So I saw Twilight today. I pretty much figured I would; as much as the book annoyed me (or the half of it that I read) this was a movie about vampires and eternal love, and I can't not go to that. It wasn't perfect, but I enjoyed it significantly more than I thought I would. My biggest beef was actually the makeup job on Edward Cullen--that's the vampire lover all the girls are mooning over. Yes, he's supposed to be pasty white and beautiful, but I don't think that has to translate into red, red lipstick and heavy eye makeup. I mean, can't a man be beautiful without looking feminine? I think the answer to that is yes. And not even that so-called feminine beauty is a bad thing, Johnny Depp comes to mind, but the makeup can't be obvious--it needs to look natural. I think that's my problem; his face was unnatural. Yes, I'm aware he's a vampire, a state which by definition is slightly unnatural, but don't quibble with me over this. Lipstick is rarely a good thing a man.

Regardless of all of that, however, if ever there was a topic that deserved a top ten list, this is it. I don't normally do two in a row like this, but vampires conquer all. You thought it was love--silly you.

Top Ten Things That Are Only Hot When Said/Performed/Or Otherwise Connected With A Vampire

10. Clothing with lace anywhere on it

It's time to level: lace is not hot. It's frilly; it's Victorian--it's hopelessly itchy. Nobody wants to hug a man in lace, be saved by a man in lace, or even have sexual thoughts about a man in lace. And yet, when worn by a vampire, suddenly the frilly shirt is completely acceptable. I can't explain why; it defies all known laws of science, but the evidence is there. The ability to look utterly masculine in frilly shirts is obviously the vampire's lesser known superpower.

9. Extreme mood changes

Nobody likes someone whose mood changes faster than weather in the midwest. He's smiling at you, suddenly his rage is nearly uncontrollable, but now he's sulky--it's okay he loves you more than life itself and is wants to make sweet, sweet love...now he's crying. Unexplainable mood swings are decidedly unhot. You stick moodiness on a guy with fangs, though; it's all just part and parcel with his tortured soul.

8. Non-stop brooding

Like the above mood swings someone that rarely smiles because he is constantly brooding inevitably looses his mystery when the brooding pushes him from deep and thoughtful into whiny and annoying. He's sullen and serious, why--because he's constantly thinking such deep and ponderous thoughts? Nobody feels that much weight unless...he's a vampire. Then we have constant inner battle of need for blood and need to be a good man all topped off with a healthy dose of saving the world or some equivalent. This behavior is also acceptable in Batman.

7. Remarking on his inability to control himself around you and/or how he cannot lose control with you

Generally when a guy says I can't control myself around you, or I must maintain control for your safety I take a hike. Why? Because a need to kiss me senseless and overwhelming love is sexy, but I've got to maintain control so I don't eat you (literally) is not. Old dude is a vampire, though, and his inability to resist your scent/aura/blood whatever suddenly makes for incredible sexual tension. Cannibals unhot--Vampires hot. There is no logic or emotional health to these truths.

6. Engaging in sexual relationships with significantly age inappropriate partners

You meet an older guy that falls in love with girls fifty, sixty, a hundred years his junior and it's hard to believe it's true love. I've seen those couples on the Strip--there's nothing fairytale about them, I promise. But when you're eternal youth keeps you somewhere between 17 and 35 forever well...isn't everyone too young for you then? So what if you're 90 and she's 17, you're a vampire!

5. Excessive sniffing or commentary on one's smell

This one's tricky because smell can be a very hot thing between two people. Often if you like the way someone smells it's a great indicator of attraction. But a person sniffing you, especially prior to hello is rarely comforting or engaging. Also, when hanging with a man I don't know how to reply when he is constantly remarking on how he loves my "scent." Throws me a bit. Illogically, when his sniffing is tied to a burning desire to suck my blood I'm suddenly okay with it. This one is also acceptable with werewolves.

4. Breaking into your bedroom to watch you sleep

This is the behavior of a stalker. When it's Dracula, or Angel, or Edward we call it sexy. Don't ask me why.

3. Constant staring

Mr. Darcy got away with it in Pride and Prejudice. Every other time I've seen it happen the situation ended badly. Starring denotes obsession. Obsession denotes crazy. Crazy obsession becomes not only tolerable, but desirable when presented by someone with eternal life and a desire to eat me. Let's hope none of my friends ever need me to save them from a vampire. He stares at me at and I'm toast.

2. Refusal to acknowledge his love for you and/or to let you close

When someone obviously loves you, wants you, needs you, blah blah blah, I find I am very inconsiderate of the drama that must be conquered for him to proclaim that love. I know; I have no soul. Basically, though, my thoughts are this: are you a vampire? No? Suck it up and ask the girl out--you'll get over it if she says no. If you're a vampire, well then, you can't just have a normal relationship so things become more complicated--totally understandable. If one is already in a relationship and can't open up to one's partner I am again unsympathetic--yes, I'm a cold, cold woman we know this--and have little more than a get over it for the poor sod whose been hurt so badly in the past. But if you're a vampire and somehow you did end up with a human date you might not have told them everything, or maybe you've got to keep them at a distance for some vampirey reason. Mostly what I'm saying here is if there's going to be excessive Shakespearean relationship drama somebody better be a gosh darn vampire or there's really no excuse.

1. Eternal love at the cost of your humanity

I may not have a soul, but I don't give up my humanity for just anyone. I know there are girls that fall in love with killers on death row through the mail, and women that seek out men who'll treat them badly, but if he's going to brood, sniff me, stare at me, make me cry, push me away, pull me close, cut me off, endanger me, want to eat me, and wear lace he better be a vampire. It's not that I want to date a bad boy, exactly, but if I date him I want eternal love to be part of the equation. There needs to be a serious pay off for all that drama.

So, as with all rules, there are minor exceptions to some of these behaviors (Batman, werewolves) but in general the above are only acceptable when the lover performing them is a vampire. I spoke of them in terms of a man because I'm a heterosexual female, but gentlemen, I think these are good rules for women as well. Does anyone want to date a person that breaks into their bedroom to watch them sleep unless that person is a vampire? I think not. And if you do, you deserve whatever crazy comes your way.

It's Thanksgiving! It occurred to me that everyone else was doing "grateful" lists so I should really be no different. I'm nothing if not a follower.

The Top Ten Things I'm Grateful For (notice I didn't say most grateful or anything silly like that--you're most grateful for any number of things depending on your mood i.e. in a desert you're most grateful for water, shade, and savior. In the middle of the ocean water doesn't really factor in. See what I mean?)

Top Ten Thanks

10. Electric Blankets

You won't really understand this one unless you know my parents house. There is no heat upstairs (or in some rooms downstairs) and so many years of my mother's menopause needing it to be cold has created a sort of heat vacuum. So when I come home, especially now that I've been sissified by the desert, I just accept that my hands and feet will be cold. That's where the electric blanket comes in. It's warm, it's cuddly, it makes my body feel all good and comforted. It's kind of like a lover that doesn't take up the bed or steal your covers since, you know, it is the cover.

9. T.V. on D.V.D.

I cannot begin to express how thankful I am for T.V. on DVD. Best invention EVER. Ever. Really. 24 episodes (approximately) of my favorite characters with no commercials. Storylines that are complex and over-arching. Best thing ever. Honest.

8. Beautiful People

I wanted to put Spartans on the list. But then I thought, if I'm going to include objectified men I should balance that out with wonderful people that are just great. And then I thought, screw it, I'll just say "beautiful people." I'm happy for people that are good and whose beauty shines from within as well as without. And yes, I am grateful for people that make their livings as actors in itty bitty teeny tiny little leather panties. I try to be a full and complex individual.

7. Duct Tape

Are any of us not thankful for Duct Tape? That's what I thought.

6. Chocolate Chip Cookies

Somewhere, sometime, someone looked at flour, sugar, butter, eggs, and vanilla and thought "something great can be invented here." They were right, and I am a better person for it.

5. Books

They make me happy. They provide me with emotional fulfillment. They give me heroes and heroines that I love and adore. There's a reason I chose to make my living in literature.

4. Movies

Better than books cause they're shinier. There's picture, sound, and dialogue. And sometimes scantily clad barbarians saving babies and fighting for freedom.

3. Playtime Buddies

I'm implying masturbatory aids with this one. I trust the reasoning for thanks are self-explanatory (ah-ha-ha).

2. Indoor Plumbing

You know what's awesome? Not having to drop your pants in thirty degree weather. Or poop in a pan you throw out the window every night. There is no downside to this.

1. Controllable Crazy

This one might seem surprising, but as I look back on my life and my experiences I realized that I'm not "crazy" in the way some (or many) people are. And I'm not talking schizophrenic or bi-polar, though those count, but I don't have a personality disorder. I'm not wracked by anxiety, guilt, or depression. I control my life as much as I am able and generally don't drive people away...except for the crazy ones. So I wanted to take a minute and give thanks for that. I figure I need to love it up as much as I can for the next twenty years before menopause takes all semblance of control away from me.

