Whose afraid of the big bad wolf? Not I. Why you ask? Because he has officially joined the list of murders, hitman, and psychopaths that I’ve fallen in love with. First there was the Phantom from Phantom of the Opera. Then there was Anakin Skywalker (before he loses all the parts that are necessary for my sort of love to go on). Slevin from Lucky Number Slevin. I know I’m missing some, but regardless, I now feel strong, undying love for Bigby Wolf, a.k.a. the Big Bad Wolf of yore.
I’ve been reading a graphic novel series known as Fables. I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good story—it reimagines the world(s) of fairy tales and the characters in them. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant, and the best part is, it’s intensely detective noir. Bigby Wolf is the underdog sheriff of Fabletown with the hots (unacknowledged of course) for Snow White and the perpetual hate of most of the community. Him having been said wolf prior to the founding of Fabletown he did try to eat a number of the inhabitants. I won’t ruin it for you wasting time explaining how the story unfolds, but needless to say, the big bad wolf is hot.
And all of these musings have led me to conclude that I obviously need to marry a werewolf. I mean, doesn’t every girl want a husband that growls at her on occasion? Just a little bit? No? Well, maybe it’s just me. I’m so not into bestiality, but my werewolf obsession (combined with my somewhat sketchy attraction to the devil in Legend) does make a person wonder sometimes…I think it’s the animalistic thing. Hot, wild, unfettered sex—and if said hot, wild, unfettered sex happens with a werewolf detective then you know it’s going to be good. After all, it’s his job to solve the mystery and you just became the mystery. I think I could stand to be solved.
But aside from the hot, wild, unfettered sex the truth of the situation is that Bigby Wolf, the Phantom, Anakin Skywalker, even Slevin…they all just love so much. Yeah I know, it’s a let down for me to go all sappy here at the end, but hear me out. They are everything a girl could want (minus the mass murdering thing, but nobody’s perfect). It’s never just about sex with them, but they are completely not bothered by the Madonna/Whore complex. They love you just like you are and they love you so much! Sometimes like a plastic bag over your face, but never half-heartedly. It’s never luke-warm with these guys. They’re wounded and broken, but still yearning for a woman who will heal them. They’re losers, but only because they wouldn’t compromise their integrity. And they are always so very, very manly. I mean, come on ladies—sure some of them kill/eat/maim/assassinate people on occasion. Sure one of them is a wolf some of the time, one of them is mostly robotic and covered in burn scars, and one of them has a disfigured face. But these are all surface issues. Just think about the passion roiling under the surface! Granted, said passion might lead to your untimely death when they kill you in a rage, but it would be a hell of a good time up until then.
And the big bad wolf would never kill you in a rage which is why he is my current favorite.
It’s not about who they are, but what they are. I could totally be happy married to an accountant or a teacher or a janitor. But only if he’s got a whole lot of wolf in him, and just enough man to keep it in check.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
“First pill meant to end periods poised for OK: FDA considers birth control pill aimed at freeing women from their cycle.”
This is the title of an article on msn located here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18745930/
Honestly, I’m not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand (I say this as I sit here with cramps) not having the inconvenience of bleeding monthly would be pretty sweet, but on the other it is a very fundamental part of my biology. The idea of stopping one’s periods is not new; as the article will attest, women have been doing this for years with birth control pills. I suppose it’s more the idea that a pill has now been created and marketed with this specific intent.
When I was all of twelve I counted up every month from twelve to fifty and estimated how many periods I had left until menopause. I did not go gently into puberty. When I was eighteen I went on the pill—partly for cramps, partly for control, but mostly because I was going to college and wanted to feel “free” to have sex as it were. At twenty-five I’m now off of it. I went off, not because I never plan on having sex again, and not because the cramps have gotten better (though they are a little more tolerable) but because I began to worry. Not about my health or fertility per say, but about my moods and emotions. Everyone that knows anything about basic female anatomy knows that our hormones (men’s hormones do this too actually) affect our moods. As the estrogen drops and the progesterone rises things get shifty. The progesterone then drops as well immediately following completion of the cycle leaving us at our lowest point hormonally and sometimes mentally.
