At least that's what I keep getting told. I have received TV, internet, radio and billboard ads stating that it's obvious that I need plastic surgery. Today it landed in my mail, with my name on it and everything. So here's something I immediately wondered after making disparaging comments about plastic surgery and those who seek it. Do I hate it because I've never, myself, possessed the type of beauty that these people are trying to achieve/recapture?
I'm not ugly. I'd be downright pretty if I lost the weight. Let's move past that. Perhaps I really do feel that plastic surgery for anything less than massive disfigurement is a complete waste of time, as mother nature has a way of reversing that shit. Or, perhaps I have only managed to come to that conclusion based on the fact that I've had to come to terms with myself and my own inept beauty. Is a person forced into realizations about the world because they've never had the vanity that imposes stupidity on certain subjects?
Should it piss me off that doctors are getting paid to tell people that they are ugly and that they have a right not to be? "Here, let me fix that slightly irregular nose for you, my dear. I'd hate to see you miss your potential to be beautiful." Should I congratulate people who are able to change those things about themselves that have given them a pain of concern during their lives? I suppose that given the proper amount of pocket change, there are things about myself I would change. A little lipo here, a little electrolysis there, perhaps have my hymen reintroduced...
If society keeps changing itself to look like each other, eventually it will be physically difficult to find any difference in each other at all. That just isn't the direction that the world needs to go in. The bastards who advertise this shit could, at least, do me the favor of not throwing it in my face that I'm wholly unattractive and let me keep up the pretense that I'm ok with it. I like my bubble and would appreciate being left to decorate it as I see fit!
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
The Woes of Lake Pontchartrain
I think I've decided that human beings are trying to kill us. All because of some mosquitos and flooding in the midwest over those several weeks. Yes, that's right. Everything in life is a cycle, right? Everyone and everything has a direct influence and impact on something else. I am fulling capable of admitting that I am an environmentalist liberal. I always have been a liberal, but with my current and long-standing fascination with the very idea that the world could have clean drinking water and that pollution is bad (the hell you say!), the environmentalist side of me has come out full strong. So here's the deal:
The Lake Ponchartrain is that huge bastard of a lake that sits on the north side of New Orleans. It's an amazing body of water. It is the second largest salt-water lake in the US, next to Great Salt Lake. The lake water is actually brackish (a mixture of salt and fresh water). The estuary of the lake is as delicate as the balance of salt and freshwater. There are species living in the lake that are only known to live in this lake. Nowhere else on the planet. Species that are vital to the survival of other species. For more information on the Lake and its history, check this page out. It's a great source. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-206/intro/preface.html
Part of the drainage basin for the Pontchartrain is the Pearl River. Again, a vital part of wetlands between the Gulf of Mexico and Jackson, MS. And again, there are species on this planet that are only found in the Pearl River. The problems with the Pearl are huge. It is a tributary to both the Gulf and to the Miss. River. North of Jackson, there is a problem with the mercury levels in the water. Years ago, they tried to dam the Pearl, for some ungodly reason, and realized it didn't work the way the wanted. The Pearl never did quite recover from that fiasco.
So the problems now are this: There is a man in Jackson, John McGowan, who wants to dam the Pearl around Jackson because he wants to build small lakes and land to boost Jackson's economy. But he's trying to sell the idea to locals based on flooding. He says that Jackson is in danger of the Pearl flooding and wiping out whole sections of the city. I'm sorry, John, but any city sitting next to a river is in danger of the same thing. New Orleans isn't trying to dam the Miss. River. Then again....wait...I'll get to that later. Oh, he also says that something needs to be done about that river because of the mosquito problems and it smells bad. ::blinks:: Really?
Yes, the Pearl did flood Jackson once. It was very destructive to large parts of the city. I must concede that. However...that flood was in 1979. Yes, that's right, 30 years ago. This man is willing to kill off what little bit of untouched wetlands there are in the Gulf Region because he's a developer that thinks his wallet is just a shy thin. He is an asshole.
