I Love Fred Willard!

Fred Willard has always been one of my favorites.  I first became a fan while watching the talk show parody “Fernwood 2 Night” (which later changed its title to “America 2-Night”) on Nick at Nite with my brother.

Martin Mull, who played the host of the fictional late night talk show, was so funny, truly great, but Fred Willard was, if possible, even better.  Perfect.  He was mine and my brother’s favorite part of the already hysterical show.

Fred Willard has shown his amazing comedic talents in everything he’s been in.  He was my favorite part of “A Mighty Wind,” and I loved that entire movie and every song.  I even faithfully watched a show that no one else saw, called “Maybe It’s Me,” simply because Fred Willard played the dad.  He was, of course, hilarious in the role.

Obviously, I’m writing about Fred Willard at this time because he was recently arrested for “engaging in a lewd act” at Tiki Theatre in California.  Now, it is no surprise that people go to Tiki Theatre to watch porn and masturbate.   That is known.

So why would cops waste their valuable time arresting someone who may have been masturbating at a porn theater?  Don’t they have better things to do, real crimes to investigate?

Yes, I know that under California Penal Code 647, it is against the law to publicly engage in lewd acts.  Presumably such a law is in place to protect the larger public from being subjected to such a lewd act.  However, is a porn theater really considered a public place where lewd acts would be offensive to those in such a venue?

Anyone who is offended by someone masturbating likely would not go to a theater that shows porn.  Whether Mr. Willard did or did not “engage in a lewd act” at the theater (and given that no one else was arrested, the only lewd act that comes to mind is masturbation), is not important.  He was at a porn theater.  Who cares if he was masturbating?  Isn’t that what people do at porn theaters?  Or should do, at any rate?

Police arresting someone masturbating at a porn theater reminds me of my jobs in the sex industry, where there’s frequently the nervous undercurrent of fear of an undercover cop showing up and busting everyone.

But that should not be a fear.  Voluntary sex work, especially in the controlled indoor venues where I’ve worked, should be legalized.  No one in the public space is affected, for the sex all happens indoors.

Anyone paying to attend a sex party knows that they are likely to see sex acts performed, and most people expect to actually participate.  They may not realize that we girls are paid to have sex with the party attendees, but it doesn’t matter.  No one is harmed by what goes on at these parties.  There is no reason for me and the other girls to have to worry that we could be arrested merely for having sex for money.

Likewise, anyone should lawfully be able to freely masturbate in a porn theater. The movies shown in a porn theater would not be shown at your corner AMC theater.  And the customers at a porn theater understand that – they are paying for porn.

Somehow this country’s laws need to evolve when it comes to matters of sex.

Regardless, Fred Willard, the gifted comedian, will now likely always have this pointless and stupid arrest tied to his name, even if he is later cleared.  Truly, I’m ashamed that he was arrested for something so ridiculous, something that should not even be a crime.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “I Love Fred Willard!