Because birth control pills “trick” the body into thinking its pregnant they mess with our own hormone production to stop ovulation, but what no one tells you is that it also messes with your moods. I would assume the severity would depend on how high of a dose you’re on, what particular brand you use and any number of other factors, but as I crested the twenty-five mark it occurred to me I didn’t remember what it felt like to feel…well, unmedicated. I had been on orthotrycycline for so long that I knew exactly how my moods would go every week, but I had no way of knowing if that was me or the pill or some combination thereof.
What’s more, because I had gone on it at eighteen I hadn’t stopped fully forming yet before this all started. We think because legally we’re adults at eighteen that our body is pretty much done too, but that’s wrong. My hips and breasts didn’t stop changing until around twenty-one and who knows about the mood swings. I had “freed” myself of my period at eighteen before I ever took the time to see what it was like without the craziness of adolescence mucking it up. I’m not saying that the pill is bad—far from it—it does amazing things for women and if I ever find someone I like for more than two days I’ll no doubt go back on. But the pill isn’t a “fix-all.”
We look at everything our body does that is inconvenient and treat it like a symptom or cold to be fixed. But menstruation isn’t a cold. It isn’t something you catch. I’m uncomfortable with the idea of a pill that is supposed to “free” women from their periods because frankly we don’t know nearly enough about women’s medicine to know exactly what we’re freeing them from and if it’s even a good idea. We throw the pill at women and think there are no consequences. I think in most any case the good outweighs the bad tenfold, but I think we have never bothered to research the long term affects. Not just physically, but mentally. People chalk women and their emotions up to pms and craziness and I can’t help but feel like it some men had their druthers us women would all be “free” all the time and thus not bother them with our mood swings. Because there is so much negativity surrounding women’s emotions we never stop to wonder if stunting them or manipulating them is a bad thing. Anything’s better than what’s natural right?
There are a lot of factors that feed into my uncomfortable feelings on this discussion, gender roles and sexism not least among them. The pill isn’t covered by a lot of health insurance but Viagra is. They have tried to classify pregnancy as a disease at least once to make it easier for insurance to “cover” certain things. Because pregnancy and all aspects of it aren’t worth covering otherwise? We teach girls and young women that sexual revolution is all about the ability to have sex as often and as promiscuously as a man; that by flaunting their bodies they have more control than the man that pays for them. We never stop to consider that perhaps promiscuous sex should be the exception as opposed to the rule for both sexes or let women know that even though they take money, the men paying still have a lot more. And despite all our advances we still hold the male body up as the ideal. Women should be less curvy, like men. Women should be less moody, like men. Women shouldn’t be “burdened” with a period, like men.
I love men, but what I love most is that they’re different from me. And frankly, I want a man that loves what makes me different from him. Why can’t we study medicine to improve the lives of women as women and men as men? Then maybe women wouldn’t be ashamed of their moods, and men would have the support they need to acknowledge they have them. Just a thought.
This is the title of an article on msn located here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18745930/
Honestly, I’m not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand (I say this as I sit here with cramps) not having the inconvenience of bleeding monthly would be pretty sweet, but on the other it is a very fundamental part of my biology. The idea of stopping one’s periods is not new; as the article will attest, women have been doing this for years with birth control pills. I suppose it’s more the idea that a pill has now been created and marketed with this specific intent.
When I was all of twelve I counted up every month from twelve to fifty and estimated how many periods I had left until menopause. I did not go gently into puberty. When I was eighteen I went on the pill—partly for cramps, partly for control, but mostly because I was going to college and wanted to feel “free” to have sex as it were. At twenty-five I’m now off of it. I went off, not because I never plan on having sex again, and not because the cramps have gotten better (though they are a little more tolerable) but because I began to worry. Not about my health or fertility per say, but about my moods and emotions. Everyone that knows anything about basic female anatomy knows that our hormones (men’s hormones do this too actually) affect our moods. As the estrogen drops and the progesterone rises things get shifty. The progesterone then drops as well immediately following completion of the cycle leaving us at our lowest point hormonally and sometimes mentally.
Because birth control pills “trick” the body into thinking its pregnant they mess with our own hormone production to stop ovulation, but what no one tells you is that it also messes with your moods. I would assume the severity would depend on how high of a dose you’re on, what particular brand you use and any number of other factors, but as I crested the twenty-five mark it occurred to me I didn’t remember what it felt like to feel…well, unmedicated. I had been on orthotrycycline for so long that I knew exactly how my moods would go every week, but I had no way of knowing if that was me or the pill or some combination thereof.
