Attitudes

Must-read for the straight men: Flirting.

in ,

From Charlie Glickman, and continuing on a theme from previous posts this month:

Something I Want Men To Know Before Flirting With Women

There’s been an important shift in several different communities and scenes lately. In the kink world, in atheism circles, among feminist folks and their allies, in pagan communities, I’ve been seeing more people than ever before talking about the effects of sexual coercion, assault, harassment, unwanted attention, and other related topics. Of course, none of this is particularly new and women have been talking about it for years. But what’s different is the nature of the dialogue. More men who want to be allies to women are speaking up, and thanks to the potential of the internet and social networking, more people are seeing the patterns than ever before. There are plenty of folks with lots of great stuff to say, and I don’t feel the need to repeat their words here. Instead, I want to address something that I wish I’d understood much earlier than I did.

Many of the reactions to this growing awareness that I’ve seen from men is some form of resentment that they don’t get to flirt with, cruise, or attempt to pick up women whenever they happen to see someone attractive. Leaving aside the underlying assumption that men should be able to express their sexual desire any time we want, I want to talk about the general cluelessness of most men around the incessant sexual intrusion that most women experience and the effects that has on flirting.

I’m writing this specifically for the men who want to flirt with women, whether the hope is for a one-night stand, a relationship, a conversation, a date, or simply to pass the time. What happens when the intention is to harass, stalk, annoy, or get any other reaction from women is a different thing. But right there, that is the root of the problem. A lot of the time, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to tell the difference. That sucks for the guys who genuinely want to connect with someone. And you know what? As much as it sucks for you and me, it’s many, many times worse for women. We can decide to deal with this situation or not, but women don’t get that choice because they get harassed all the time. So the first thing we need to wrap our brains around is that expecting women to have sympathy for how we feel when this is unpleasant for us is like expecting someone with a broken leg to have sympathy for someone who’s got a sprained finger. If they have the bandwidth and interest, that’s great! But resenting them when they don’t isn’t helpful. We need to stop expecting women to coddle our feelings and take care of them for ourselves.

Please go read the rest here.

The science behind GGG.

in ,

From Dr. Debby Herbenick at Salon.com:

Five years ago, sex columnist Dan Savage suggested that, when it comes to sex, we should all aim to be GGG (“good, giving, and game … Think ‘good in bed,’ ‘giving equal time and equal pleasure’ and ‘game for anything – within reason’”). Long embraced by his readers, the GGG approach now has support from a new scientific study published in the Journal of Sex Research.

Of course, we’ve known for years that technique (for example, clitoral stimulation for women, incorporating certain sexual behaviors for either sex) matters to couples. And certainly inequitable pleasure is never a good thing, even though it persists (as I discussed in last week’s column, research shows that women are particularly prone to getting shafted in the orgasm department during hookup sex).

What this new study from researchers at the University of Arizona and Hanover College adds, at least from my perspective, is the additional layer of understanding of how being “game for anything – within reason” contributes to intimacy and satisfaction.

To be fair, the researchers didn’t actually examine the GGG phenomenon. They didn’t use the term “GGG,” nor did they use the phrase “game for anything” anywhere in their research paper. Rather, they studied what they call “sexual transformations” – sexual changes that people make for the sake of their partner or their relationship. But as a scientist myself, I’m going to go out on a limb and pronounce the term “sexual transformations” to be the nerdier first cousin to the slightly cooler third G in the trifecta: “being game for anything – within reason.”

[...]

So what did they find? Interestingly enough, participants’ own sexual transformations weren’t linked to their relationship satisfaction. In other words, being game yourself wasn’t the key to your own satisfaction. Rather, women and men reported higher levels of relationship satisfaction when their partners said they’d made more “sexual transformations” (when their partners had been game for more- or less-frequent sex, trying new sexual activities, etc). I’m going to guess that, at least in part, this may be because when one’s partner adapts to your needs, you’re likely to feel heard, special, rewarded, valued, or – at the very least — you get to do the things you want to do, sexually.

Feelings about sexual transformations mattered, too. Men and women who felt more positive about the sexual changes they made generally reported higher levels of relationship satisfaction. To me, this aspect of people’s feelings about their changes goes back to being game – after all, being “game” for switching up one’s sex life isn’t about begrudgingly going down on someone or role-playing with a bored look on one’s face. Being game is about being willing to give something a whirl, and happily so. It’s about bringing your A-game to bed, about not knowing how you’ll end up feeling about it but being willing to give it your best shot, with an open mind and heart.