Problems with the Lake: New Orleans levees have a little sticker applied to them somewhere saying that they can only withstand a flow of the Miss River of 1.25 million cubic feet per second. Because of the flooding in the midwest, the Miss. was flowing at a rate of 1.26 million cfs. So the state instituted their grand and glorious plan of opening a flood control measure that wasn't well thought out (but built anyway) in 1927. The Bonnet Carre Spillway diverts water from the Miss River into the Lake Pontchartrain on the western side of New Orleans to reduce stress on the levees surrounding the city.
In theory, it's a fantastic idea. In hindsight, they should have opened it on the other side of the Miss. That fresh water with high sediment, high nutrients and decently high toxins (nothing we can do about that last part just yet) should have been opened up into the wetlands. They are diminishing at a rate that is rapid and alarming. They are a great source of protection for south Louisiana against hurricanes. All of that sediment and clay could have done something to reduce the strain on the land lost in the area. But no, it flows into the delicate and (formerly) clean Lake.
Well I drove across the lake last week and saw the amount of algae that was floating in the water and realized that the effects of the spillway being open for only about 2 weeks were already starting to show. As of right now, the majority of a lake that covers an area of 630 square miles is covered in blue-green algae. This can (and probably will) cause large fish kills, the extreme endangerment of native fishes and other species, and a huge economic problem considering that the lake provides a large part of our local seafood.
Those are only the immediate issues with the algae. An even bigger problem is the fact that the water that flowed in from the Miss displaced close to 75% of the water in the Lake. That means that most of the water in the lake now is turbid fresher water than what it's used to. I hope it won't, but it may cause eutrophication in the lake. That isn't just going to effect the animal life of the species living in the lake, but the species that depend on the lake for food. The water quality if going to effect not only those, but the over million people that are using it in various ways.
Anyway, that's what going on down here. I don't think anyone is entirely sure what we can do just yet to fix some of this. Then again, for starters, we could tackle John McGowan, tie him up and shove him in a closet. Or castrate him. We don't need his genes in our wading pool.
The Lake Ponchartrain is that huge bastard of a lake that sits on the north side of New Orleans. It's an amazing body of water. It is the second largest salt-water lake in the US, next to Great Salt Lake. The lake water is actually brackish (a mixture of salt and fresh water). The estuary of the lake is as delicate as the balance of salt and freshwater. There are species living in the lake that are only known to live in this lake. Nowhere else on the planet. Species that are vital to the survival of other species. For more information on the Lake and its history, check this page out. It's a great source. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-206/intro/preface.html
Part of the drainage basin for the Pontchartrain is the Pearl River. Again, a vital part of wetlands between the Gulf of Mexico and Jackson, MS. And again, there are species on this planet that are only found in the Pearl River. The problems with the Pearl are huge. It is a tributary to both the Gulf and to the Miss. River. North of Jackson, there is a problem with the mercury levels in the water. Years ago, they tried to dam the Pearl, for some ungodly reason, and realized it didn't work the way the wanted. The Pearl never did quite recover from that fiasco.
So the problems now are this: There is a man in Jackson, John McGowan, who wants to dam the Pearl around Jackson because he wants to build small lakes and land to boost Jackson's economy. But he's trying to sell the idea to locals based on flooding. He says that Jackson is in danger of the Pearl flooding and wiping out whole sections of the city. I'm sorry, John, but any city sitting next to a river is in danger of the same thing. New Orleans isn't trying to dam the Miss. River. Then again....wait...I'll get to that later. Oh, he also says that something needs to be done about that river because of the mosquito problems and it smells bad. ::blinks:: Really?
Yes, the Pearl did flood Jackson once. It was very destructive to large parts of the city. I must concede that. However...that flood was in 1979. Yes, that's right, 30 years ago. This man is willing to kill off what little bit of untouched wetlands there are in the Gulf Region because he's a developer that thinks his wallet is just a shy thin. He is an asshole.
Problems with the Lake: New Orleans levees have a little sticker applied to them somewhere saying that they can only withstand a flow of the Miss River of 1.25 million cubic feet per second. Because of the flooding in the midwest, the Miss. was flowing at a rate of 1.26 million cfs. So the state instituted their grand and glorious plan of opening a flood control measure that wasn't well thought out (but built anyway) in 1927. The Bonnet Carre Spillway diverts water from the Miss River into the Lake Pontchartrain on the western side of New Orleans to reduce stress on the levees surrounding the city.