So have a Happy Thanksgiving!

An Explanation Of My Feminism

Feminism is a dirty word. To be called a feminist in modern society is generally unflattering. Of my female students, most being approximately 18, they would rather be thought of as anything else. Slut, whore, prude--all of these are preferable to feminist. This is surprising for two reasons: the first, that many of these young women are incredibly religious and would hate to be thought sexually promiscuous or prudish (not fun); the second, that many of them believe they are equal to men and should be evaluated based on their merits, not their gender. It is the second one that truly intrigues me because that is the definition of feminist, but when I point this out to them they argue with me.

There have been three (approximately) waves of feminism so far; the first occurred during the suffrage movement, early 20th century, and was pioneered by women such as Virginia Woolf and Susan B. Anthony. Women were recognized for the first time as independent, equal members of society and this was signified most powerfully in their being given the right to vote. The second wave began in the 1960's; some might say it started with the French Feminists, chiefly Simone de Beauvoir, but it's origins are more mucky than that. Suffice to say these are the bra-burners, the man-haters, the flag wavers--they are also the women who vocalized, in many cases for the first time, what it was like to live and exist as a woman and to state outwardly, sometimes angrily, but always clearly that female existence is different than male existence and that was okay. The third wave of feminism is still taking place, but it is commonly termed post-structuralist feminism and has resulted in more social changes, equal pay for equal work, new ways of looking at literature, movies, art, and society, and the most famous name currently is perhaps Judith Butler.

The problem with feminism, as with anything, is that no two people exist with the same understanding of what it is, what it means, or what it has done. Language is a malleable thing and the meaning of any word is decided by a plethora of factors. Meaning exists on levels--the first level exists between the speaker and the listener. The meaning the speaker intended and the meaning the listener understands collide and, in the case of communication, coincides. The next level exists societally within both the speaker and the listener; the speaker understands a word with all the knowledge previously acquired--that includes dictionaries, familial and school influence, media, and folkloric aspects. A listener understands a word with all of these aspects in place as well. In the case of feminism the dictionary and educational definition, a social ideology proclaiming equality amongst all people, is often overrun by the familial, media, and folkloric definitions--man-hating, bra burning women who wish to create an Amazonian state where males are enslaved and all recognize the superiority of women. I am of course being dramatic in picking the most extreme popular ideas of feminism, but I've known enough people, myself included, who carried this definition of angry Amazons in varying incarnations to feel confident in its validity as an example.

It does not take any particular set of characteristics to be a feminist--age, gender, occupation, and education in no way decide whether one is or is not a feminist, though all may have a part in the likelihood. The current social negativity directed towards feminists and feminism exists for many, many reasons which I will not go into here because I don't want to write a 20 page paper, and you don't want to read it. I would say the chief reason, though, is that social change is very, very hard and very, very messy. People have made mistakes on all sides; they always do. There are women and men who have claimed themselves as feminists that have no more in common with feminists than fanatics do with the religion they claim justifies their actions. After all, today's revolutionary makes tomorrow's ruler. Despite those who have misused the feminist movement for selfish, viscous, or simply misunderstood means, feminism--as a concept, a social movement, and a way of life--is still an important and vital way of looking at and discussing society. Feminism is the validation of existence for the marginalized and the silenced; it has gotten women the right to vote, allowed employment opportunities outside the home, and given a voice to those whose experiences were previously invalidated because of their gender. I do not believe, and will never agree, that equality is a bad thing.

Feminism does not exist in the ether on its own; it exists only within the minds of those who believe, understand, and consciously pursue it. This means that many different forms of feminism exist, some of them hopelessly perverted. Other feminists are not to blame for those perversions any more than all Muslims are to blame for Al Queda, or all Christians for the KKK. Feminism, no matter the form it takes, will always be uncomfortable because it is constantly challenging ideas promoted by society, families, and media--part of the reason these challenges are so discomfiting is that feminism forces people to think about other's reactions, and their own, in a way that most people are never prepared to do. That means that in some cases, sexual harassment for example, the listener's understanding of meaning overrules the speaker's intention. What the speaker intended as harmless flirting feels to the listener like harassment. To know that you have discomfited someone--weirded them out--is a terribly disturbing experience. However, their right not to feel harassed, no matter how oversensitive they are or how harmless your intent, overrules your right to joke/flirt in a manner that makes them uncomfortable. In a perfect situation when a joke/flirt happens that upsets someone that person would express his/her feelings of ill-ease, the speaker would apologize and all would go on with their day. This isn't a perfect world and some people abuse the right to claim harassment or blow a comment entirely out of proportion. Perfect communication comes when the listener meets the speaker half-way--this is as true in this situation as any other.

Awareness of another's feelings, however, is more important than the speaker's comfort and the inconvenience of sitting through those god awful sexual harassment videos when you get a new job. This is because when you exist in the margin, whether because of your ethnicity, gender, or sexuality, people constantly make comments that range from thoughtlessly offensive to intentionally hurtful. If you're native American you're a mascot, and you are supposed to feel flattered that a caricature of you dances around a field mocking serious cultural and spiritual behaviors. If you're a homosexual it's understood that when someone declares a negative action "gay" they aren't really talking about you or your lifestyle, only using the signifier of your lifestyle as an icon of negativity. If you're a woman you are supposed to look over the fact that all negative emotions are attributed to femininity, being illogical, weak, weepy, needy, crazy, and positive characteristics are thought of as masculine qualities, strength, logical ability, control of oneself.

Feminists began the discussion about what happens to a person when everything about themselves that is unchangeable is described negatively--ethnicity, sexuality, or gender. If you grow up female you are raised in a world of painfully conflicting messages; be strong, be loud, be what you want to be/be quiet, stay home, play the damsel in distress. You are taught that you should snare a man while simultaneously told you don't need a man. These messages are further conflicted by complications of societal treatment of sex and biology that I'm not going into because this explanation is already out of control. This state of conflicting messages is not unique to women or minorities, but the inability to voice feelings about the conflict, to use language that describes one's unique experience as outside the dominant hegemonic group is. White, straight males are as full of conflict, emotion, and human condition as any other demographic; however, the voice of white, straight, male experience has dominated literature, society, and oral stories for well over two millennia. This does not mean that a man does not have a unique experience, everyone has a unique experience, but it does mean that other demographics have existed in a sphere of silence that is inconceivable to those who haven't and feminism, along with other ideologies, has given language to that silence. I cannot conceive of what it would be like to be black, but I recognize the need for black voices in print and media. I cannot conceive of what it would be like to be male, but I recognize the need for male voices in print and media. I do know what it is like to be female, and recognizing the need for female voices alongside the voices of others I speak here and other places.

In my opinion, giving voice and working towards a more equal, understanding, and dialogic world is what feminism is all about.

My experience at Blockbuster, as stated multiple times but somehow misinterpreted, had nothing to do with the man who was kind enough to compliment me. I appreciated it then, as I previously stated, and I still appreciate it now. My discussion of that experience had to do with being a woman and existing in a state, through no one particular person, group, or gender's fault, where frustrating well intentioned dialogue is constantly, unintentionally, double-edged. That wasn't the speaker's fault, in this case the man at the store, it was a response from me the listener that he carries no blame for. But unless I talk about it, unless I express my experience of it, then others who might make the same comment will never know that it evokes an unintended reaction. That's why I speak--to give value and meaning to my existence.

Society is in the middle of an upheaval right now; competing voices are making demands that cannot possibly all be met. Men are constantly villainized as rapists, pedophiles, and chauvinists by those that would judge them for their gender. However, to judge me as a feminist based on others is the same mistake. We stereotype because it's easy, not because we have to--I am as guilty as others sometimes. I appreciate a door held for me, and I appreciate a pleasant compliment. But my personal belief is that true politeness and goodness is practiced by both genders equally, and it happens when one does something nice for someone not because they have to or feel required to but because they want to. Don't hold the door for me because I'm a woman, hold the door for me because you're polite. I will do the same. That is, I think, the key to a better world and better society.

There are many, many more things I would like to include here, but this is already ridiculously long. Despite its length, however, I would ask that all read the whole thing before forming responses to my existence as a feminist. It isn't about one gender over another or one ideology brainwashing a nation; it's about equality and understanding for each individual and the means and ability to achieve happiness and enlightenment.