[...]

The bottom line seems to be that there’s much to be gained when it comes to sex if one keeps an open mind, is willing to try new sexual things for a partner, and if a couple can express their affection with each other. The authors note, too, that even small changes may ultimately help to enhance a couple’s relationship.

Read the rest of the article here.

NFL players in support of gay marriage.

in ,

This story has lit up the wires, especially the letter from Chris Kluwe (at the bottom of this post).

It all started when Brendon Ayanbadejo, a Baltimore Ravens player, publicly threw his support behind gay marriage equality in Maryland - there's currently a ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage.

Professional athletes publicly offering support for gay marriage is a new phenomenon, and likely represents and major shift in the public's attitudes towards sexual orientation and civil rights. This trend will continue and I doubt it will be too long before gay professional athletes in the most popular North American sports (e.g., hockey, baseball, football and basketball) start publicly coming out. The impact of this cannot be understated. Not only that, the first pro athlete from one of the four majors to come out is going to go down in history as a hero to the majority. I'm hoping it's a Canadian hockey player on a Canadian team. Call me patriotic.

In response to Ayanbadejo, a Maryland state Democratic legislator named Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote a an official letter from his office to the Baltimore Ravens requesting that the organization muzzle Ayanbadejo.

Emmett-Burns-letter-jpg_203633
Emmett-Burns-letter-jpg_203633

Here's the letter in all its glory (click to make larger):

Not one to back down, Ayanbadejo called Burns Jr. out and the story blew up. At one point Ayanbadejo tweeted:

Football is just my job it's not who I am. I am an American before anything. And just like every American I have the right to speak!!!

Since this all went down, others have come to the support of Ayanbadejo including the president of the Ravens and the NFL Commissioner.

Another NFL player, Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, also took up the cause, writing Burns Jr. a scathing letter which was distributed to the media:

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should "inhibit such expressions from your employees," more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person's right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindfucking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. "Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement." Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who's "deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland"? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"? I can't even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for "beautiful oppressionism").

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you'll start thinking about penis? "Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!" Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I'm fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely, Chris Kluwe

P.S. I've also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole.

And Chris Kluwe interviewed about his letter on CNN:

altimore Raven's linebacker Brandon Ayanbadejo recently caught the ire of State Rep Emmett C. Burns, Jr for having the temerity to speak out in favor of Maryland's ballot initiative for marriage equality. Rep. Burns even wrote a letter to his boss, the team owner Steve Bisciotti requesting that, and I quote, "I am requesting that you take the necessary action ...


Must read lesson from Stoya: Not-cool things to do, bro… Part 2.

in ,

If you haven't already read Part 1, scroll down about 6 posts or click here first.

The fifth paragraph of Part 2, in particular, should be required reading:

It seems like women have been sharing their experiences with sexual harassment all over the place in the past few weeks. That’s what prompted me to share mine. As Jen Bennett said on twitter, there is clearly something in the air. It should be in the air. Speaking up is the only way that we can help people understand that something is an issue. Sharing is how we let each other know that we are not alone. Open discussion raises awareness of things likehttp://www.slutwalktoronto.com/ and http://www.ihollaback.org/.

Street harassment is not a rare or isolated occurrence. It does not only happen in America. It does not only happen to young or traditionally-considered-“beautiful” women. It does not only happen on public transit or in low income areas.

We shouldn’t have to have a big angry dog named Funster to protect us. We shouldn’t have to carry Mace or a knife, hoping that we’ll be able to use it properly if necessary or investing hours of our lives in self defense courses (something a lot of women have neither the time nor disposable income to do). We shouldn’t have to travel in packs to feel safe (again, something that isn’t really feasible).

Men have been responding saying that they want to divorce their gender. That they didn’t realize, until we started sharing our stories en masse, what it is like to be a woman. That they wish there was something they could do. That they’re sorry for the way other men treat people. Men shouldn’t *have* to feel like they need to apologize on behalf of their gender, or feel ashamed of being male. Unless they’re one of the ones doing the harassing, I don’t think they should apologize.

