Editorial

Exclusive! The CoN Star Wars Prediction

By Jason MacIsaac

The next Star Wars movie will not be called "The Phantom Menace."

Remember you read it here first.

Oh sure, you've read the news. But trust me, it just isn't going to happen. Here's our prediction: shortly before the release of Episode 1, the title "The Phantom Menace" will be dropped and another title will be used instead.

Why?

Ever hear that story about "Revenge of the Jedi"? The story goes something like this: George Lucas was originally going to call "Return of the Jedi" by the title "Revenge of the Jedi" until he realized that a Jedi would not take revenge.

It's a nice story, but according to official LucasFilm propaganda, not true. According to Lucas, the intention was always to call the film "Return of the Jedi," but the "Revenge" title was initially publicized in order to throw off people making bootleg merchandise.

20th Century Fox apparently misunderstood Lucas' intentions, and several "Revenge of the Jedi" t-shirts were issued before the mistake was corrected.

Have you noticed in the trailer and the posters issued by LucasFilm, the title "The Phantom Menace" does not appear? It's only referred to as "Episode One." We'll probably find out the real title a month or two before the movie is released.

And remember you read it here first on Capital of Nasty.

Issue 20
By Leandro Asnaghi-Nicastro

MOST LIKELY as a result of the size of this issue, the Editorial box will be filled with e-mails of people complaining of its size.

Before you complain, I would highly suggest you read the last article, generously submitted by R.P.T Owen, a very talented British writer.

If after you've read it, you still feel like flipping your nutsuck in our general direction, please do so. Your e-mail will of course appear in our next editorial with our own evil replies. You've been warned.

A MORE SERIOUS CoN THAN USUAL - Unlike many other issues which seem to lean on the edge of insanity or just show our potential for being completely crazy, this issue tends to touch subjects of a more serious manner.

We've received many, many e-mails from our last issue. Not one was a flame, but we received quite a few e-mails that were not too happy of our views (words like "all gays should burn in hell" and similar). Kunal Ganguly was the only person who wrote a decent and rather interesting e-mail.

Now then, homosexuality... hmm....

A rather interesting but rarely spoken about topic in my home country - India. Most Indians tend to be homophobic, but this is more due to reasons of the overall (rather conservative) social outlook that the Indian people have.

But strangely, Medieval Indian history has a rich background of homosexuality and homosexual practices. The Kamasutra, although stressing the unity of the male and female, includes chapters on male sexual techniques with other males. The temples of Khajuraho, one of the most beautiful and rich examples of ancient Indian architecture, displays in exquisite detail not only the beauty of male-with-female sexuality but also images homosexual and lesbian activity.

The scale and building process of the temple itself is enough to rival that of the Taj Mahal. The temple was cut out of a single piece of rock which was at-least a couple of kilometers across. I don't have the exact geological figures, nor do I have the figures of how many men it took to build it.

It is sad to think that a country with such a fascinating history in human sexuality treats it as such a taboo topic. Kings and warriors were actually encouraged to have sex with other males, this was mostly due to the fact that the warrior will fight even more valiantly on the battlefield to protect the person (man) he loves. Lesbian relationships were held in high regard much to the same reason it is now.

Heterosexual males find lesbian images much more stimulating than watching another male banging away at a woman.

The theory of loving another male and thus fighting more fiercely in order to protect him was also put to practice with the Spartans- the last true warrior race since the Vikings. The Spartans have an interesting history when it comes to sex. Since childhood, boys were taught not to be shy around other males and females when naked. Homosexual activity was encouraged and copulation with women was allowed only to those warriors who proved themselves on the battlefield. The warrior would only spend a brief time with a woman, the time required to create a child (one week, max). However, lesbian relationships were abhorred.

There is hardly any documentation about the Vikings, but one wonders what they did for pleasure for the months-long voyages they would spend on the sea with other males....

The homosexual history of the world is not very well documented and nor does any respectable historian/sociologist would care to trace it, unless of course they are gay themselves. If they did, they would have to bid a fond adieu to that grant and their respectability. And you can forget about seeing a documentary on Discovery on this topic!

The search for the origin of the word 'gay' and 'lesbian' is difficult to find. Homosexual and Heterosexual is easy, 'Homo' means one and 'hetero' means two or more. Attach the word sexual and the meaning becomes clear. I'm sure lesbian has a meaning in Webster's (I didn't bother to check) but I heard this interesting story for the word 'gay' although I would not vouch for its authenticity.

Most kings and queens had entertainers in their courts. Jokes, jugglers, etc etc. A certain few of them would be required to perform sexual favors on their masters. I suppose the word 'gay' got attached to them, as they were really entertainers and the literal meaning of 'gay' is to be happy or in a good mood.

Last and perhaps the most weird in this short (and poorly documented) trace of homosexuality lets have a look at our ancestors - monkeys. Open any book on monkey behavior, especially the rhesus, baboon and some African species, and you'll find that there is normally one chief monkey in the pack and guess what the other males have to do in order to show the big-chief that they are inferior to him? Allow him to bugger (butt-fuck) them of course!