Cultural guilt is a powerful thing. We don’t enjoy being blamed for behaviors we didn’t enact or condone, nor do we enjoy recognizing any aspect of those former beliefs in our current persona. It is a hard thing to seek knowledge, as a feminist or civil rights activist or whatever label we want to apply—perhaps post-colonialist is best. It is even harder to express thoughts of existence, right or wrong, knowing there are those that don’t only misunderstand or disagree, but hate you for your perceived stupidity. Nothing is more detrimental to education and communication than attack without urge to listen. The previous presidential election, discussions of my feminist ideologies, my decision to refuse to stay quiet have consistently put in me situations where people forcefully disagree with me. I want to be a person that does not shy away from challenges of what I say, but that want is easier held than idealized. Responding to powerful, emotional arguments is also difficult because my ire is raised and my first impulse is to attack back. That does no one any good, though, and for this reason I am both going to engage in the conversation to the best of my ability and I am not going to remove comments. Should the conversation devolve, however, into nothing more than attack-oriented comments with no genuine urge to understand on either side, I will delete all negative posts with nary a word spoken about them.

First, and most importantly, I would never punch someone in the face for a compliment. My hyperbole was used for particular rhetorical effect and understanding authorial intent is as much a reader’s responsibility as it is an author’s responsibility to anticipate the reader’s response. Alongside that is my second point. My experience is my own and is being presented here as nothing more in a space of free speech. This means that no matter how well intentioned, I am sometimes the recipient of what some would term compliments that are not wholly complimentary. Not because of the intention of the complimenter, but because they are operating from a standpoint and ideology that is unaware of an existence outside their own. These sorts of compliments, like an older wealthy man telling me he is proud of me for being such a good girl, are not offered with intention to hurt, but do nonetheless. I speak about these things because I feel the best way to broaden perspective and complicate thinking is to speak of differing experience, regardless of how uncomfortable such sharing can be.

Finally, and not least importantly, I bear no ill will towards anyone who compliments me nor am I sorry it happened. My irritation is with a greater ideology of the world—an ideology that is still going strong as evidenced through the powerful responses my story begot. I am not a man hater, a compliment hater, or any sort of hater; merely a person sharing observations as untoward as they may be at times because I see value in it. This is not an apology but an explanation.

To disagree with someone through moral superiority and judgment with no clear attempt at understanding what they are saying is precisely what I am attempting to avoid with this explanation. But regardless of my personality flaws, of which there are many, and the reasons for my beliefs and reactions, of which there are more, I am not sorry for my response to the nice man at Blockbuster (which was nothing but appreciative in my actions and gestures) or for my continued espousal of what I think and why.

That is the last I will say on this particular topic, though I will always clarify my thoughts as requested in an effort to communicate as I want to, not only as is comfortable for me.

It looks as if I will have to remove comments from my blog if things continue as they do. I apologize for the inconvenience and will keep all updated.

I was renting movies at Blockbuster yester eve when the employee said something funny, annoying, sweet, and heartbreaking to me: he said, "these are really good movie choices--you know if I wasn't married..." and then he gave a friendly smile/giggle combination. I made small talk and wished him well, but inside I kind of wanted to punch him the face. The reason for this is that this comment, like so many others I've heard over the years, falls into the category of "You're so cool I bet you make someone a fantastic girlfriend/wife someday, but it won't be me because I'm not actually attracted to you at all." Obviously this particular instance was different as he was married, but it was precisely the sort of throw away comment that reminds me time and time again how attractive and awesome I am in theory to most every guy I meet, just not in actuality.

The best metaphor I could conceive to explain my feelings about this is a bit unorthodox: I feel like the dude in the wheelchair at the marathon to whom the runners say "I really respect your spirit and courage to keep going." That sort of theoretical you're so awesome mentality which is undercut by a fervent desire to never be me.

I don't know exactly why I bring this up except that it's been on my mind a lot lately. I've known men that I've wished all the happiness and love in the world, but would never ever date myself. But I don't think I've ever told them they will make someone a great boyfriend/husband some day. There is something about that statement that reeks of "I'm so proud of you"--a statement I never respond well to unless I've just saved a baby or stayed true to my morals in the face of absolute evil.

I hate it when married guys tell me how awesome I am because there are two meanings to it and neither of them is acceptable. The first meaning is that I have a great personality and because they are happily married with all of their sexual needs met they look at no one with particular sexual approval or disapproval and so comment on my awesomeness as they would a well trained dog that belongs to someone else. The second meaning is that they are unhappily married and so whatever part of me seems to fill the void created by their lack of happiness becomes exceptionally appealing and they are seriously contemplating cheating--that skeezes me out to no end. Nothing turns me off quicker than a man looking to make me his mistress.

As a brilliant friend of mine said most men are constantly trying to make women less--less physically and less metaphysically. I'm not offering this as a stereotype or judgment, but only as a statement of experience I and other women have had. It isn't that they are trying to hurt us; they only want to contain us, take care of us, handle us. They've been raised since they were born to take care of women, as we were raised to find a man who could take care of us.

Some would say that's biology, but I don't buy it. In nature no other species is so bifurcated by gender; the females aren't housed, domesticated, and protected because they are smaller and weaker. They are expected to hunt, protect, and birth. Each species deals with reproduction differently, but the notion that women have evolved as the protected by men is bunk, I think. I think consciousness of sexual politics, consciousness itself changes everything about gender relations as it does all other aspects of our life.

I'm not denying biology here, but I think I am floating the argument that whatever biological urges we have are so overwrought with societal messages and expectations that it is nearly impossible to tell the two apart. We have chemistry with particular people which seems to speak towards biology, but we have such complicated and ingrained social expectations of behavior from the opposite sex that if someone acts in a particular way they become unattractive despite physical appeal. This is countered by objectification, appreciation and value decided purely by physicality, but objectification seems to arise chiefly in an attempt to assert control. Men don't want to find a beautiful woman unattractive because of her personality so she is taught not to talk; as women take on these less positive aspects of society in modern attempts at equality they begin objectifying men in the same ways for the same reasons. Sex, therefore, becomes an end instead of a means and the body the only viable decider in sexuality. We then begin manipulating the body for it to be the most attractive object it can be--waxing, crash dieting, weight lifting for appearance as opposed to strength. Like beautiful dolls that talk we also limit our personalities, try to make ourselves less, so that the object--our body--is as untainted by excessive complications as possible.

In the end our bodies aren't objects, they house people, and those who thought they were in love and understood the other person become miserable because neither one is capable of dealing with themselves let alone someone else. The scary thing is (there are many scary things, but this is one) that women's lib struggled so long to change this pattern and as women rebelled against feminist ideals they began to perpetuate it themselves. We objectify because we can, but never stop to think if we should.

I don't know where I'm going with any of this, other than general dissatisfaction with the state of the world and gender politics today. There's nothing particularly revolutionary or brilliant about what I've stated above, it just is. And it did make me feel good to have the Blockbuster man appreciate my movie choices--it's always fun to fascinate someone.

Maybe I'm just fed up with having to hear, over and over again, if I were different, and you were different, and things were different, they would be different. It's also entirely possible I should stop studying gender politics of the early modern period; perhaps all that talk of women as the progenitors of sin and inherently evil makes me a tad angry at the world, yes? Quite right.

I was fortunate enough to see the newest James Bond this weekend and naturally I began plotting my response to it here where all could see. Just recently, however, I noticed an article on msn written by someone who had never seen a James Bond film until recently. I read it because I too had never seen a film until four or five years ago and I wasn't astounded to hear that someone else had lived her life without watching every single film multiple times. I was bothered by one part of it, however; apparently the Pierce Brosnan Bond's are skewered for being politically correct. They took out everything but the puns--something I hadn't noticed. These new ones are a return to a more gritty Bond. There are several things wrong with this statement; first that Craig has more in common with Dalton and Brosnan than Moore and Pierce Brosnan was by far better than Roger Moore (I hate Roger Moore; I should throw that out there). Second, that Daniel Craig never hits a woman either...but somehow he's edgey where Pierce Brosnan was politically correct. I think we as a society just wake up one day and assume the values we've assimilated were always there.

In any case! What I want to write about, what I set out to write about, what must be written about is:

The Top Ten Reasons Why James Bond Rocks My Pants Off

010 Incredibly Lucky

It's that about which we never speak: Mr. Bond is incredibly lucky. How is it he manages to stumble across the bad guys at just the right moments? How is it he manages not to get shot in the head? How is it his villains always underestimate him? Sure, some of it's skill, training, all around greatness, but James Bond is one lucky bastard.

009 Butt-kicking Awesomeness

When luck isn't enough Mr. Bond is, quite simply, Butt-kickingly awesome. I thought about how I could say this more seriously or sophisticatedly or 007y, but I can only speak the truth. The man can out shoot, out run, and out *ahem* well, you know, everyone on both sides of the Atlantic. This is really the reason from which all following reasons follow. How would you put it?

008 Man Can Drive A Car

Generally I'm not a car girl. Yes, a car that growls as opposed to whines is a beautiful thing, but guys driving their Porsches and their BMW's just don't do anything for me. But James doesn't just drive a nice car; James uses that car in ways that are groin-tingling spectacular.

007 Great in the Sack

It had to be said. As a red blooded, heterosexual female you have to wonder. Sure, in some of the early films he hits you, but only when you ask for it.