What’s more, because I had gone on it at eighteen I hadn’t stopped fully forming yet before this all started. We think because legally we’re adults at eighteen that our body is pretty much done too, but that’s wrong. My hips and breasts didn’t stop changing until around twenty-one and who knows about the mood swings. I had “freed” myself of my period at eighteen before I ever took the time to see what it was like without the craziness of adolescence mucking it up. I’m not saying that the pill is bad—far from it—it does amazing things for women and if I ever find someone I like for more than two days I’ll no doubt go back on. But the pill isn’t a “fix-all.”
We look at everything our body does that is inconvenient and treat it like a symptom or cold to be fixed. But menstruation isn’t a cold. It isn’t something you catch. I’m uncomfortable with the idea of a pill that is supposed to “free” women from their periods because frankly we don’t know nearly enough about women’s medicine to know exactly what we’re freeing them from and if it’s even a good idea. We throw the pill at women and think there are no consequences. I think in most any case the good outweighs the bad tenfold, but I think we have never bothered to research the long term affects. Not just physically, but mentally. People chalk women and their emotions up to pms and craziness and I can’t help but feel like it some men had their druthers us women would all be “free” all the time and thus not bother them with our mood swings. Because there is so much negativity surrounding women’s emotions we never stop to wonder if stunting them or manipulating them is a bad thing. Anything’s better than what’s natural right?
There are a lot of factors that feed into my uncomfortable feelings on this discussion, gender roles and sexism not least among them. The pill isn’t covered by a lot of health insurance but Viagra is. They have tried to classify pregnancy as a disease at least once to make it easier for insurance to “cover” certain things. Because pregnancy and all aspects of it aren’t worth covering otherwise? We teach girls and young women that sexual revolution is all about the ability to have sex as often and as promiscuously as a man; that by flaunting their bodies they have more control than the man that pays for them. We never stop to consider that perhaps promiscuous sex should be the exception as opposed to the rule for both sexes or let women know that even though they take money, the men paying still have a lot more. And despite all our advances we still hold the male body up as the ideal. Women should be less curvy, like men. Women should be less moody, like men. Women shouldn’t be “burdened” with a period, like men.
I love men, but what I love most is that they’re different from me. And frankly, I want a man that loves what makes me different from him. Why can’t we study medicine to improve the lives of women as women and men as men? Then maybe women wouldn’t be ashamed of their moods, and men would have the support they need to acknowledge they have them. Just a thought.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
So on msn today there is an article detailing how people follow a “U” shaped pattern in regards to happiness over the course of their life. In other words, starting at early at adulthood, happiness declines until around 45 where it bottoms out before rising again around 55 and on into retirement. Nothing about this article is particularly note-worthy except for the following paragraph:
"The authors also find that over the last century, Americans, both men and women, have gotten steadily—and hugely—less happy. The difference in happiness of men between men of my generation, born in the 1960s, and my father's generation, born in the 1920s, is the same as the effect of a tenfold difference in income. In other words, if my father had little money compared to his contemporaries and I have lots of money compared to mine, I can still expect to be less happy. Here, curiously, the European pattern diverges. Happiness falls for the birth years from 1900 to about 1950, and generations born on the continent since World War II have gotten successively happier."
(I use quotes because I can't indent in this silly blog easily. If you don't like my incorrect formatting then a pox on you and your family.)
I draw your attention to the last two sentences, “Here, curiously, the European pattern diverges. Happiness falls for the birth years from 1900 to about 1950, and generations born on the continent since World War II have gotten successively happier.” Curiously? CURIOUSLY?! Really? I can’t imagine why people born after World War II might possibly be happier than people born before, during, or immediately following. And hell, at 1900 you’ve got some folks in there who lived (and fought) through World War I and World War II. Curious indeed how that might affect their overall happiness.
I swear, sometimes I’m flabbergasted by the word choice of those writing professional articles. If you don’t want to make a sweeping general statement then don’t remark on it one way or the other—just cut out the “curiously.” But is it really all that curious? It is possible, mind you, that the author is being factious here. I’ll even give him the benefit of the doubt. At least that way he’s only guilty of his humor going awry, not being heinously stupid.
Ah screw it; it’s more fun to think of him as stupid. I’m going with that.