In theory, it's a fantastic idea. In hindsight, they should have opened it on the other side of the Miss. That fresh water with high sediment, high nutrients and decently high toxins (nothing we can do about that last part just yet) should have been opened up into the wetlands. They are diminishing at a rate that is rapid and alarming. They are a great source of protection for south Louisiana against hurricanes. All of that sediment and clay could have done something to reduce the strain on the land lost in the area. But no, it flows into the delicate and (formerly) clean Lake.
Well I drove across the lake last week and saw the amount of algae that was floating in the water and realized that the effects of the spillway being open for only about 2 weeks were already starting to show. As of right now, the majority of a lake that covers an area of 630 square miles is covered in blue-green algae. This can (and probably will) cause large fish kills, the extreme endangerment of native fishes and other species, and a huge economic problem considering that the lake provides a large part of our local seafood.
Those are only the immediate issues with the algae. An even bigger problem is the fact that the water that flowed in from the Miss displaced close to 75% of the water in the Lake. That means that most of the water in the lake now is turbid fresher water than what it's used to. I hope it won't, but it may cause eutrophication in the lake. That isn't just going to effect the animal life of the species living in the lake, but the species that depend on the lake for food. The water quality if going to effect not only those, but the over million people that are using it in various ways.
Anyway, that's what going on down here. I don't think anyone is entirely sure what we can do just yet to fix some of this. Then again, for starters, we could tackle John McGowan, tie him up and shove him in a closet. Or castrate him. We don't need his genes in our wading pool.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Foreskin: A Sexual Toy, A place to stash your weed, or an amazing medical device?
That's right. Foreskin. Apparently, there has been some brilliant person/team that came up with the idea for the finest way to recycle I've ever heard (or, at the very least, been amused by).
Right now, Dr's across the world have taken to the idea of using foreskin cut off during circumcision and are using it for skin grafting for diabetic and burn patients. According to one professional, from one circumcision, they can use that skin and grow enough from it to cover an entire football field. It's an amazing idea, albeit a little gross. Which one would you rather walk around saying? The skin on my arm is brought to your viewing pleasure from A) my own ass or B) a baby's foreskin? Tough decision.
Unfortunately, while it may be amusing and educational and flat out impressive, it does present some problems. According to one report, more infants die each year due to circumcisions than adult men do from penile cancer (one reason Dr's say to have the foreskin removed to begin with). With every up there's a down, and this is it. The procedure itself isn't want kills the baby, but the aftercare and potential for infections afterwards.
My advice for any new parent? Do a little research first. Research the procedure, the studies and the Dr's themselves before you make a decision like that for a brand new infant. Then again, that is sound advice for anything. You can never be harmed from too much knowledge on any subject.
Right now, Dr's across the world have taken to the idea of using foreskin cut off during circumcision and are using it for skin grafting for diabetic and burn patients. According to one professional, from one circumcision, they can use that skin and grow enough from it to cover an entire football field. It's an amazing idea, albeit a little gross. Which one would you rather walk around saying? The skin on my arm is brought to your viewing pleasure from A) my own ass or B) a baby's foreskin? Tough decision.
Unfortunately, while it may be amusing and educational and flat out impressive, it does present some problems. According to one report, more infants die each year due to circumcisions than adult men do from penile cancer (one reason Dr's say to have the foreskin removed to begin with). With every up there's a down, and this is it. The procedure itself isn't want kills the baby, but the aftercare and potential for infections afterwards.
My advice for any new parent? Do a little research first. Research the procedure, the studies and the Dr's themselves before you make a decision like that for a brand new infant. Then again, that is sound advice for anything. You can never be harmed from too much knowledge on any subject.
Monday, March 24, 2008
There are some incredibly annoying stereotypes for men and women going around that I'd like to have clarified at some point. Unfortunately, finding experts in the subject of either is just not possible.
Men
The stereotype of the classic, heterosexual, american male is the football loving, can't listen to a word a woman says, beer drinking, belching, disgusting, unwashed, woman ogling pig that has been made the subject of numerous sitcoms and comedy shows. I might know 3 of those guys. And one of them might be a woman...
