all have a problem. Who will decide which sites belong in xxx? What about message boards where people discuss sexual matters? Will these have to go to the xxx ghetto? Will sexual information sites like scarleteen.com or sexuality.org be forced to give up their dot coms?

You want to protect your children, using the real self-censorship of the adult Internet? Visit www.icra.org, home of the Internet Content Ratings Association.

Incidentally, the lucky registrar that get's the job to shell out top-level domains will be charging upwards of 60.00 per xxx. 60.00 compared to 8.95, the cost to register a cot com.

Nevertheless, Concerned Women for America are just making shit up in their statements:

"This idea has been kicked around for several years and the only possible winners are in the porn industry," = bullshit

"Most of the porn sites offer hard-core porn that is prosecutable under federal law." = more bullshit

[mongo]

40. prosecutable under federal law." = more bullshit

Sorry, but under federal law, you CAN be prosecuted for any hardcore material. Even the prettiest, vanilla porn can be prosecuted on the federal level the way the laws are written.

That is not to say they would go after it or be able to get a conviction. They are pretty much going after the most extreme examples (violence and scat) at the moment.

Otherwise, your post is dead on right.

[FreedomAngel82]

48. A question from me

Don't most porn sites have a warning before entering and you have to be eighteen or older and if you enter at your own risk (whether eighteen or younger) it's your own problem? If they don't put a warning I think that's something different.

[mongo]

49. It is a lot more complicated than that

Yes, they have to have the 18yo warning to avoid being prosecuted under disseminating matter harmful to juveniles laws.

They also have to have a USC 2257 compliance statement saying that all models are over 18 and records are kept and where to find the records.

But as far as obscenity goes, the definition isn't clearly spelled out. Miller vs California fixed the definition of obscenity as:


1. Whether the average person would find that the work, taken as a whole and applying contemporary community standards, appeals to the prurient interest;

2. Whether the work depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, when applying contemporary community standards; and

3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Regardless of the prevalence of sexually explicit images in society, in the media, and on the Internet, the Miller test remains the standard by which depictions of sexual conduct are judged.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/obscenity.html

So, if you believe you can get a jury of 12 to convict on the matter in question, any explicit material can be prosecuted. It's why most companies won't mail adult tapes to Utah.

As far as the federal law goes, here's the most applicable:

§ 1466. Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter

Release date: 2004-08-06

(a) Whoever is engaged in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter, who knowingly receives or possesses with intent to distribute any obscene book, magazine, picture, paper, film, videotape, or phonograph or other audio recording, which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or by a fine under this title, or both.
(b) As used in this section, the term “engaged in the business” means that the person who sells or transfers or offers to sell or transfer obscene matter devotes time, attention, or labor to such activities, as a regular course of trade or business, with the objective of earning a profit, although it is not necessary that the person make a profit or that the selling or transferring or offering to sell or transfer such material be the person’s sole or principal business or source of income. The offering for sale of or to transfer, at one time, two or more copies of any obscene publication, or two or more of any obscene article, or a combined total of five or more such publications and articles, shall create a rebuttable presumption that the person so offering them is “engaged in the business” as defined in this subsection.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001466----000-.html

And if you go back to chapter 71 from that page you can find a whole body of laws 1460 - 1470 on how it's illegal regardless of how it's transmitted, etc., and how they can seize your assets under RICO if you are found guilty of obscenity.

The laws in Ohio spell it out much more clearly - the Ohio law is typical of the obscenity laws in 40 states:

Definition of obscenity:

(F) When considered as a whole, and judged with reference to ordinary adults or, if it is designed for sexual deviates or other specially susceptible group, judged with reference to that group, any material or performance is "obscene" if any of the following apply:

(1) Its dominant appeal is to prurient interest;

(2) Its dominant tendency is to arouse lust by displaying or depicting sexual activity, masturbation, sexual excitement, or nudity in a way that tends to represent human beings as mere objects of sexual appetite;

(3) Its dominant tendency is to arouse lust by displaying or depicting bestiality or extreme or bizarre violence, cruelty, or brutality;

(4) Its dominant tendency is to appeal to scatological interest by displaying or depicting human bodily functions of elimination in a way that inspires disgust or revulsion in persons with ordinary sensibilities, without serving any genuine scientific, educational, sociological, moral, or artistic purpose;

(5) It contains a series of displays or descriptions of sexual activity, masturbation, sexual excitement, nudity, bestiality, extreme or bizarre violence, cruelty, or brutality, or human bodily functions of elimination, the cumulative effect of which is a dominant tendency to appeal to prurient or scatological interest, when the appeal to such an interest is primarily for its own sake or for commercial exploitation, rather than primarily for a genuine scientific, educational, sociological, moral, or artistic purpose.

http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=PORC

So, under Ohio law, even Playboy can be deemed Obscene - if they thought they could get a jury to convict.

And here's the obscenity law itself:

§ 2907.32. Pandering obscenity.

(A) No person, with knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved, shall do any of the following:

(1) Create, reproduce, or publish any obscene material, when the offender knows that the material is to be used for commercial exploitation or will be publicly disseminated or displayed, or when the offender is reckless in that regard;

(2) Promote or advertise for sale, delivery, or dissemination; sell, deliver, publicly disseminate, publicly display, exhibit, present, rent, or provide; or offer or agree to sell, deliver, publicly disseminate, publicly display, exhibit, present, rent, or provide, any obscene material;

(3) Create, direct, or produce an obscene performance, when the offender knows that it is to be used for commercial exploitation or will be publicly presented, or when the offender is reckless in that regard;

(4) Advertise or promote an obscene performance for presentation, or present or participate in presenting an obscene performance, when the performance is presented publicly, or when admission is charged;

(5) Buy, procure, possess, or control any obscene material with purpose to violate division (A)(2) or (4) of this section.