"The authors also find that over the last century, Americans, both men and women, have gotten steadily—and hugely—less happy. The difference in happiness of men between men of my generation, born in the 1960s, and my father's generation, born in the 1920s, is the same as the effect of a tenfold difference in income. In other words, if my father had little money compared to his contemporaries and I have lots of money compared to mine, I can still expect to be less happy. Here, curiously, the European pattern diverges. Happiness falls for the birth years from 1900 to about 1950, and generations born on the continent since World War II have gotten successively happier."
(I use quotes because I can't indent in this silly blog easily. If you don't like my incorrect formatting then a pox on you and your family.)
I draw your attention to the last two sentences, “Here, curiously, the European pattern diverges. Happiness falls for the birth years from 1900 to about 1950, and generations born on the continent since World War II have gotten successively happier.” Curiously? CURIOUSLY?! Really? I can’t imagine why people born after World War II might possibly be happier than people born before, during, or immediately following. And hell, at 1900 you’ve got some folks in there who lived (and fought) through World War I and World War II. Curious indeed how that might affect their overall happiness.
I swear, sometimes I’m flabbergasted by the word choice of those writing professional articles. If you don’t want to make a sweeping general statement then don’t remark on it one way or the other—just cut out the “curiously.” But is it really all that curious? It is possible, mind you, that the author is being factious here. I’ll even give him the benefit of the doubt. At least that way he’s only guilty of his humor going awry, not being heinously stupid.
Ah screw it; it’s more fun to think of him as stupid. I’m going with that.
Monday, May 07, 2007
I ask you this: since when did losing weight equate a heroic activity? If lost 70 pounds is that the equivalent of saving a baby? 1.5 babies? Does every 50 pounds equal a baby? I mean, come on—if there’s publicity in it for me there might be serious incentive to lose weight.
My feelings this fine morning are prompted by the following story http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18399649/site/newsweek/ titled “Interview with a Former Fat Girl.” I’m not begrudging her anything, but I am asking the question, what makes this woman qualified to write a self-help book? My anger is two-fold here. First, that anyone with a minor grasp of clichés is allowed to write a self-help book, but second (and more importantly) that losing weight and keeping it off is somehow on par with trekking across Middle Earth and throwing the damn ring in Mount Doom. Hello! My ass is not the one ring that corrupts the souls of men, dooming them and all civilization to a hell-like existence.
In all honesty, there might be some ex-boyfriends that disagree with that statement, but I think we can discount them as biased contributors to this conversation.
Honestly people, I enjoy hearing about other people’s triumphs; I love to know how they have conquered adversity, overcoming tremendous odds and possibly a really bad fashion choice to become the impressive, genuinely good person that is worthy of my respect. Losing weight isn’t easy, certainly, nor is keeping it off. But is it the weight loss that is really worth praise here? How about learning to love oneself? How about learning to live your life as you want to, enjoying each day? Or maybe how you learned to stop judging yourself and others? Just throwing these out here as possibilities—you know, things that one might, if they were so inclined, feel the need to appreciate.
But no, let’s not appreciate any of those things. Rather let’s mention that the weight loss prompted them, or maybe they went hand in hand. But let’s focus on what’s important, what REALLY matters. That so-and-so lost weight and kept it off. She accomplished something millions of other women have tried and failed to do. She’s happier, she’s healthier, and she’s prettier. And now she makes more money, she’s married (or her husband loves her more) and she is the sort of woman we should all emulate. All because she lost the weight!
I got news for you people. Skinny women are just as likely to be bitches as fat women. Sometimes more likely cause they’re friggin’ hungry all the time. Loving yourself, being worthy of love, being a generally good human being that inspires people around her—these are things that have nothing to do with the size of one’s ass. In fact, despite popular belief, pretty people are no more likely to be “good people” than ugly people. Fat girls are capable of liking themselves.
So here is the self-help book I want to read. I want to read how someone went for a run, came home and ate a fucking ding-dong. Why? Because she wanted to. Because she had raging PMS, a boyfriend that farts in his sleep and a propensity for stinking up the bathroom. So she got up, feeling horrible, angry, and upset, went out for a run so she wouldn’t take out her anger on her boyfriend, came home and ate the fucking ding-dong cause the chocolate made her happy. Then she kissed her boyfriend, told him she loved him and meant it. Despite his stank-ass and sleeping habits. She meant it because he was an ok guy and she was able to appreciate that. She loved him because when he realized she was a raving bitch that day he HANDED her the ding-dong and begged her to eat it. He was more worried about her being happy than the calories. And after she eats the ding-dong, despite the raging PMS, she is still able to look around the room and say life is okay.