006 Can't Keep A Good Spy Down

He just won't die. You can shoot him; you can drown him. You can throw him off a cliff to sharks with lasers on their heads. But he won't die. Revisit 010 and 009.

005 Smarter Than Your Average Bad Guy

Q makes the gadgets, but Bond is somehow able to use them with only rudimentary training. And he always figures out the evil plots with very minimal sleuth work. And, AND while the bad guy is soliloquizing Bond is preparing his escape. Intelligence is so hot.

004 A.M./F.M.--Animal Magnetism/Formidable Masculinity

Most times someone has one or the other. Example A) Captain Jack Sparrow--magnetism, but not much in the way of masculinity. Example B) Any Arnold Schwarzenegger character--lots of masculinity but no magnetism. James Bond, though, has them both in spades. You never doubt for a minute that he's sexy, and you know, whether he's in a tux, a swim suit, or some all black, spandex, super spy get up, that he's all man.

003 B.B.S.B.--Bad Boy Saving Babies

Dear James doesn't like to follow rules. That makes him a bad boy. But he breaks the rules to save babies and, you know, the world. That makes him hot.

002 Stays Cool Under Pressure...Until He Doesn't

Torture, femme fatales, imminent death--nothing throws ol' James. He's stoic and cool through the whole movie, until someone does something and pushes him over the edge. Those moments, when he loses it, are only so powerful because his coolness is so complete previously. It isn't that he has a temper or lack of control or anything so mundane as that. Quite simply...James Bond is a man that I would love to push over the edge.

001 Super Spy

Super spies are the real life equivalent to superheroes. Their ability to save the day seems almost like a superpower, and their continual bad luck with women and happiness gives them a bit of noir detective feel. Basically what has happened there is a stew of hotness. All the best parts of everyone's favorite archetypes have been thrown together, mixed on high, and baked until Bonded.

So it is that while he's chauvinistic, egotistic, perhaps even masochistic I would still, if given half an opportunity, allow my pants to totally be rocked off by James Bond. So what if I'm only a notch in the bed post? It's gonna be a heck of a lot of fun making said notch.

So I just saw an ad for "laser hair removal" and it got me thinking about hair and places where I view it should and should not be. On the one hand it would really nice to never have to shave my legs or armpits again, but on the other side I wasn't sure I appreciated technology that exists only to remove hair.

All of this inevitably led me to thoughts to pubic hair, as hair removal conversations always do, and I remembered a good friend recently confirming my thought that if you shave your vagina you look 12--at least in between your legs. I find this disturbing and she finds this disturbing. But then I started thinking a little more and I decided that we, modern civilized people that we are, have all been pansified.

People have been having good sex for well over a couple millennia now and for most of that time hair was not an issue. They had other things like bound feet, or corseted waists, or female circumcision (all three of which are still in existence) but nobody was being grossed out by body hair. Maybe when everybody poops in a bowl body hair becomes less gross by comparison.

But in my opinion--and I apologize for the complete and total judgment about to take place--if you get grossed out by body hair or are bothered by it in any serious way you're a wuss. That's not the popular opinion these days because we like things to be clean, and well kept--as if my vagina were somehow a domesticated animal or small house for entertaining guests. But can we just think about the logic here? Please? You're having sex, people, and you're worried about the cleanliness of skin that does or does not have hair? Did you not taste the spit in your mouth? Or the various other bodily fluids? Hello!

I don't want to get too gross here, but I want to be as clear as possible that drawing etiquette lines in the bedroom is a mildly hypocritical act. Somebody peeing on somebody is an obvious health hazard; someone shaving or not shaving their body is not. And it isn't that I think someone shouldn't appreciate an aesthetic that appeals to them, but the moral responsibility we have attached to the aesthetic is what bothers me. If a woman doesn't shave, wax, or at least trim she's dirty and unkempt. And, for clarification, I'm not discussing keeping one's self in the one's swimsuit--that's a given, and has no bearing on this conversation. I'm rebelling against the idea that unsightly pubic hair has taken on the social significance of the mullet.

We scoff at unshaved bodies the same way we scoff at mullets and fanny-packs. Were I a better person I would take this as a lesson not to scoff at mullets and fanny-packs any longer, but I probably won't. But mullets and f.p's don't exist in natural naturally. Hair doesn't believe in business in the front while it parties in the back unless you're Joe Dirt and even his hair wasn't like that naturally. But the societal concept of my pubic hair as a fashion faux pas is causing me indigestion. I think the idea of my body as an inconvenience to someone desiring sex is indicative of a much larger, and scarier, issue in our society at large.

How dare you be the way you are when it limits my ease and pleasure?

Not something you would want to say to someone, right? Or have said to you? And yet, we change ourselves everyday so that it won't have to be said, or implied, in our direction. It isn't simply an aesthetic choice at this point; it's become expected and desired--a development of the last twenty years or so.

I'm still thinking on the implications of all of this, but regardless of what is decided I still stand by original claim:

If pubic hair bothers you all that much, you're a pansy.


This judgment brought to you by the FPBS--Fanny Pack Broadcasting Network.

I'm rereading a fantastic book from my adolescent years and I find I can't put it down. It's an amazing thing to have a book that affected you as a child still be as fun and insightful to read as an adult. For those interested it's the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind and I highly recommend them to anyone seeking a fun, fantasy filled adventure. My point, however, is that as I am reading it the female protagonist cries about every one hundred pages or so, sometimes less--I just read a line where she lamented how much she cries saying she rarely cried all her life, but seems to cry constantly in the continuum of the story. I cut her some slack; she's tromping through the wild fighting to save the world. I figure that's a trying situation for the best of us.

But this got me thinking about how much crying I've seen in Las Vegas. Not so much from me, I cry about as much (or as little) as I ever have, but it seems that every month, or week, or day, my phone rings and the person on the other end is in tears. This hasn't been a constant occurrence in my life since late high school, early college. The one shining point is that I haven't caused the tears, but I'm constantly surprised that I am the one people call when shedding said tears. I'm not a nurturer. I'm a fixer. I only want tears when they are attached to a situation I can fix.

But this has me thinking about the nature of the city I live in and the people I know. I've gotten meaner since I moved here, both in thought and deed. I've tried to avoid it when I am aware of it, but I find my patience with people is much less than it used to be, and my expressions of my annoyance are much sharper and sometimes cattier. There's no need to make fun of what someone looks like just because their comments consistently irritate the crap out of me in class, but I am constantly gravitating that way. I shouldn't scream at the phone when I see people calling, but I fear what's waiting for me on the other side if I pick up.

Is it the city? Is it the school? Is it the people? I know amazing people here. I've met some of the best writers I've ever read, and had amazing conversations about all metaphysical topics graduate students love to discuss. I've had nights that were so much fun I didn't want them to end and nights that were so much fun it seemed the hangover never would end. The craziness doesn't seem to affect everyone by any means, but the extremes are significantly more varied than anywhere else I have lived in my life. It's almost as if everyone in this town lives at a pole--good or bad, sane or crazy. I'm still not sure where I am--if the screen runs with tears as I complain that no one loves me we'll have our answer.

I've joked that Las Vegas is the eight rings of Dante's hell; maybe it's living in a climate that wasn't made to support our life comfortably. Everything out here wants to kill you--the weather, the animals, the people--so perhaps it creates an environment that brings out the crazy in all of us. It could be an economy that's based solely on vice; Las Vegas is sort of like the final years of Rome recreated in the desert. I don't know myself, it's a quandary that still baffles understanding.

The obvious answer is that I simply shouldn't answer my phone, but I begin to feel that my journey into meanness would be complete if I did that. On the other hand, my own crazy is being exacerbated by the surrounding crazy crying at me every other day. So the philosophical question of the day is: is it more humane to be a friend even when those needing your friendship drive you crazy with their own instability or should you cut them off and not answer the phone? Of course if I don't answer the phone a voicemail will be left and at some point a call back made. Unless I can get around it with text messaging. God Bless text messages.

So that's where life stands in the city of sin. Overall it's pretty darn fun, and I'll probably never regret my time here, certainly there are friends I'm constantly grateful I've had the chance to know. But, I wonder what little mental gems I'll be taking with me when I leave in a year or two--will I come out with my soul intact, or calling all of you, crazy and inconsolable?

Only time will tell...duh duh duhn...(dramatic music)

Oh fine. I have to write about Prop 8 in California. I started any number of comments about Obama winning the election, silly people and their misunderstandings of socialism, but ultimately I talked myself out of making remarks. They seemed redundant and unnecessary. But California voted for Prop 8 and repealed Gay Marriage and that is worth thinking about.

I understand some of the fear behind resisting Same Sex Marriage--religious people are afraid that a change in federal law will affect churches. Understanding that allows me to be more knowledgeable about their views and even sympathetic to a point; we don't have particularly concrete separation of church and state and recent years have forced a lot of the traditional powers in our country to make way for minorities. That can be disconcerting. But even understanding all of this...I just don't care. I'm about to get very undemocratic here for just a second.

