Since the strangely explicit anti-pornography briefing "Porn Harms" hit Capitol Hill in June, commentators have been weighing in with alternate perspectives on the state of smut today. Their thoughts—from a defense of "the fuck me look" to nostalgia about a 1978 Penthouse, after the jump:

* GLAA Forum takes on the fervor over porn addiction: "why don't we explore the harm done by some people's addiction to snooping into their neighbors' entertainment choices and bossing them around?"

* A reader of Andrew Sullivan's writes: "The only thing [Gail Dines] convinced me of is that she's got shoddy methodology and her kids must spend an inordinate amount of time rolling their eyes."

* The Good Men Project surveys a couple dozen public figures for their thoughts on porn. Twitter owner Todd Dagres says: “If you have to ask whether porn is good or bad, then you already have the answer. The question is how bad?”

* Bay Windows rejects the feminist take on the "fuck me look":

Dines has more in common with Jerry Falwell than she does with Gloria Steinem. Take, for example, her views on what is termed the "Fuck Me Look" —the sultry come hither look adopted by models since models were first photographed, and which is used to sell almost anything—from cars to mouthwash— no matter how tenuous the product’s actual connection to anything sexual.

Said Dines at a Pornography and Pop Culture conference, "The problem with [the FML] is that males in our culture are socialized in a society in which they are bombarded with the 'Fuck Me’ look, where it offers visual entitlement to ownership of women’s bodies. And what is rape and sexual assault if not taking them up on that offer that she’s offering? The only trouble is that she’s not walking down the street, WE ARE."

Got that? It’s not just genital objectifying hard-core pornography that we need to worry about. It’s now sexy looks that will also bring down civilization as we know it.

* Lifechurch.tv is also leading an online crusade against smut.

* Rod Dreher thinks of the children: "I fear for them all, especially my daughter, trying to find a suitable marriage partner in a world in which so many of their peers will have grown up with widely-available pornography."

* But Time's Joel Stein [via the Good Men Project] says boys will be boys: "What is going on to create such an accelerating and insatiable appetite for porn among men in our country? You clearly have no idea how much of 1985-1989 I spent looking at the same three 1978 Penthouses."

Andrew Sullivan wants to know, once and for all, if Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is gay. He writes:

we have been told by many that she is gay ... and no one will ask directly if this is true and no one in the administration will tell us definitively. In a word, this is preposterous—a function of liberal cowardice and conservative discomfort. It should mean nothing either way. Since the issue of this tiny minority—and the right of the huge majority to determine its rights and equality—is a live issue for the court in the next generation, and since it would be bizarre to argue that a Justice's sexual orientation will not in some way affect his or her judgment of the issue, it is only logical that this question should be clarified.

To Sullivan, Kagan's sexual orientation "should mean nothing either way"—except that her sexual orientation will necessarily be instrumental in shaping a generation of civil rights law. Sullivan goes on to cite a Jeffery Toobin reader, who Sullivan says asks "the obvious question" on the nominee: Did Kagan bring a date to Toobin's wedding, and was it a woman?:

Mr. Toobin, did Ms. Kagan bring a date to your wedding? Why can't we discuss this matter? If she were married—to a man—there would not be silence. Would there be if she were married to a woman? Would she be nominated if she were?

That's right: "The obvious question" to ask of a nominee for the United States Supreme Court boils down to, essentially, who she took to the prom. I don't disagree that diversity on the court is extremely important, and that these demographic concerns can have a very real effect on how the law of the United States is interpreted. But Sullivan—and Toobin's reader—have got it backwards.

If Kagan were married to a man, there would not be any silence on the details of her family life. There would, however, be complete fucking radio silence on the idea that her heterosexuality has any effect on her judgment on an issue like same-sex marriage.

Kagan has been nominated to a court with a history of confirming overwhelmingly white, heterosexual, Protestant, male nominees—nominees whose white, heterosexual Protestant maleness has seldom been scrutinized as a contributing factor in their interpretation of the law. Of the 111 judges who have served on the Supreme Court, 108 have been white, 108 have been male, and zero have been identified as anything other than heterosexual. But somehow, race and gender only spark concern when a judge like Sonia Sotomayor is nominated; a justice's sexual orientation will only irrevocably affect American history when she just might not be straight.

Like Sullivan, I'm looking forward to a time when we can talk openly about what it might mean to appoint a lesbian judge to the U.S. Supreme Court. But more than that, I'm looking forward to a time when we can talk openly about what it means to appoint a man to the Supreme Court, or a white person, or a straight person, or a Christian. Until that day, Kagan isn't a coward for keeping her sexual orientation private. She's just expecting to be treated with the same respect afforded to the 111 Supreme Court justices who have come before her —justices whose sexual orientation was never considered a political issue.

Photo via Wikipedia Commons

First up: THE "SEXY FOOTBALL PLAYER":

Ready, set, manpris!

THE "SEXY PIRATE" COSTUME:

Arg! Manpris!

THE "SEXY COP" COSTUME:

I love how they saved all the manpris costumes to the same male model. Work it!

THE "ANOTHER SEXY COP" OUTFIT:

I can tell by the two-day stubble and suggestive shoulder straps that this cop is meant to be sexy, but he's not wearing manpris, so I'm not really buying it.

THE OBLIGATORY "SEXY RACIALLY INSENSITIVE COSTUME" [OK: "SEXY RACIST"]:

GAH. NO. (Buy one in every gender!)

THE "SEXY PENIS JOKE" COSTUME:

Equal parts gleaming muscles and dick joke, it's the ultimate male Halloween costume!

As fires raged in Southern California, protesters around the world gathered to voice their opposition to California's Prop 8.

* Flickr user Grant Gochnauer snaps this great sign from a Chicago protest (above).

* The L.A. Times details a 1992 Colorado battle against an anti-anti-discrimination amendment that suggests how the fight in California might proceed.

* Andrew Sullivan attends the Washington, D.C. Prop 8 protest. The Daily Dish has more scenes from protests around the world.

* Jezebel also collected Prop 8 protest photos from readers across the country.

* D.C. protest attendee Paula Brooks came angry and left hopeful.

* In pro-Prop 8 news: D.L. Hughley hits the radio to explain why he is "against the gay lifestyle." He was a guest on the Tom Joyner Morning Show last week.

* Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin keeps her eye on Prop 8 protests to watch for "blacklisting, harassment, and intimidation" by protesters.

* Comedian Wanda Sykes came out of the closet for Prop 8 this weekend. And I love her!

* Tiger Beatdown sounds off on homophobia in Ohio.

Submit more Prop 8 protest news in the comments.