That’s the self-help book I want to read. The book about a woman that loves herself and is part of relationship that is loving. A relationship based on qualities that surpass both our physical appearance, bodily functions, and mood swings. That’s the sort of woman I can respect.
Losing weight just means you lost weight. It has nothing to do with your qualities as a human being. What a novel realization.
My feelings this fine morning are prompted by the following story http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18399649/site/newsweek/ titled “Interview with a Former Fat Girl.” I’m not begrudging her anything, but I am asking the question, what makes this woman qualified to write a self-help book? My anger is two-fold here. First, that anyone with a minor grasp of clichés is allowed to write a self-help book, but second (and more importantly) that losing weight and keeping it off is somehow on par with trekking across Middle Earth and throwing the damn ring in Mount Doom. Hello! My ass is not the one ring that corrupts the souls of men, dooming them and all civilization to a hell-like existence.
In all honesty, there might be some ex-boyfriends that disagree with that statement, but I think we can discount them as biased contributors to this conversation.
Honestly people, I enjoy hearing about other people’s triumphs; I love to know how they have conquered adversity, overcoming tremendous odds and possibly a really bad fashion choice to become the impressive, genuinely good person that is worthy of my respect. Losing weight isn’t easy, certainly, nor is keeping it off. But is it the weight loss that is really worth praise here? How about learning to love oneself? How about learning to live your life as you want to, enjoying each day? Or maybe how you learned to stop judging yourself and others? Just throwing these out here as possibilities—you know, things that one might, if they were so inclined, feel the need to appreciate.
But no, let’s not appreciate any of those things. Rather let’s mention that the weight loss prompted them, or maybe they went hand in hand. But let’s focus on what’s important, what REALLY matters. That so-and-so lost weight and kept it off. She accomplished something millions of other women have tried and failed to do. She’s happier, she’s healthier, and she’s prettier. And now she makes more money, she’s married (or her husband loves her more) and she is the sort of woman we should all emulate. All because she lost the weight!
I got news for you people. Skinny women are just as likely to be bitches as fat women. Sometimes more likely cause they’re friggin’ hungry all the time. Loving yourself, being worthy of love, being a generally good human being that inspires people around her—these are things that have nothing to do with the size of one’s ass. In fact, despite popular belief, pretty people are no more likely to be “good people” than ugly people. Fat girls are capable of liking themselves.
So here is the self-help book I want to read. I want to read how someone went for a run, came home and ate a fucking ding-dong. Why? Because she wanted to. Because she had raging PMS, a boyfriend that farts in his sleep and a propensity for stinking up the bathroom. So she got up, feeling horrible, angry, and upset, went out for a run so she wouldn’t take out her anger on her boyfriend, came home and ate the fucking ding-dong cause the chocolate made her happy. Then she kissed her boyfriend, told him she loved him and meant it. Despite his stank-ass and sleeping habits. She meant it because he was an ok guy and she was able to appreciate that. She loved him because when he realized she was a raving bitch that day he HANDED her the ding-dong and begged her to eat it. He was more worried about her being happy than the calories. And after she eats the ding-dong, despite the raging PMS, she is still able to look around the room and say life is okay.
That’s the self-help book I want to read. The book about a woman that loves herself and is part of relationship that is loving. A relationship based on qualities that surpass both our physical appearance, bodily functions, and mood swings. That’s the sort of woman I can respect.
Losing weight just means you lost weight. It has nothing to do with your qualities as a human being. What a novel realization.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
I feel I should offer an continuation of my thoughts from last night. I was a bit emotionally charged and unsure how to proceed with what I wanted to say, but today I feel it important to clarify where I ended up by the end.
I respect any church’s right not to marry specific couples. One aspect of religion is that it does possess doctrines and commandments dictating specific behavior. Our government, however, possesses no such power. For our government to police our sexual practices, either through marriage or sex education, is for us as a people to allow the moral practices of our politicians to dictate our laws. That is so amazingly unacceptable I don’t even know where to begin. There is nothing UNETHICAL about two consenting adults having a state/country recognized marriage. Whether it is immoral or not is irrelevant, specifically because one person’s morals do not always coincide with another’s. The problem with trying to separate church from state is that the government runs into this exact problem. If you cease to recognize one religion’s morals as being superior to another’s then where is your moral compass? Most people lose sight of their morals once removed from a religious lens. A government cannot afford such a luxury. Especially not ours.