There are things that can be done. When someone you know engages in inappropriate or harassing behavior towards a woman, let them know they did something totally not cool. Like: “Actually, that woman had a right to be upset when you chased her down the street. She was completely accurate when she called it creepy.” or “Hey, this story you’re telling me about putting your dick on a drunk stranger’s face at a party when she clearly didn’t want it there but was too sleepy(2) to fend you off, that was a totally not cool thing to do with your penis, bro.” Teach every moldable male(1) mind (brothers, friends, sons) that treating women (humans) with respect is the right thing to do. Don’t have sex with jerks. Don’t blow them, don’t give them a handjob, don’t give them your phone number. If you hear a woman asking a man to leave her alone or calling attention to the fact that he’s whacking off in the train station, add your voice to hers. Say “This is not ok. This is not cool. We see what you are doing and it is unacceptable.”

(1) I’m focusing on the men here because I’ve never experienced or heard of a case of menacing street harassment by a female. I could be misinformed. Could be. Possibly.

(2) EDIT: By “sleepy” I mean “incapacitated by being potentially drugged or just being a poor judge of her alcohol tolerance.”

Stoya's blog, with other tidbits of wisdom, can be found here.

Photo from G4TV.com.

Must read lesson from Stoya: Not-cool things to do, bro… Part 1.

in ,

It'd be nice to think that we're making progress on gender equality and that straight male sexual entitlement is on the decline. But the reality is, we've still got a very, very long way to go.

From Stoya, porn uberstar:

I can actually remember every time a person at a convention or trade show has touched me inappropriately. My first year at the Venus Fair in Berlin there was a man who shoved two of his fingers into my panty-covered vagina. It was really fast, like he was standing there one second and the next I was trying to figure out how the gusset of my underwear had ended up *in* my vulva. There was a man in Texas who rather violently squeezed my ass while we were taking a picture and then laughed at how I’d “squealed like a piglet”. Seriously. I’m kind of disappointed by how much of a stereotype he was. At AVN this year, a guy grabbed my forearm while I was walking from the elevators to Digital Playground’s booth. He let go when I punched him in the testicle area. There’s an average of three people per convention who try the more subtle approach of sliding their hand a *bit* too far down my back when I stand next to them for a photo. Every single one of them apologizes when I gently put their hand back where it belongs and ask them to remember that I am not a blow up doll.

The above paragraph is absolutely nothing, NOTHING, compared to what it’s like to be a girl or woman walking around in public in broad daylight. With dirty hair up in a ponytail or bun, no makeup, and baggy clothing on. With headphones in, sitting in a coffee shop or on the subway with your nose in a book, or talking on the phone.

Men have followed me down the street poking me in what one can only assume is an attempt to get my attention. Men have grabbed the cord to my headphones and ripped them out of my ears. Multiple times. Men have grabbed parts of my body, or my coat or purse strap. Twice, when I was transporting my Lyra (the three foot metal hoop/circus apparatus I do aerial work on) they have grabbed the hoop and refused to let go until I threatened to kick them. They’ve blocked me into corners on mostly empty subway cars, followed me for blocks and then stood outside whatever shop I duck into for absurd amounts of time. They stop their cars in the middle of the crosswalk to stare and yell things out of the window. Years ago, in Philadelphia, one man walked around my neighborhood asking people if they knew where this blue-haired white girl lived because he wanted to return her phone. Fortunately my neighbors were too smart for that trick.

They say I have a sweet ass, nice tits, a real pretty dress. They say I’m their future wife, or I’d look good with their dick in my mouth. They try (and probably succeed at times) to take pictures down my shirt. They ask if they can get my number, they ask where I live, why I’m not smiling, why my boyfriend lets me walk around by myself. Then they ask why I’m such a bitch, if my pussy is made of ice. They say that they never do this, as though I’ve somehow driven them to inappropriate behavior and deserve it. They say they’re just having fun, trying to pay me a compliment. Pretty frequently they get mean, slipping into a loud tourettes-like chant of bitch-whore-cunt-slut.

Before you try to tell me that it’s because I take my clothes off for a living, let me tell you that this started way before I was 18. Let me tell you that every single woman I know has at least one truly terrifying story of street harassment and a whole bunch of other stories that are merely insulting or annoying. Let me remind you that in a room of pornography fans, who have actually seen me with a dick in my mouth and who can buy a replica of my vagina in a can or box, I am treated with far more respect than I am walking down the street.