I don't care that Same Sex Marriage seems unnatural to most of the country. I don't care that churches and church-goers are worried about losing their right to decide social morality. I don't care that not everyone in this country can tolerate equality. I don't think you should have to move to another state to have equitable rights with other human beings. I don't think you should have to pick your geographic location based on your race, sexuality, or religion. Same Sex Marriage isn't a gun control law, or an alcohol law, or a transportation law. We don't allow Alabama or Mississippi to pass a law that reinstates Separate but Equal. When it comes to race, matters of equality are considered fundamental because they fall under what the Constitution specifically lays out for the country: a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Why isn't marriage a matter of equality? Why isn't the ability to be recognized by the government, state and federal, as a married couple as clearly unequal as Jim Crow laws? Because marriage between same sex partners is unnatural? Unnecessary? Detrimental to society? All of those arguments were used against bi-racial marriage not that long ago. For a black person and white person to be sexual together was considered an abomination. Does anyone else find that funny? I'm laughing.

How do we, as a society, decide our morals and ethics? Thus far, despite separation of church and state, it seems religion, specifically Christianity, has been our go to. But we live in a country of varied religion and no religion; how can we force people to obey a law that is based on religion? What reasons, outside religious ones, are there for denying Same Sex Marriage? It isn't dangerous; it isn't hurtful. It isn't bad for the economy--a marriage between two consenting adults agreeing to live with each other as a single household in the eyes of the State. Why must we pass a law that refuses to recognize that?

Please don't think I'm being anti-religion here. If you do, I feel that's a misreading of my statements. I'm stating there is no place for religion in government, and that no one has yet to offer a convincing argument for why Same Sex Marriage should be denied on a governmental level. Churches are a private sphere and must choose their tolerances as they see fit; there are many churches that recognize homosexuals as equal, healthy members of their community. There are many that don't. My quarrel is with none of them. My point is that we continue, as a society, to pass laws based on a morality that has no place in our government and we, as a people, continue to allow bigotry to rule.

I feel it is incredibly important that all start to realize our government needs to pass laws based on the ethicality of the situation--what is most ethical for society. Morality is a private issue and has no place in law. I say that because we all carry such intensely different morals, and while they rarely cancel each other out we need a government that can navigate the difference between the wide-ranging beliefs of its people. We need a government that will promote and protect a healthy, equal, and ethical society. Just because the majority votes to be bigoted in a state, I don't think the Constitution protects them.

In the intersection of personal rights I still believe that one's right to equality will always trump another's right to bigotry.

So I'm walking home from school--always an exciting activity as I never know if I'll be honked at, asked if I'm on the "road to nowhere," or kissed by a homeless man. That's right--no one can say my life isn't eventful.

I pass a bus station every day, and many times an elderly Mexican man with a cowboy hat has been sitting at the bus stop. He's taken to smiling at me and I smile back because hey, I see the guy a few times a week as I pass by and my mother raised me to be polite. Today, though, today was like no other day. As I approach he smiles and I smile back. But then he raises his hands and says something. I pull my earphone out and he reaches out as if he wants to shake my hand. Not sensing any danger I grasp his hand to shake it, and he pulls it to him--what happened next couldn't be predicted by anyone.

He kissed my arm. That's right. Right there on the crook of my elbow. Just planted one on me. I still can't understand what he's saying, but I make out what sounds like "you're beautiful, you're beautiful" over and over again. Shocked, I bust out a thank you and he reaches up with his free hand--the other one still grasping the hand he pulled towards him to kiss my elbow--and pulls my head down so he can kiss my cheek. Then he kisses my hand once before I disentangle myself, still saying thank you, and walking away.

Now here's the thing: I have a fantasy--one of many actually. But in this particular fantasy a cowboy sees me walking down the street in L.V. and is so overcome with love/lust for me that he grabs me and kisses me before sweeping me off my feet and making the sweet loves to me. It's a fantasy, sure, but I've always felt it was a good one so far as fantasies go.

As evidenced by the story above, a man, in a cowboy hat, has seen me walking down the street and been so overcome with something for me that he has grabbed me and kissed me. That man was an elderly, most likely homeless, man with few teeth remaining. He was also several inches shorter than me--which only adds the oddity that he managed to get anywhere near my cheek for kiss number two.

Is the universe mocking me?!?!

Either, fate sent me a message to bolster my spirits and remind me of my astounding awesomeness through slightly unconventional means OR the universe has mocked me mercilessly and proven beyond all scientific certainty that my cowboy fantasy is not only a fantasy, but laughable and punishable by homeless kissing.

I don't know which it is, but I know I'm going to assume it's a message of hope. The other option is simply too disturbing and disheartening to consider.

No matter what it means, however, I'm claiming the title of Rockstar. I think I've earned it.

I give you "The Truth About Why Men Cheat" from msn.com. Here are a few reasons why I love this article: 1) It lists the following behaviors as if they are unique to men. 2) It offers the poor wives tips on how to prevent the cheating behavior. 3) It offers a universal truth broken down into 6 easy statistics so that you too can have a healthy, happy marriage.

First let's look at the reasons men cheat--the truth, if you will.

Emotional Dissatisfaction--now there's a surprise. Can you believe that men are capable of being emotionally dissatisfied and will cheat because of it? I was shocked. The point of the article was that cheating is rarely about sex because apparently the authors missed Psych 101 or a really helpful girl power website. Men are people. I never knew. My favorite part is that all I, as a (figurative) wife, have to do to keep my man happy is create an air "of thoughtfulness and appreciation and he will reciprocate." Obviously all emotional issues can be dealt with this way. Thank you msn.com

Cheating men report feeling guilt during the affair--I'm not sure how this plays into the "why" part of the title. The author is mostly informing the readers, again, that men are *gasp* people and you can't expect cheating only from the scumbags. But you can be a proactive wife and help him deal with the feelings he compartmentalized so that your husband, who is such a good man, doesn't stray.

77% of men who cheat have a friend who cheated--this one's a shocker folks! It's a good thing people never engage in morally reprehensible behaviors their friends do because the friends normalize it. I mean, can you imagine what our world would be like if this behavioral pattern existed outside of cheating? There could racism and sexism and bullying and gang rapes and lynch mobs and...wait a minute. And wifies, you aren't allowed to simply ban your husband from hanging out with his friend but you can build your social live around happily married couples--cause Mr. and Mrs. Suzie Sunshine don't make anyone feel the need to stab their eye out with a nearby utensil. I really feel like my marriage is going to be in better shape because of this advice.

Cheating men met the other woman at work--oh my gosh. Men cheat with people they work with?! Did you know this? I had no idea. Did you know that sometimes women *shh don't tell* cheat with men they work with too? But I mean, now that I know I can just ride my Harley into his work and pistol-whip the bitch. Oh, that's not an appropriate solution. I'm sorry.

Only 12% of men reported that their mistress was more attractive than their wife--well I don't know about you, but I know that would make me feel so much better if I was one of those wives. Because it's all about competition right ladies? Of course, if you fill his emotional needs but get ugly then he'll be one of the 12% instead of the eighty-eight. You just can't win.

Men rarely have sex with women the first night they meet them--so your husband takes the time to get to know this woman, to really understand her and share what he's feeling, and then he boffs her socks off. You, therefore, have time. Watch for the signs. You can see him sharing emotionally with a woman long before he shares his penis with her vagina. (I'm sorry, that was wholly inappropriate.)

So here's what we've learned ladies, ready? Men are people. Men have emotions. If your husband finds you cold, unsupportive, ugly, distracted, hurtful, mean, too tough, too needy, too anything or not enough of something he will cheat on you. You won't be able to tell if he's a cheater because cheaters are good people too. Wait, that means men AND people that cheat are actually people? With all the depth and character and complication of real people? It's just too much. I need to lie down.

Okay, I'm back. Thankfully, we have learned through msn.com that there are ways to cut the cheating off at the pass. Buy this book and follow these simple steps because obviously if your marriage is rocky enough for cheating to be a possibility you'll be totally capable and willing to genuinely adapt and make use of the advice this book offers.

I don't know why I do this to myself. Probably because I was sick of talking about politics and I thought for sure a little harmless fluff article would get my mind off of bigger issues. Now I'm just more pissed off. Why are all the dumb people relationship advice columnists?

http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/articlerb.aspx?cp-documentid=11290632&page=1

Why I'm Voting for Obama and You Should Too: Part Deux

My last post has received a lot of action on Facebook so I feel it's time to offer clarification. While I do vote based on issues such as abortion and gay marriage those are not my only reasons for voting. Nor do I cease investigating candidates because of their stances on these issues. My calling out those people who do vote solely on those issues was for two reasons: 1) to vocalize the difference between standing for something and zealotry and 2) to engage in a thought experiment expressing why such zealotry is wrong.