  1. Hi, I’ve read some of your blog and the story of your confusion over a man drew my attention. I don’t know if you’ve ever read studies or book about “Sexual fluidity” (although you used that term in tags), which is actually scientific theory coined and defined by Lisa Diamond.
    People usually think that “fluidity of sexuality” means that orientation can change, but that’s not the case. Diamond separates orientation, by which she means sexual feelings exclusively, and sexuality as a whole, which also means romantic feelings, self-identity, etc. She does that because her longitudinal studies on a group of sexual minority women show that although most of those women over 10 years changed their labels and often ended up falling in love with someone they would never expect, their sexual feelings over those years remained in the same place.
    It has support in brain science too. Helen Fisher discovered that separated brain circuits, with different hormones and brain structures associated with them, are responsible for love and for sexual feelings. Diamond argues in her book that it wouldn’t make any sense if falling in love would be in any way gendered as sexual feelings. You fall in love always with specific person, meanwhile you could feel sexual attraction to gender in general – be turned on and fantasize about unspecified women or men, due to their sexual characteristics, as in case of women, breasts, hips, sexual organs, etc.
    Putting it simple, everyone could potentially fall in love with everyone, but sexual feelings are stable (although bisexuals, especially those who are more in the middle, could experience “phases” when they like one sex more and then vice versa, which Diamond’s studies also pointed out, nevertheless it’s always only temporary; in addition to that, some people, similar to asexuals, are normally not attracted sexually to anyone, they only feel something for people they fall in love with). I’ve also done my own “investigation” and I must say that it really seems to be true. When it comes to lesbians, you may google term “lesbian married to man”. Most of them really love their husbands, but they are not attracted to them sexually. Some of them got married simply due to family pressure and such, but really a lot of those women married men because they fell in love, and thought that they could somehow work over lack of sexual attraction. And for some time they did. Common thing is fantasizing about women during the sex and/or simply masturbation. But for majority of them at some point it was not enough. While they truly love their husbands, they want to experience relationship in which all their needs, both emotional and sexual, will be fulfilled.
    And to be honest, your story sounds similar. The way you described your feelings for Hannibal suggests it’s based on “love” exclusively, without any “lust”. You said that there was attraction, but “kissing and cuddling” by which you defined it doesn’t sound very sexual. As you said, you weren’t even close to orgasm with him and didn’t have sexual dream with him. I suppose that you can’t fantasize about him during masturbation either, it has to be a woman to do the job.
    I point those things out because I think you would like to know what’s awaiting you. If you don’t feel sexual attraction to a man even in first, most affectionate stage of romantic love, which strongly intensifies sexual feelings (when there are any), most likely you will never feel it to any man. And while this first, strongly hormonally driven stage of love could make you feel that you could live without it, ultimately at some point love goes into next stage, called “mature love” when those feelings are not as intense. Then you would be left with man you really love as a friend, but more strongly than ever want a woman’s touch. Some women at that point decide to leave their husbands. Those husbands too share their thoughts and it’s often for them worse than if they were left for another man – because their whole marriage feels like a sham. It hurts them that they lived, often for long time, with women whose needs they could never really fulfill. Other women decide to stay, but they still fantasize that their life could be different, shared with a person who would fulfill them emotionally, spiritually and sexually.
    Hope it helps. Feel free to ask me anything, I would really like to exchange thoughts with you about that subject.

    1. thank you for sharing. i agree with a lot of what you say. i will have to read more of lisa diamond’s work. however, i should point out that when i’m with robert hannibal, i feel satisfied in a way that an orgasm doesn’t give me. i think love is deeper than simple sexual satisfaction, which can trump someone’s sexual orientation, i believe.

      1. Well, it’s up to different hormones, and we have higher dose of those hormones that are connected with love feelings, and on average, lesser sex drive for most of a month than men, so I think that indeed many women muffle their real orientation. Just look at all those questions on Yahoo from women who say that they can have orgasm only when they picture in their heads that they are doing it with a woman, while having boyfriends which they really love and because of that they identify as straight. And considering current knowledge of that matter, it seems they are actually not even bi, but homosexual.

        So generally some women live like that, but I personally would prefer to live with someone who would satisfy me in both emotional and sexual sense. But we are making our own choices.

        If you’re going to read Diamond’s book, then as scrupulous nerd I have to warn you to keep in mind some of the things in it are no longer valid. It’s nothing about her theory itself, but through chapters she presented supposition that maybe women’s sexuality is “strikingly different phenomenon” than men’s sexuality, and mentioned study which seemed to support that thesis, but that study has been debunked since.

        Maybe you’ve heard about studies showing that women are generally similarly aroused genitally by every kind of porn, while men are aroused according to their orientation? The problem is, in those studies they measured in women vaginal reaction, while in men – penile erection (and clitoris, not vagina, is homologous organ to penis). Since then, scientists invented device that measures clitoral erection and as it turned out, it has nothing to do with vaginal reaction.

        Here is more about it if you’re interested:
        http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fetishes-i-dont-get/201101/sex-researchers-rethink-female-sexuality

        Since the release of the book Lisa Diamond also acknowledged that there are new studies on men showing that the term “women’s sexual fluidity” is not accurate, since it’s true for men too. For example, New Zealand’s study on youths shows that similarly as in her own study on women, majority of gay identified 16 years old boys 3 years later no longer identified as gay. But identically, while their labels are “fluid”, their internal, particularly sexual feelings, are actually quite solid.

        Nevertheless, women seem to change labels more often, but it seems to be based on a fact that most women tend to base their sexual identity not on sexual feelings first and foremost, but on emotional feelings (in addition to my first paragraph above you probably know a lot of lesbian identified women who like having sex with men – for sexual reasons – but identify as lesbians because they don’t believe that they could fall in love with a man). Men tend to do the opposite. And assuming Diamond’s theory is right – inborn orientation means sexual feelings alone – it’s no wonder women are more “fluid” then.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s