Stoya's blog, with other tidbits of wisdom, can be found here.

Gay myth busting.

in ,

Courtesy of Davey Wavey (check out his YouTube channel for way more awesome and hilarious videos - and lots of hot shirtless dudes): 

With North Carolina's recent ban on gay marriage and President Obama's support of marriage equality, a lot has been said about gay people lately. And it's time to set the record straight. Like Davey Wavey on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/DaveyWaveyOfficial Follow Davey Wavey on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/TheDaveyWavey A huge thank you to everyone who participated in this project!

Marvel comic book superhero marries boyfriend.

in , ,

This is somewhat old news (from a few weeks ago) but worth posting.

From The Mary Sue:

Marvel Comics has decided to take their characters in a new direction, one that hasn’t been explored in their pages before. Today, the publisher announced that their character Northstar would be proposing to his long-time boyfriend Kyle in the pages of Astonishing X-Men #50. And ABC’s The View had the exclusive.

Behar’s lame attempt at a joke aside, I wish the ladies had gotten more time to talk about this momentous move. Northstar, aka Jean-Paul Beaubier, was the first Marvel character to be revealed as gay but not the first in comics altogether. The first is most often credited to Extrano from DC Comics back in the 80s. Coincidentally enough, DC is planning to reveal one of their previously existing male, iconic characters as gay in a story this June. You may also remember Archie Comics getting the jump on this particular issue with the marriage of their gay character Kevin Keller to his significant other last year.

In a press release Axel Alonso, Marvel Editor in Chief, said, “The Marvel Universe has always reflected the world outside your window, so we strive to make sure our characters, relationships and stories are grounded in that reality. We’ve been working on this story for over a year to ensure Northstar and Kyle’s wedding reflects Marvel’s ‘world outside your window’ tradition.”

Read the rest here: link.

The Science of Attraction.

in ,

I wasn't able to find out a whole lot about this project, but from what I can tell, it seems pretty legit. There are three presenters, one of whom has proper actual academic credentials (Kat Akingbade). They've recreated several experiments on attraction and have produced a series of pop-psych videos for general public consumption. I love the idea - too often, science operates strictly within the confines of academia. It's nice to see it shared in a way that makes it interesting to non-academics.

Here's one of their videos:

As this Channel 4 Science of Attraction video (introduced by Derren Brown and presented by Kat Akingbade and Charlie McDonnell) will reveal, when it comes to your face, you and your partner have very different perspectives ... Also Charlie gets a very special make over!

You can check out the rest of their videos and their website here: link.

Documentary: Good Hair.

in ,

Description:

When Chris Rocks daughter, Lola, came up to him crying and asked, Daddy, how come I don't have good hair? the bewildered comic committed himself to search the ends of the earth and the depths of black culture to find out who had put that question into his little girl's head! Director Jeff Stilsons camera followed the funnyman, and the result is Good Hair, a wonderfully insightful and entertaining, yet remarkably serious, documentary about African American hair culture.An exposé of comic proportions that only Chris Rock could pull off, Good Hair visits hair salons and styling battles, scientific laboratories, and Indian temples to explore the way black hairstyles impact the activities, pocketbooks, sexual relationships, and self-esteem of black people. Celebrities such as Ice-T, Kerry Washington, Nia Long, Paul Mooney, Raven Symoné, Maya Angelou, and Reverend Al Sharpton all candidly offer their stories and observations to Rock while he struggles with the task of figuring out how to respond to his daughters question. What he discovers is that black hair is a big business that doesnt always benefit the black community and little Lolas question might well be bigger than his ability to convince her that the stuff on top of her head is nowhere near as important as what is inside.

The trailer: 

http://www.goodhairmovie.net In Theaters This OCTOBER!!! Check out our Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Good-Hair/111122928748?ref=ts When Chris Rocks daughter, Lola, came up to him crying and asked, Daddy, how come I don't have good hair? the bewildered comic committed himself to search the ends of the earth and the depths of black culture to find out who had put that question into his little girl's head!

Ottawa museum sex exhibit controversy.

in ,

You MUST watch the video linked at the bottom of the post. It can't be missed.

From the CBC:

Sex exhibit at sci-tech museum causes furor. Age limit raised and animated masturbation video removed after complaints.

Canada's Science and Technology Museum in Ottawa has raised the age limit for admission to a controversial sex exhibit after dozens of complaints about the content.