This is the important part so everybody listen:

I do not lose sleep at night over abortion or the possibility of it being made illegal. I am aware of its complexity legally speaking. Abortion laws have suffered mightily in the past eight years, however, so to say that it is a non-issue is as fallacious as to say it is the only issue.

I do not think that Obama will reconstruct the country in four years either through gay marriage or any other social policy. I do think that the next President will have a significant impact on our policies and our economy, however, so to vote without considering how the candidate will handle the economy, education, health care, or equality seems a bit narrow-minded and I hate it when I'm narrow-minded.

The biggest arguments I see against Obama, excusing the silly ones like terrorism or racism, seem to be that he is a socialist and will force his socialist views on everyone and he is just like every other politician and won't change anything. Let's deal with socialism first.

Socialism is a highly charged term in our country that has been used since the cold war to frighten people into protecting Capitalism. Obama has no plans that anyone has heard him say or reported on to take the wealth of the rich and redistribute it to the poor. He does have plans to offer tax breaks to those who make less money instead of those that make more money. This is not redistribution of wealth, this is maintaining of wealth. Trickle down economics doesn't work. It didn't work under Regan and it isn't working now--the housing market collapse shows that. The poor and middle class will borrow attempting to live the American Dream, but when you tax them disproportionately to the rich they cannot sustain their viability in the economy. Offering tax breaks to those who make less than $250,000 a year makes the most sense--unless you make over $250,000 a year or believe (falsely) that you will soon. I don't want someone else's money, I want my money because I have less money to give away. This isn't a socialist take over of the economy. Healthcare receives the same treatment. I know those of you who are doctors or work in the healthcare industry have a much wiser and more educated view on this, but I do know that we are the only country of our size and development lacking in universal healthcare. England, France, and Canada all seem to make a go of it without losing their freedoms or rights. I'm just saying.

As to the charge that Obama is just like every other politician--full of empty rhetoric. I feel this was the greatest achievement of the Republican campaigning. The people that believe the terrorist stuff are the people that would vote Republican anyway, but many, many people who heard Obama speak and were moved by his words changed their minds once the empty rhetoric idea was bandied about. Everything is rhetoric--we all can agree on that. But not all rhetoric is empty; that's an important distinction. Obama's rhetoric, therefore, is not empty because it's "only" rhetoric; this was the same ploy used against evolution because it was "only" a theory. Obama has discussed issues, like race, in ways no politician to date has. No one that I have read speeches from or seen clips from has spoken so clearly and honestly about their beliefs as Obama. Yes, he is a politician; yes he is running a campaign. Concessions have been and had to be made because he has to persuade people who are uneducated and thoughtless. A great many of the people that vote do so based on ads they see on t.v. and soundbites on the evening news. When catering to that reality--a reality that must be accepted and dealt with if he wants to win, and he must win if he wants to affect change--his tactics had to adjust themselves. There is no real way to predict his presidency aside from the knowledge we have that he is intelligent--that's all we can know for sure. He appears to also be a moral, free-thinking individual willing to listen to advisers. He may affect no real change, and he may change a lot. But I do think we have reason to believe he will not make any decisions hastily without considering the consequences, because of his religion, or because he can't understand the complexities of the situation. That's a lot more than we can say for some past Presidents and I firmly believe he will make better decisions for this country and for me then will John McCain.

As a side note, Obama has also received criticism for some of the programs he wants to fund in the government, and I think it is erroneous to believe he will institute these programs without finding proper funding through balancing. Adding or revising programs does not negate revisiting old ones and streamlining.

I fervently wish with every ounce of my being that Obama wins in 15 days. I also have no understanding, how the media and the American people can fault Obama for being too cold. When Bush was elected he was seen as an "everyman." His C average in school kept him from being elitist--something that education is bound to create apparently--and now we find more comfort in man with a renowned temper than we do someone who is capable of keeping a clear head as it were.

There are so many things about this Presidential election that make me insane.

I've done a lot of thinking on people who "vote on the issues" because as much as I've been angered over the years at people who vote republican because they are pro-life I vote democrat because I'm pro-choice. I'm angry at people who vote republican because they favor a ban on gay marriage, but I vote democrat because I am pro gay marriage. I feel a little better about my decisions because I also agree with Obama's economic, educational, and health care policies as well, but I would have voted for him regardless based on the aforementioned "issues." To some degree that makes me as biased as those who vote strictly republican for the opposite reasons.

I feel I am justified where they are not, of course, because I think I am right. They think they are right. In many things we are even and I am as fanatical as they are. But it is precisely this thought about my voting and political preferences that save me from zealotry I would argue. I know why I think what I do. I don't vote because my values are shared or not shared or because I feel one man is more my type of "family" man than the other. I vote because one party stands for equality and the other party seeks to deny it.

And, in the end, that's what these two issues do. For those that view abortion as murder I can understand their passion in seeking to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but for 90% of the country their stances on this issue have nothing to do with honestly believing it is murder. Most would want exceptions to any anti-abortion law for rape, incest, or the mother's health. To all of those people I say, you will never be able to properly legislate in cases of rape and incest so you mustn't legislate at all. Consider the difficulty we have deciding if a woman is raped or not already and think about the impossibility of achieving an abortion if that had to be proved before the abortion could take place. And, while you might never chose one for yourself is it really a thing to deny someone else? How do we know her story, her reasoning, or her circumstances? If you believe it to be murder in the most severe sense, as much as I disagree with you, I realize the futility of attempting to change your mind.

For gay marriage, however, there is no argument. Millions of marriages in this country are an afront to all that is decent in civilization. People marry for money, safety, and sexual chemistry. Spouses and children are beaten, raped, and ignored. Children get married and divorce. Marriage is not a sacred union; it never has been. Even if it were, it's sacred existence lies only within the hearts of the partners and those who respect their vows. Homosexual marriage, even if you disagree with the lifestyle, in no way affects your life, existence, or set of beliefs. Denying recognition of marriage on a governmental level is an inequality of the most offensive sort. To say you disagree with the lifestyle is not enough; open marriages, false marriages, and abusive marriages are all tolerated. Those who are strictly religious do not campaign to deny drug users marriage even though that lifestyle might be as offensive as homosexuality. The arguments used against homosexual marriage are the same arguments, sometimes word for word, that were used against bi-racial marriage. This is a just sticking point, I believe, in the same way blatant racism would be. It is not enough to turn the decision over to the states; we fought a civil war because slavery was wrong. You shouldn't have to move to another state to find acceptance and equality; those things should be mandated because our country is supposed to worship, at the end of the day, the holy dollar above all else including religion. Legalization of gay marriage would in no way affect churches or religious institutions to deny homosexuals the right to marry. This is a federal matter and I have to ask: what is it about homosexuals getting married that is so offensive? If you are bigoted beyond the point of reason then, like the pro-lifers who believe the fetus is a living, breathing, independent human being, I realize futility in arguing with you.

I vote because of these reasons and I suppose, in many ways, this makes me much like those I often bad mouth. But I vote on these issues because I believe in freedom of choice and lifestyle. Neither of these two issues will raise the crime rate, hurt the economy, or affect the masses in any discernable way; all they do is provide equality and freedom for those that need it. And so I ask, as we approach election day, if you find yourself voting based solely on one or both of these issues, why do you do it? Have you answered that question for yourself? It isn't zealotry to draw a line in the sand and stand by it. But it is if you don't know why you stand by it.

I just watched Wuthering Heights. It was a risk. I assessed it and I took it, and now I'm sorry. I hate the story of Wuthering Heights you understand; while I understand the appeal of Heathcliff generally he annoys me and disgusts me with his hate. Catherine isn't much better as she's C-R-A-Z-Y. I spell it out to make sure we're on the same page here.

But netflix being the devil, I saw the 1970 version starring Timothy Dalton and I thought to myself, "self--if anyone can make Heathcliff hot it's Timothy Dalton." I wasn't wholly wrong; young Timothy Dalton strutting around doing a lot of brooding and passionate kissing isn't a bad thing, but when said passionate kissing is preceded or followed by a slap to the face I pretty much lose interest. There's nothing wrong with the rough and tumble, sometimes rough is nice, but rough doesn't include a slap to the face. And frankly, I don't care how "passionate" you are--if yours is the sort of love that requires you to slap me, toss me to the ground or, you know, ruin my life, then perhaps it isn't the sort of love one should pursue.

Which brings me to a side point--the old cliché, love is enough? I hate that silliness. In fact the only thing I hate more than that is "love means never having to say you're sorry." The second one is just dumb, and the first one--doesn't it depend entirely on what sort of love you have? If you've got Superman love, or Spartan love, hell, even if all you've got is Dracula love--love might be enough. In all of those cases you're safety overrules all other concerns, but if you've got Heathcliff love, or Phantom love, or Darth Vader love? Honey, your love best be coming with a security guard and some sort of his-crazy-may-kill-you warning device. Love is only enough in those situations to get your dumb ass in trouble; it most certainly is not enough to pull you back out again.