(B) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under this section, that the material or performance involved was disseminated or presented for a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, religious, governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose, by or to a physician, psychologist, sociologist, scientist, teacher, person pursuing bona fide studies or research, librarian, clergyman, prosecutor, judge, or other person having a proper interest in the material or performance.

(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of pandering obscenity, a felony of the fifth degree. If the offender previously has been convicted of a violation of this section or of section 2907.31 of the Revised Code, then pandering obscenity is a felony of the fourth degree.

A fourth degree felony can get you up to a year in jail in Ohio.

I live in a quasi-legal status, where they can't stop me from selling any tape - that would be prior restraint of free speech, but any tape I sell is chargeable under the law, and I have to pay to be defended in a trial, etc., but the tape is not actually obscene until a jury finds it to be.

In most jurisdictions, it is not worth it to the prosecutors to charge stores like mine. They have to hire "expert" witness, have little experience in these cases (except in Cincinnati), the trial can cost a county 10 grand - and it would be a crapshoot either way to get a conviction. It also makes the authorities look like moralistic asses and in most places won't help their reelection.

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you.

[Up2Late]

34. WTF? That's it? I clicked on the link and there was nothing else...

...there. These idiots don't even write a Press Release in complete thoughts. God, these people suck.

Maybe I was just expecting an opposite point of view to be included, to flesh out the article.

Silly me. aRrrhhh Must eat Brains!

[imax2268]

39. Hey CWA...

If you don't like it...don't look at it.
If you don't want your kids to see it...Sit your fat ass down with them in front of the computer and make sure that they don't look at it.
Get yourself some protection software...that you can download...FOR FREE...and install it on your dam pc.

Quit trying to ruin things for everyone else for your twisted views.

[jayctravis]

41. It's a good step.

It actually would allow for a rule that any site with pornographic material (not nudity, mind you, but people actually doing the nasty) have this extension.

Many websites are legitimate business that *want* to keep children out. I know not all of them are, but this would be the responsibility of the domain hosts to patrol.

[GiovanniC]

50. As a Parent and a Computer Professional

I happen to know that it takes about two seconds to block "*.xxx" from the sites my children are able to access and it takes about ten seconds for them to find ANYTHING on the net if they are motivated enough. An .xxx domain makes things marginally easier for parents, not harder, but it's not a panacea and it never claimed to be.

[WLKjr]

52. They should make a .xxx domain

www.Iwantsex.xxx

makes sense. straight to the point. easy to block if not wanted.


:shrug:



I mean hell, they have .biz, .tv, .gov, .edu, etc etc etc



why not .xxx

[Bluebear]

53. Well, they are actually

That's what the Concerned Women are protesting.

[WLKjr]

56. well damn, I missed that

well it would make it simpler to block, damn people I wish they would look at it from a computer geek's eyes
lol

[Skip Intro]

54. How 'bout a .FHW extensoin for Freedom Hating Wackos? n/t

[aeolian]

55. CWA should either

make a hardcore lesbian christian porn site or get the fuck off the internet!

God!

These are the same shrieking harpies who brought us prohibition.





Side note: you know she likes it...

[aeolian]

58. How 'bout introducing a .jesus domain

at the same time as the .xxx domain?

That way, they can avoid seeing sinful fornicators, and I can avoid their crap for the rest of my internet life!


(but then, who owns jesus.xxx?)

[leesa]

63. Why don't these idiots teach their children about healthy sex

and self-image and then they don't need to worry about such things. Control Freaks.

[ikri]

64. OK, this is just messed up

For years the idea of a new .xxx top-level domain has been kicked around.

The people who have generally been for this have been registrars who would make a mint from the new domain registrations.

The porn industry has been largely AGAINST the idea of a .xxx domain for a number of reasons. It would make filtering and blocking content very easy, you wouldn't need to do much to simply block access to .xxx domains. Companies in the industry have also reasoned that they would be forced to move to the new .xxx domains, the person who registers sex.xxx first will have one of the highest-value domains on the Internet . If a .com or .net company can't get their desired .xxx domain lawsuits will fly for years.

Now to have conservative groups coming out against the thing that they've always been in favor of, attempting to make adult (or simple sex-ed sites) web sites into some bizarre Internet red light district, its just plain WRONG.

:wtf:

[NMMNG]

66. Let's ban glazed-eyed sheeples like the ones in your picture

That will end the problem right there.

Seriously though, I don't endorse censorship in any form. Even idiots like the "Concerned Idiots...err, Women" have a right to their wrong opinions.

It is the province of parents to monitor what their spawn are reading, watching, listening to, playing on the X-box and surfing on the Internet. If parents are lazy and want to use their electronic devices as babysitters, they should not expect the government to pick up the slack, thereby depriving responsible adults of their education and enjoyment.

[Sabriel]

68. Well, I'm a "Concerned Woman," too

I'm concerned that should I ever want to look at internet porn, I won't be able to, because some meddling do-gooder has fucked it up for me. Butt out, ladies!