As well, animated video informing children about masturbation has been removed.

The moves followed complaints about the exhibit called Sex: A Tell-All Exhibition.

"The museum has received a higher-than-expected amount of expressions of concerns from the public," spokesman Yves St-Onge told Reuters.

“We take the feedback of our community seriously, and so we have carefully considered their suggestions, and taken appropriate action that we believe will best serve our audiences."

Not appropriate viewing without parents: Moore Heritage Minister James Moore said during question period Thursday that he was invited to view the exhibit and expressed his concerns.

"I respect the independence of the museum, but they asked me my opinion, and in my opinion it's not appropriate for young underage children to be exposed to sexually explicit material without the consent of their parents," said Moore.

"I've made my views known, it's up to the museum to decide now where they go," said Moore.

Moore's spokesman, James Maunder, had earlier said the purpose of the Museum of Science and Technology is to foster scientific and technological literacy.

"It is clear this exhibit does not fit within that mandate," Maunder told CBC News. "Its content cannot be defended, and is insulting to taxpayers."

The age of admission has been raised to 16 from 12.

The exhibit was originally produced for the Montreal Science Centre.

The exhibition is interactive, and includes videos of couples kissing passionately and large photographs of penises and clitorises. It also explores puberty and hormonal changes, contraception and how to say no to sexual advances in language teens understand.

Parent changes mind after viewing exhibit Suzanne Watson of Russell, Ont., said she had written to her children's Catholic school board to ask them to ban tours of the exhibit and also threatened to cancel her membership at the museum after hearing negative reviews of the exhibit.

But Watson, who describes herself as a pro-life mother of five who advocates abstinence to her own children, said she revised her opinion after seeing the exhibit.

"I like the fact it's telling children ... that we can say no — we can say no to sex — and there are other options and it talks about peer pressure and how to deal with that," said Watson.

Watson said she'll keep her membership at the museum, but said still believes schools shouldn't take children to it, saying it's something she thinks parents should do instead.

Mylene Côté, 18, was also touring the exhibit on Thursday, was unfazed by what she saw.

"I think they're showing us healthy sexuality ...they aren't sexualizing it," said Côté. "I mean they're showing the facts, we all have bodies and we all go through this stuff."

The Institute for Marriage and Family Canada, which visited the show last week, also complained, saying it believes the "erotic and titillating" exhibit doesn't belong in a museum.

Dave Quist, the institute's director, said the exhibit approves and promotes anal sex, multiple partners and sex without emotional and marital commitment.

The service that I use to post videos no longer works so click on the following link to hear the outrageous things the Conservative MP had to say about the show: link.

Film: Psychopathia Sexualis.

in , , , , ,

Passed along by Katie (thanks!), who stumbled upon this while studying. From the film homepage:

Employing a complex multi-narrative structure, Psychopathia Sexualis dramatizes case histories of turn-of-the-century sexual deviance, drawn from the pages of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's notorious medical text. Among the cases are a sexually repressed man who discovers an unhealthy appetite for blood; a homosexual man who submits himself to a doctor who promises to 'cure' his condition; and a masochist who hires a pair of corseted prostitutes to enact a most peculiar performance. In the final chapter, a woman who has spent her life suppressing her lesbian desires is hired to tutor a sexually curious young woman. These stories are bound together by the thread of an ambitious doctor who not only studies the patients, but uses them as pawns and playthings.

Sadly, it looks like the film was rubbish - reviewers completed panned it.

Here's the trailer, for interest's sake:

www.pscychopathia.com - Employing a complex multi-narrative structure, Psychopathia Sexualis dramatizes case histories of turn-of-the-century sexual deviance, drawn from the pages of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's notorious medical text.

GOP buttplugs.

in ,

For those not in the know, the Republican (the US right-wing, conservative party, otherwise known as the GOP, or Grand Old Party) presidential nominee competition just wrapped up this spring. It was a rather fierce battle with the contenders trying to outdo each other in terms of how far right on the political spectrum they sit. As commentary on the process, Mathew Epler put together the following project:

Dear Voter,

Whether you’re Democrat or Republican, you’ve probably grown weary of the endless circus that is the electoral process. It is painful. But it shouldn’t be that way. As a member of a free democratic state you should feel exhilarating pleasure when exercising your right to choose your leader.