Perhaps that's why I hate love (oh! don't tell anyone!). I don't hate love, but I do hate "love." The crap that's fed to us from birth about one spiritual partner who is going to make us complete, make us whole, save us from our lives and ourselves and everything else. Crap people. That's crap. I'm not being cynical here, just telling you an unfortunate truth. But it's a truth that a) keeps us from finding true love and b) causes us to think that all love was created equal. This is how you get young kids in destructive relationships (exhibit a: Heathcliff and Catherine) who think that because it hurts to be apart they should obviously be together. Said kids never take a look at their relationship to realize that when they are together it's a bit like an atom bomb--not good for them, not good for the environment, not good for the radiation exposure of those around them.

But we think it's love. We think that because we want something emotionally it must be necessary to our happiness; we don't act that way about plastic toys after the age of ten, so why the hell do we act that way about love? Keep in mind I'm not talking about real, honest to goodness, healthy love here people. The kind where you bring out the best in each other and are always happier when you are together than when you are apart (even when you kind of want to punch the other person in the face). I'm talking about the constructed idea of love. The idea of someone who saves you, or fixes you, or, basically, does anything to you. Really, all you get to do is love me. Ask anyone who has dated a crazy, nobody can fix that crazy but themself.

And that brings me full circle back to Wuthering Heights. You see, in this particular adaptation they tried to make the play that what Heathcliff and Catherine had was such true, undying love that nothing could separate them except themselves and once they wanted each other they would always be together--even in death. You know what I think really goes on here? They're addicted to each other like crack cocaine and now they can spend an eternity being high, crashing down, and wondering when they got so ugly.

I'm not being cynical here people. I'm not saying I don't want to be loved. I'm saying my love best not come with a slap in the face, a noose around my neck, or a trachea cut off by the dark side. I feel that any relationship coming to us with those strings attached doesn't deserve to be lauded as "true" love and we would all be happier, less crazy people if we could accept that.

I know, it makes me boring. But it also makes me not the friend that calls you during a mental breakdown because her obviously crazy, obviously unstable boyfriend went crazy and unstable on her. There are bonuses to my philosophy.

I'm on Superman overload. First I watched Superman 1. Then I watched Superman 2. Now I'm putting in Superman Returns. It's not healthy, but it's all I've got right now.

Having just finished Superman 2, however, I'm brought back to the same problem that disturbs me time and time again. Why oh why can't Superman and Lois be together? In the comic books this isn't a problem, but the movie presents a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer. More than that, though, is the problem with the kiss at the end of the second movie. Working off the original and not the Richard Donner cut (which is, incidentally, much better) Clark Kent kisses Lois and takes away her memory of their relationship and her discovery of his secret identity.

This presents problems on a multitude of levels. The most important of which is that Superman doesn't rob memories. Batman might; Batman engages in any number of ethically dubious activities, but Superman is the guy that doesn't lie or kill. He's so upstanding, in fact, that it sometimes causes more problems then it solves.

But his taking of Lois' memory without her permission consists of a mental rape in my opinion. You can argue it's for her own good, that he does it out of love, or even necessity, but it doesn't change the fact that he is controlling her mind against her will. That's not something morally upright friends do to each other. Plus, while Superman lives a complicated existence, we're not talking about a keeper of the universe's secrets here. What's actually at stake? Lois' happiness? Her peace of mind? He knows she won't tell. She isn't in possession of some truly earth shattering information and she isn't unstable enough for it to be an issue. No, what appears to be going on is that they can't be together, it's hurting her, and he doesn't like that.

Well too damned bad. Who is he to decide what pain she lives with and what pain she forgets? Who is he to decide whether or not she will ever get over him? It's so...so...high-handed of him. In many ways it reeks of patriarchal bullshit. No, I'm not turning this into some sort of Superman is a patriarch rant (I would hope we all know me better than that) but you have to admit this idea of poor little Lois won't ever get over Superman, but Superman is strong enough to handle it for both of them is very weak-little-womanesque. Yes, he's Superman and so we all assume he is stronger in general, mentally and physically, than normal humans, but actually, in the entire mythos of Superman, he isn't any more mentally capable than a normal human being. His strength comes from his parents and his character, just like the rest of us. The thrill of Lois Lane was that she was as strong, in personality anyway, as he was. By letting him kiss her and take away her memory she's robbed of that. She's immediately reduced to a plucky girl whose so darn cute getting herself in trouble over and over again. That's not Lois Lane, or it shouldn't be.

And that's not Superman. I feel that much of the Lois/Superman relationship has been severely abused over the years. Mostly in the movies--this last one's chief offense was casting Kate Bosworth in the part who looks like she's about to break in half at any given moment--the relationship has always been presented with a sense that Superman pined after Lois and Lois only loved Superman for his power not for who he was. I find that incredibly unacceptable.

And, for the record, Superman does not ejaculate with the force of a nuclear missile. The man has super strength--at no point in the history of ejaculating has a man's ability to lift weights affected the force with which he expels seminal fluid. There is the minor issue of him crushing Lois, but considering human males abilities not to smother women smaller than them (usually) I think he'll be okay. That whole idea is such a teenage boy fantasy.

And why do men fantasize about such things as more powerful ejaculates anyway? Obviously I still don't understand as much about the male psyche as I thought.

I watched Poltergeist and Amityville Horror (the original) this weekend and literally had the bejesus scared out of me. In honor of that, and in light of the more serious issues surrounding us, I offer another top ten list.

Top Ten Life Lessons Taught By Horror Movies

10. The Exorcist—when the back of your jewelry reads “made in a third world country
where heathen, pagan religions are still or were once worshiped” go ahead and let it soak in holy water over night.

I figure what can it hurt? At worst I clean things up a little. At best I avoid satanic possession and genital mutilation via crucifix. Everybody’s a winner.

9. Jurassic Park—don’t genetically engineer predators.

I don’t know that it’s technically a horror movie, but it fits for our purposes. And this is an important lesson with modern science being what it is. Why create the Velociraptor? Or the T-Rex? Are the herbivore dinosaurs just not a big enough draw? Really?

8. Jaws—never swim after dark.

I’ve broken this rule and I’m not exactly proud of it. Granted I was in a lake. But then you have prehistoric crocodiles to worry about. Really the abstinence argument holds up here. Abstaining from swimming after dark is the only foolproof way to avoid being eaten.

7. Dracula—be wary of pale, hot strangers appearing in your fiancée’s absence.

If he’s a sexual magnet, avoids the sun, and fixates on your neck you might want to question his motives. I’m not saying true love ain’t worth dying for; I’m just saying you want to make sure you’re going to be wife #1 before you give up your virtue, and your life, on a park bench to a vampire in werewolf form.

6. The Strangers—when someone threatens your life, !^@%(*$ run them over.

This isn’t a hard concept: You break into my house. I get in my truck. You stand in front of my truck. I run you over. Taa-daa!

5. Amityville Horror—don’t let your kids play with invisible friends.

It could be their imagination. Or it could be evil incarnate. The only way to really protect against this situation is to just lock your kid in their room with no toys. It’s for their own good.

4. Poltergeist—don’t buy your kids toys.

That stupid friggin’ clown. Who buys their kid a toy like that? It’s disturbing before it’s possessed, let alone once it comes to life. The moral of the story is that between the clown, the dolls, and the board games children should live a life without toys.

3. The Grudge—when a house is haunted don’t go inside, just burn it down.

You don’t need to burn a house down from the inside. Especially when said house has a habit of killing all those that enter. It can be burnt to the ground from the outside. Trust me, arsonists do it all the time.

2. The Ring—don’t watch random blank tapes left in video stores.

It could be a snuff film. It could be kiddie porn. It could be a crazy, evil, little girl with bad hair waiting to suck the life out of you. All of these possibilities exist in the ether and none are desirable. Who picks up the blank tape from the shelf anyway?

1. Stephen King—bad things happen in small town Maine.

Don’t spend an excessive amount of time in small town Maine. Ever.

On Monday October 28, 1929 the roaring twenties were still roaring along. On Tuesday October 29, 1929 the stock market crashed and the economy fell apart. As I read about the market bail out I think of several things at once: Atlas Shrugged, the Great Depression, the American people electing a C student to run the country, and the possibility that Obama won't win.

I find I don't want to read the headlines. I don't want to know about the $700 Billion bail out plan passed by Congress. I didn't want to watch the debates. I didn't want to sit through John McCain offering answers that infuriated me knowing that there were people listening to Obama and imaging that what he was saying was no use because he refuses to tell them what they want to hear. I want to bury my head in the sand and pretend that the country will fix itself. I want to go to school and teach ethics veiled in an english class. I want to write a book and make money.