Lacking scientific evidence that two people of the same gender engaging in sexual activity is somehow detrimental to one or both of those people because it is same-sex intercourse means there is no reason not to recognize equal rights for homosexuals. Our government polices sex in the public because so long as you control how people feel about sex, to a very strong degree you control how people feel. I think a great many of us do not know how to divorce sex from morality in day to day living. Not on a personal level, all personal decisions will be made with one’s morals in mind, but in how we view others. We view people who engage in indiscriminate sex as immoral or worth less as human beings. We place a high value on a woman’s “gift” of her virginity to a man. We fear that if teenagers know the ins and outs of sex they will be powerless to stop themselves from having it.
Governments have operated under church rule for so long that our government doesn’t know how to do it any differently. People have spent so much time judging each other that they are incapable of breaking the pattern. We keep ourselves in an infantile mental state because we’re afraid we won’t be able to control ourselves, our children, or each other without it.
I believe it comes from a fundamental lack of faith in each other. So many of us do not expect others to act responsibly or parent responsibly and we support the parent-like role of the government as a way to fix the problem. Because people can’t be trusted to make the “right” decision, the government should make it for them. Because our kids won’t hold strong in the face of opposing views they shouldn’t be exposed to them. Because homosexuality is detrimental to society we should do our best to keep it out of the mainstream and hope it dies out.
I don’t believe this. I do believe, in fact, that the majority of people are good people. I believe that the majority of people, if surrounded by good influences, will behave in an acceptable, ethical way. I also believe the reason so many people in our society act like idiots is because we constantly tell them they are. What you’re feeling is wrong, what you’re feeling is dirty, what you want to do is unacceptable. A good person doesn’t feel that way, therefore you shouldn’t feel that way. If you expect people to fuck up, then fuck up is what they are going to do. Over and over again.
Education is dangerous. There is no doubt about it. If your children are educated then they have a greater chance of disagreeing with you. If they aren’t scared of sex then there is a greater chance they will approach their sexuality without shame. If they aren’t ashamed then they might act in a way you don’t believe to be moral. And what happens then? If it’s not consensual then it’s not ethical and they go to jail. That comes from a selfish desire that has nothing to do with education, however, and everything to do with character of person. If it is consensual then you are faced with the nearly impossible task of loving someone you don’t like. But is the answer to this problem the government’s policing of education and marriage? Does legality and policy actually promote moral character? No. Those of us that don’t murder abstain because we respect another’s right to live. I don’t avoid killing my students simply because I would go to jail for it. It’s the same basic principle that keeps me from decapitating a puppy. I don’t need the government’s approval for my sex life and neither does anyone else. Wouldn’t you rather have a child that followed your moral code because s/he believed in it, not because s/he didn’t know any better or was too scared to disagree? And wouldn’t you rather have a child that has equal rights and protects others equal rights instead of passing judgment?
Ask yourself this: what is so very scary about sex that we need to legislate it?
I respect any church’s right not to marry specific couples. One aspect of religion is that it does possess doctrines and commandments dictating specific behavior. Our government, however, possesses no such power. For our government to police our sexual practices, either through marriage or sex education, is for us as a people to allow the moral practices of our politicians to dictate our laws. That is so amazingly unacceptable I don’t even know where to begin. There is nothing UNETHICAL about two consenting adults having a state/country recognized marriage. Whether it is immoral or not is irrelevant, specifically because one person’s morals do not always coincide with another’s. The problem with trying to separate church from state is that the government runs into this exact problem. If you cease to recognize one religion’s morals as being superior to another’s then where is your moral compass? Most people lose sight of their morals once removed from a religious lens. A government cannot afford such a luxury. Especially not ours.