Grand Old Party demonstrates that as a people united, our opinion has real volume. When we approve of a candidate, they swell with power. When we deem them unworthy, they are diminished and left hanging in the wind. We guard the gate! It opens and closes at our will. How wide is up to us.

In an age of information, we rely on hard facts. Each of the shapes you see here come directly from poll data collected by Gallup. This data reects approval ratings for each GOP candidate among registered Republican voters from December 10, 2011 to April 1, 2012. Each shape’s girth is a reflection of popularity while their height is a reflection of time.

The contours of these delightful shapes conjure up the waves of amber grain and those lapping at the rim of our great nation spanning from sea to shining sea. As the battle for the Presidency rails on, we must remember that Americans may may have achieved freedom through war, but they are also a people of love. After all, in the end all we have is each other.

And the video: 

From the catalogue (available at http://mepler.com) Dear Voter, Whether you’re Democrat or Republican, you’ve probably grown weary of the endless circus that is the electoral process. It is painful. But it shouldn’t be that way. As a member of a free democratic state you should feel exhilarating pleasure when exercising your right to choose your leader. Grand Old Party demonstrates that as a people united, our opinion has real volume. When we approve of a candidate, they swell with power. When we deem them unworthy, they are diminished and left hanging in the wind. We guard the gate! It opens and closes at our will. How wide is up to us. In an age of information, we rely on hard facts. Each of the shapes you see here come directly from poll data collected by Gallup. This data reects approval ratings for each GOP candidate among registered Republican voters from December 10, 2011 to April 1, 2012. Each shape’s girth is a reflection of popularity while their height is a reflection of time. The contours of these delightful shapes conjure up the waves of amber grain and those lapping at the rim of our great nation spanning from sea to shining sea. As the battle for the Presidency rails on, we must remember that Americans may may have achieved freedom through war, but they are also a people of love. After all, in the end all we have is each other.

Time magazine's controversial cover.

in ,

Not surprisingly, the latest Time magazine cover has created a massive storm of controversy. The puritans are upset because it shows a breast; the cynics have been quick to point out that it's simply a desperate attempt to make the magazine relevant at a time when it's been losing relevance; the non-attachment-parenting moms are feeling attacked; and many people just think it's a weird (creepy?) seeing a three year-old breastfeeding.

The article that goes along with the cover image discusses a style of parenting that's gaining popularity - attachment parenting. It'a rejection of the whole let-them-cry-it-out and self-soothing movement that's predominated parenting in the last couple of decades.

Many editorials about the piece have been published since the magazine hit the shelves. Here's a sample from the New York Times (there are many, many more - just search):

Never Mom Enough By KJ DELL'ANTONIA

My favorite part of Time magazine’s coverage of “Attachment Parenting” wasn’t the cover image, or even the headline, “Are You Mom Enough?,” both of which beg the adjective “provocative.”

We can get caught up in whether a mother should nurse a preschooler — or, perhaps more relevant, whether that preschooler will later appreciate being photographed nursing for a national magazine. (No, and I’m so convinced that most of you will agree that I’m not going to say any more about it.)

[...]

But “Are You Mom Enough” still fails to take into account, as so many things do, that not only is there a continuum of attachment parenting from all to nothing, but there is also a continuum of parenting in all of our lives. I am no model of motherhood, but my answers to those quiz questions are all of our answers. Sometimes. Kind of. When it seemed like the right thing to do. With one baby, not the other.

Do you feel pressured to parent your children in a certain way? Sometimes. Kind of. But as Jennifer DeLeonardo put it in another discussion of “The Conflict,” those pressures vary depending on whom you’re with and how you respond to them (some people — and some magazine articles — can make you want to go right out and do the opposite). Did those pressures affect your choices about working, staying home or doing something in between? Maybe, along with a career choice, financial necessity, personal history, job availability, child care and a host of other factors — all of which, along with our personal status, are subject to evolution.

The factors and the nuances and the continuum are the reasons the conversations women have about how we balance, or combine, work and family are worth having — conversations that men have too, although with a different historical background and set of pressures. We are different parents at different times of our lives. An autism diagnosis, a financial crisis, a divorce, a move — all of those things can change us in an instant, so the the question isn’t really “does your baby sleep in your bed?” but why, and for how long? What does that say about what’s important to you, and how would you hold onto that if circumstances changed?