But it doesn't matter what I want. My school is going through tremendous budget cuts because Nevada doesn't have an income tax and refuses to tax the casinos. I pay excessive amounts for gas because my government believes in trickle down economics and for the past eight years I've lived in a place were the general populace has voted on religion instead of intelligence (the two are not mutually exclusive by the way). I face the possibility of never being employed because the stock market is crashing (again) and my capitalist society (which I wasn't sure I agreed with before) is steadily being controlled by its government (which I'm sure I don't agree with). I don't know what the answers are, aren't, or might be. Perhaps that is what scares me the most.

Atlas Shrugged is a book about a U.S. that destroys itself because people refuse to think for themselves. The country collapses upon itself because those that are willing to fight stupidity give up and decide to let stupidity destroy itself. I look around and I wonder how far-fetched an idea that is. We have people that would rather debate abortion, would rather vote a president into office because he promises to outlaw abortion and gay marriage than to consider the economy or the hypocrisy of America, Land of the Free, outlawing choice.

I acknowledge as I write this that I will never vote for a Republican who refuses to recognize the necessity of medical and lifestyle freedom. But the difference, as always, is that I'm in the business of expanding choices not limiting them. But that's not the point of this. Merely, I wanted to acknowledge that I vote for reasons having nothing to do with the economy and I am aware of that. But I think, in the end, my choices do have to do with the economy because I'm looking for a President that is intelligent enough to recognize that freedom doesn't happen through control. I want a President who, when the more fanatical lobbyists (on both sides) make ludicrous demands will recognize the greater complications of a democratic society and say no. And that willingness, the willingness to deal with the complicated nature of running a country, comes through in an honest refusal to make governmental decision based on religion. Take that as you will.

Regardless my desire to ignore the problems at hand still stands. But I wonder if I have the luxury. I don't think I do. I don't know that any of us do. But realistically I don't believe we live in an age where protesting does much anymore. Perhaps there is still a way, if enough people did it. But I think the only way to really affect change would be through actions and money. A refusal, on a massive scale, to buy certain products. It seems that money is the driving moral and ethical force in our country today.

Thinking about these things depresses me. Not thinking about them might ruin me. Does anyone have suggestions as to what is to be done?

I've been wondering the past few days when I would find something I to discuss. Some weeks my life is so boring I feel it would be unethical to bother anyone else with tales from it. But, my weekly poker game being the font of philosophical and ethical stimulus that it is I have arrived at a situation to ponder.

One of the fellows asked, as a few of us were sitting on the porch enjoying the night air, if we felt that high school really molded or forged who we are today. At least created the seeds of who we are today. I, with no deeper meaning or thought behind my answer, scoffed "Oh no, definitely not!" College and grad school have done more to "make me who I am" if one can countenance that phrase and while the seeds of my personality have always been with me from childhood, I feel that high school was most certainly a thing of the past. For me, personally, it wasn't a proving ground of any sort.

I didn't think this a particularly unique answer. Of the people I know intimately, we run the gambit of possibilities from experiences in high school having significant effect on who we are or what we've become to those that simply survived high school and started life after. After giving my answer the fellow who had first put forth this idea became...not upset, but, perhaps, put out. He told me that it seemed like I was too constructed in my answers to these types of questions--that I appear to be trying to hard to be different. He didn't feel I was being genuine; he believed that I believed my answer, or wanted to believe my answer, but that I was deluding myself to some degree.

Well, naturally, this sparked a whole new conversation of it's own. The irony being that he is an extremely constructed individual--more than simply guarded it appears at times as if those things he likes have been picked and chosen for how they appear to others more than how they make him feel--and I was surprised with the passion my supposedly disingenuous answer produced. He told me he liked it when I talked about the comic book stuff because he felt like I was being honest then; I obviously really enjoyed it. But when talking about who we are or what we think I just didn't fit what he thought I ought to be. I had too much staked in not being simplistic. I believe the best analogy was when he said, "you know, you've got the balls and each goes in the hole--you know those games where you throw the balls in the hole? Well I've got most of the balls in the hole, but there're still a few that I can't figure out where they go."

I share this, mostly, because it's so darned entertaining. I mean, of all the times in my life I consciously try to pick the unique answer (usually revolving around email surveys) this time I was only saying what I believed and thought, not even expecting that it would be that different of an answer from others. I still don't believe my answer was that different, and honestly, I can't figure out what he expected. But all of this got me thinking about how often we assume we know more about someone than that person knows about herself. I explained to him that so long as he felt he knew me better than myself, no explanation I gave for why I thought as I did would sound genuine.

How often have I discounted what a friend or acquaintance as told me because I was so sure I knew better than they? How often have I listened to their assessment of themself and silently judged? Certainly with some people in some situations as an outside listener you absolutely know more than the person involved--that's why we talk to friends (or I talk to friends) because they can look at us and say don't be crazy, here's how it is. But those situations have given me license, I think, to believe in my godliness of understanding at times I didn't deserve it. And how wrong is it of me, how arrogant, to think I know a friend better than that friend knows herself?

Perhaps there isn't anything wrong with it, but in that way I suppose that is a characteristic of mine that has carried over from high school. For all the multiplicity of bad decisions I made in my teen years I constantly thought I knew more than those around me. I also thought I knew why they were so wrong in what they perceived. In my attempts to not engage in that behavior anymore I have learned to listen better to what people say and to trust in the validity of their perspective. This has, in turn, allowed me to learn significantly more from those around me than I was ever able to before. Being able to "know" people based on what they say has also made me more arrogant so that I sometimes assume I know and understand them better than they know or understand themselves. It's a horrible paradox, but I suppose if any part of me was "forged" in high school I would say that is it. The duality of what I learned and what I am in constant motion with itself.

So tell me, and be honest, am I trying to hard to be different?

I would like to share with you some thoughts I had after reading Huck Finn. It's a response paper for class, but I think it translates pretty well here.

I've never read Huck Finn before and despite knowing what everyone said the controversy surrounding it was about, I found myself completely unprepared for the experience of actually reading a book. It is a singular experience to finally read a book as an adult that you've listened to people debate since adolescence. After finishing it I put the book down and thought to myself, "I don't know that I would let an adolescent read this book." I was not prepared to have that reaction.
I would, of course, support anyone reading any book, but the idea of someone reading this book at thirteen or fourteen being completely unprepared for the themes or issues examined and having no one to discuss said issues with bothers me. All that being said, though, racism isn't what I want to write my response paper on. At least not entirely. I feel that everyone already agrees racism is a bad thing and that this book deals with it (and fails to deal with it) in any number of ways. What consistently troubled me as I listened to Jim talk about himself and other characters talk about Jim, was how similar all the rhetoric was to how we still talk about women.
Jim says at the end of chapter 8, "I owns mysef, en I's wuth eight hund'd dollars. I wisht I had de money, I wouldn' want no mo'." As a reader I balked at those lines because they are painful--a body isn't a commodity and one of the horrors of slavery (or any -ism) is that it objectifies the group being marginalized and dehumanizes them. They are worth an amount of money because they are a pet, an animal, an item. Now compare this to a girl who is auctioning off her virginity for college tuition:

Natalie said she’s been forced to sell her cherry, because her stepfather took out a student loan in her name, so she’s unable to finance her education. She said, “I don’t have a moral dilemma with it. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to capitalize on my virginity? I understand some people may condemn me. But I think this is empowering. I’m using what I have to better myself (http://www.dlisted.com/node/28167).

What are the differences here? The obvious one is, of course, that this young girl is not a slave--she is making a conscious (theoretically) educated decision to do with her body as she pleases, and she will keep the money. But Jim, thinking he is a freed man does the same. He "owns" himself and wishes he had the money to do with as he pleased. No longer a slave he yearns to have the capitol his body is worth to carve a life for himself.
This isn't an anti-prostitution paper, but a look at the way the same rhetoric is recycled and goes unexamined in society. When this news story was brought to my attention I was horrified that any girl would think to make use of her virginity as a commodity because doing so dehumanizes and objectifies a person. The other women with me were uncomfortable, but couldn't think of a response to argue against such an action. It wasn't until I read Huck Finn that I saw the words for such a relationship with one's body on paper and realized the incredible irony of how we sexualize ourselves (men and women) in modern society. Specifically, how we think of our bodies as something to be sold to another human being.
Much like Shakespeare's Taming of the Screw the power dynamic becomes very obvious if it's racial. Everyone sees that Jim, free or not, is surprisingly lacking in power. It's only good luck that gets him through to the end of the story and Tom Sawyer's need for adventure, cute though it may be, nearly gets everyone killed. But when it happens between a man and a woman, Katharina and Petruchio, or a woman with a bachelor's in women's studies and the man who pays for her virginity, no one can figure out exactly why it's so wrong. Or what it is, precisely, that makes us uncomfortable. And isn't that reaction, that inability to reconcile what we know with what we feel, incredibly similar to Huck deciding to go to hell and save Jim?