Lacking scientific evidence that two people of the same gender engaging in sexual activity is somehow detrimental to one or both of those people because it is same-sex intercourse means there is no reason not to recognize equal rights for homosexuals. Our government polices sex in the public because so long as you control how people feel about sex, to a very strong degree you control how people feel. I think a great many of us do not know how to divorce sex from morality in day to day living. Not on a personal level, all personal decisions will be made with one’s morals in mind, but in how we view others. We view people who engage in indiscriminate sex as immoral or worth less as human beings. We place a high value on a woman’s “gift” of her virginity to a man. We fear that if teenagers know the ins and outs of sex they will be powerless to stop themselves from having it.
Governments have operated under church rule for so long that our government doesn’t know how to do it any differently. People have spent so much time judging each other that they are incapable of breaking the pattern. We keep ourselves in an infantile mental state because we’re afraid we won’t be able to control ourselves, our children, or each other without it.
I believe it comes from a fundamental lack of faith in each other. So many of us do not expect others to act responsibly or parent responsibly and we support the parent-like role of the government as a way to fix the problem. Because people can’t be trusted to make the “right” decision, the government should make it for them. Because our kids won’t hold strong in the face of opposing views they shouldn’t be exposed to them. Because homosexuality is detrimental to society we should do our best to keep it out of the mainstream and hope it dies out.
I don’t believe this. I do believe, in fact, that the majority of people are good people. I believe that the majority of people, if surrounded by good influences, will behave in an acceptable, ethical way. I also believe the reason so many people in our society act like idiots is because we constantly tell them they are. What you’re feeling is wrong, what you’re feeling is dirty, what you want to do is unacceptable. A good person doesn’t feel that way, therefore you shouldn’t feel that way. If you expect people to fuck up, then fuck up is what they are going to do. Over and over again.
Education is dangerous. There is no doubt about it. If your children are educated then they have a greater chance of disagreeing with you. If they aren’t scared of sex then there is a greater chance they will approach their sexuality without shame. If they aren’t ashamed then they might act in a way you don’t believe to be moral. And what happens then? If it’s not consensual then it’s not ethical and they go to jail. That comes from a selfish desire that has nothing to do with education, however, and everything to do with character of person. If it is consensual then you are faced with the nearly impossible task of loving someone you don’t like. But is the answer to this problem the government’s policing of education and marriage? Does legality and policy actually promote moral character? No. Those of us that don’t murder abstain because we respect another’s right to live. I don’t avoid killing my students simply because I would go to jail for it. It’s the same basic principle that keeps me from decapitating a puppy. I don’t need the government’s approval for my sex life and neither does anyone else. Wouldn’t you rather have a child that followed your moral code because s/he believed in it, not because s/he didn’t know any better or was too scared to disagree? And wouldn’t you rather have a child that has equal rights and protects others equal rights instead of passing judgment?
Ask yourself this: what is so very scary about sex that we need to legislate it?
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
I’m in an odd place tonight. For the first time in my memory of writing this thing, I’m afraid I’m going to offend somebody. I know; it’s unexpected for me too. Perhaps it’s a sign of my maturity that I no longer disregard other’s emotions if they do not agree with me, but maybe it is simply my reaction to particularly emotional news. Regardless, I’m proceeding with caution.
What I want to talk about is homosexuality. And those I’m afraid of offending are any whose church disagrees with a homosexual lifestyle. It’s not an intentional offense, and I hope to proceed with uncharacteristic tact. I can only hope you will see this as a presentation of my thoughts on the subject, not a manifesto against any particular set of beliefs.
A lot of religions believe a marriage can only take place between a man and a woman. Now I haven’t done nearly enough research into scripture to know the exact wording on this, but it doesn’t sit right with me. I fully and completely acknowledge my lack of Biblical education, but I don’t think it will surprise anyone to hear that I don’t fully trust interpretations of The Bible. Perhaps I am wrong and there is no wiggle room here; perhaps it states “Marriage shalt only be between a man and a woman. Any other conception of marriage, act of sex, or family structure is forbidden.” There is enough consensus on the subject that I’m inclined to believe The Bible does present a message of that sort. Regardless, I just can’t accept it. Allow me to explain.