Read the rest of the editorial here.

Breasts.

in ,

From MacLean's, courtesy of Anne (thanks!):

In conversation: Florence Williams

On why we have breasts, what we don’t know about implants, and the future of breastfeeding

After reading a report about the presence of environmental toxins in breast milk in 2004, American journalist Florence Williams, who’d just had a child at the time, decided to have her own milk tested. She mailed samples to a lab. The results were astounding and unsettling: her toxin levels were exceptionally high. That propelled Williams to embark on an intense search that went well beyond her initial inquiries into the sociological, sexual and medical complexities of this organ. In Breasts: A Natural and Unnatural History, she provides a fascinating cultural and scientific tour of breasts through time—and what they might face in the future.

Q: You start the book by asking why humans have breasts. What did you find out from anthropologists, and how did their theories differ depending on their own sex?

A: It really surprised me that this topic is still so contentious. A lot of male anthropologists love to study the breast and they seem to be easily persuaded that the breast evolved as a sexual signal. But the more feminist [and more often female] anthropologists said it may be that breasts evolved not for men, but for the fitness of women and offspring.

Q: There is a compromise theory: breasts evolved to help women feed babies, and that made men love breasts.

A: Exactly.

Q: What do breasts signal to men?

A: The theory is that breasts are filled with information for potential mates about the fertility status of a woman, her age, how healthy she is: if the woman is young her breasts will be perky, and if she’s older her breasts will sag. I find this theory flawed. A woman’s breasts are biggest and perkiest while she’s pregnant and breastfeeding—and obviously she’s not a good mate at that moment if you’re just interested in your own offspring. And there are plenty of women who, after childbirth, continue to have nice, perky breasts. So breasts are an unreliable signal of age and fertility.

Q: Studies show female waitresses with large breasts get more tips, and busty diners get hit on more often. Is bigger always better?

A: In Western cultures, the studies do bear out that women tend to get more attention if they have bigger breasts. Many men really respond to big breasts. It’s hard to say whether that’s evolutionary driven or whether that’s our culture. Certainly our culture celebrates and is obsessed with big breasts.

Read the rest of the interview here.

Anti-gay rant.

in ,

While people's initial reaction to this rant is most likely complete disgust, it might be worth noting that this woman is probably mentally ill. From Mediaite

Terrifyingly Hilarious: Nebraska Woman Gives The Most Amazingly Bonkers Anti-Gay Rant Ever

You know what’s not funny? Hate. You know what’s also not funny? People going on hate-filled rants. However, you know what is funny, people going on hate-filled rants that make so little sense that they sound like someone took the worst comments from a political message board, mixed all the words around, translated them to Japanese, and then translated them back. And that’s what happened at a council meeting in Lincoln, Nebraska and it resulted in one of the craziest videos you’ll see this week.

Recently, Nebraskan cities have been trying to deal with the lack of protection that LGBT citizens have from discrimination. The state’s anti-discrimination laws don’t cover sexual orientation. YouTube user aksarbent has been uploading videos of some of the more interesting moments from hearings on the issue. One of them, he or she labeled “Best in Show!” and, good lord, is that not hyperbole.

Wearing a big white hat, a woman gets up and reads a screed that you need to hear to believe. She begins by accusing the ABC show Wipeout of being “produced in Holland by gays, bis, and orgiers” who like to see “people perishing.” At least I think that’s what she’s saying. And it just gets weirder and weirder.

In no discernible train of thought, the woman accuses Hillary Clinton of turning lesbian in college, gay people of being “homociders” who all dying at the age of 40, gay men of molesting boys because “they don’t have AIDS yet,” talks about the health risks of “licking anus,” and says something I can’t even figure out about Whitney Houston being naked when she died.

Again, there’s nothing funny about bigotry but there’s something amazing about watching a video that makes it clear just how ridiculous these beliefs are.

Plus, the kid sitting directly behind the lady who can’t stop cracking the hell up really seals the deal!

And the video:

Watch the guy in the audience behind her, for added hilarity. The world is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think. Lincoln, Nebraska proposed LGBT protection ordinance.. Original post featuring this clip: http://aksarbent.blogspot.com/2012/05/video-lincoln-nebraska-hearings-on.html Towleroad, (then Gawker, Queerty, Huffington Post, JoeMyGod, et al picked this up later.