God, as he is conceived in modern religion, doesn’t spare people from pain. Pain teaches, pain punishes, pain serves a purpose. Sometimes it is brought on by our own acts, and sometimes it is simply part of life. I can accept that whole-heartedly. Perhaps other’s don’t agree with my presentation of pain’s role in life and it’s relation to God, but that isn’t important. What is important is that I can fully understand how a religion can possess a God of love over a world filled with so much worldly pain. What I can’t understand is a God that would deny worldly love. For homosexual people to participate in many religions they must either marry people of the opposite sex or live a celibate life. There are many reasons I can imagine one might give for the prevalence of homosexuality in humans, specifically, why if it’s a lifestyle that must be lived celibately so many people seem to be born homosexual. What distinguishes being gay in my mind from any other tendency, behavior, etc.. that doesn’t agree with church doctrine is that homosexuality doesn’t hurt anybody. It isn’t murder, or pedophilia, or pleasure from pain. It’s a sexual desire for a person of the same gender. I don’t understand why that is wrong. Why is one of Christianity’s doctrines that worldly sexual love can only take place between a man and a woman?
The obvious answer is the scriptures. Many people have offered counter-arguments from misinterpretations to deliberate misreadings. A person of faith, however, believes the Gospel not to be misrepresented. I understand that homosexuality does not propagate the species, but it does serve significant sociological purposes, and is not prevalent enough to threaten the population.
I’m not harping on the “wrongness” of any particular belief. I am simply asking the question what is it about homosexuality in practice that makes it so displeasing to so many religious beliefs?
I am striving to understand other perspectives here. This isn’t a blog that passes judgment over others as some of my past writings have. This is simply a musing, and perhaps a hope that someday, regardless of what we believe privately, we can all agree to publicly respect others consensual relationships. A church does have the right to marry and not marry whomever they wish, but shouldn’t our government have to treat it’s citizens equally?
What I want to talk about is homosexuality. And those I’m afraid of offending are any whose church disagrees with a homosexual lifestyle. It’s not an intentional offense, and I hope to proceed with uncharacteristic tact. I can only hope you will see this as a presentation of my thoughts on the subject, not a manifesto against any particular set of beliefs.
A lot of religions believe a marriage can only take place between a man and a woman. Now I haven’t done nearly enough research into scripture to know the exact wording on this, but it doesn’t sit right with me. I fully and completely acknowledge my lack of Biblical education, but I don’t think it will surprise anyone to hear that I don’t fully trust interpretations of The Bible. Perhaps I am wrong and there is no wiggle room here; perhaps it states “Marriage shalt only be between a man and a woman. Any other conception of marriage, act of sex, or family structure is forbidden.” There is enough consensus on the subject that I’m inclined to believe The Bible does present a message of that sort. Regardless, I just can’t accept it. Allow me to explain.
God, as he is conceived in modern religion, doesn’t spare people from pain. Pain teaches, pain punishes, pain serves a purpose. Sometimes it is brought on by our own acts, and sometimes it is simply part of life. I can accept that whole-heartedly. Perhaps other’s don’t agree with my presentation of pain’s role in life and it’s relation to God, but that isn’t important. What is important is that I can fully understand how a religion can possess a God of love over a world filled with so much worldly pain. What I can’t understand is a God that would deny worldly love. For homosexual people to participate in many religions they must either marry people of the opposite sex or live a celibate life. There are many reasons I can imagine one might give for the prevalence of homosexuality in humans, specifically, why if it’s a lifestyle that must be lived celibately so many people seem to be born homosexual. What distinguishes being gay in my mind from any other tendency, behavior, etc.. that doesn’t agree with church doctrine is that homosexuality doesn’t hurt anybody. It isn’t murder, or pedophilia, or pleasure from pain. It’s a sexual desire for a person of the same gender. I don’t understand why that is wrong. Why is one of Christianity’s doctrines that worldly sexual love can only take place between a man and a woman?
The obvious answer is the scriptures. Many people have offered counter-arguments from misinterpretations to deliberate misreadings. A person of faith, however, believes the Gospel not to be misrepresented. I understand that homosexuality does not propagate the species, but it does serve significant sociological purposes, and is not prevalent enough to threaten the population.
I’m not harping on the “wrongness” of any particular belief. I am simply asking the question what is it about homosexuality in practice that makes it so displeasing to so many religious beliefs?
I am striving to understand other perspectives here. This isn’t a blog that passes judgment over others as some of my past writings have. This is simply a musing, and perhaps a hope that someday, regardless of what we believe privately, we can all agree to publicly respect others consensual relationships. A church does have the right to marry and not marry whomever they wish, but shouldn’t our government have to treat it’s citizens equally?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