That would be one extreme of male. The other is the sensitive guy. If you have seen Bedazzled you know the one I'm talking about. This is the guy that writes love poetry, attentive to the point of obnoxious, caring, sharing, full of feelings (and tears), won't fight for you (or with you for that matter) to avoid all means of confrontation. Sweater sets and/or hippie clothes.
Ugh. To both extremes, I say...ugh. Guys, you know why women read romance novels where the man is the pirate captain who kidnaps her and then falls in love with her, right? Because the guy is rough, tough, knows what he wants, how to get it, gets it and makes sure it's known to the world too. He's vicious (this definition: dangerously aggressive : b: marked by violence or ferocity : fierce) and can leave you wanting more. He makes a woman feel like...well...a woman by sheer comparison of his manliness.
Do we understand? I say it's time for men to embrace the passion they used to have. Strike a blow for testosterone! That doesn't mean you should refuse to help around the house in exchange for more sports, bars, drinking, ogling. It means that maybe when your wife gets home, ignore her like you usually do. Then when she goes into the kitchen (or wherever), walk up behind her while she isn't expecting it. Hug her from behind, tell her something nice like "*low, dangerous growl*" Come on, do it. Women like to hear that. Primal, gutteral noises. Not grunting. Do Not Grunt! We, as women, loooove to hear that we are desired. Nothing says "I'm going to fuck you like there is no tomorrow becuase this is how you make me feel" like a dangerous growl in the ear and the desire in your eyes. If your woman doesn't respond to that...well she's nuts. Lose her. She's a hopeless case.
Ok, ok fine. Don't lose her. That's not fair. But I offially draw a blank as to what to tell you to do about her. It doesn't even register in my mind that there is a woman out there who doesn't have fantasies of being so desired that she's just taken (consentually of course. No means no).
Women
The stereotype for a classic, heterosexual, american woman isn't much better. And I have to admit, ladies, this is just embarassing. We are, conniving, shopaholic, bitching, nagging, whining, manipulating, let me withhold sex because I didn't get what I wanted from you, let me make enough excuses for my own behavior so that you feel like an ass because you're a male and that makes me better, assholes.
Yes, that's right. You're an asshole.
Stop it. Right now.
Women's biggest problem is that they are unable to use logic to solve any problem. Especially ones inside their own relationships. I'm sorry girls, but inferring that you may or may not be mad about something that may or may not have anything to do with your S.O. is going to make the man think "Uhoh, she's in that mood again. Don't know why, know I must stay away." Do you really want your man to be intimidated by you? Do you enjoy using sex as a weapon? Oi! You're giving the lot of us a bad name.
If you walk into your home and spend more than half the time that you're there annoyed by your man, he might not be the problem. It might be you. It might be the fact that you have a headache 6 nights out of the week. It might be that you cry, moan, whine, bitch, nag, argue when you don't get something you want because you don't want to go and get it yourself. Shut up. Go get it. Weak, helpless women...well...they suck.
Stop sucking.
Wait...wrong message. Start sucking. This is another problem with the classic, stereotypical woman. You hate sex. You are scared of it. You are a prude. Nothing makes a relationship less happy than prudish woman. Learn about your body. Learn what turns it on. Do some quick research. Read some literotica. Do whatever you need to do to find out what turns you on and then...here's the scary part....tell your man! God forbid, he should be willing to oblige. And then, terror of terrors...you should both be satisfied.
Sex is not scary. I don't care how many times you've done it or with what reasoning you've stopped. It's a natural function and 90% of the reason most couples get together to begin with. Men are not going to be happy unless you fuck them. I'm sorry. I even understand why some guys, who are forced to go, not months, but years without sex look for it elsewhere. That's not to say that I approve of affairs. I whole-heartedly do not. But what do you expect them to do? When you dated, you would ignore the one you were interested in the least. If you do the same to your man, he's going to find something elsewhere.
I know, I know. It's just not always this simple. And I understand that this isn't what happens in all relationships. But rather than find a definition of a relationship that fits your own, why not try to find out what the real problems are and work on those? Talking, fucking, understanding and honesty are just never bad ways to go. If you're too sensitive or too hard in your own relationship, it's going to fail.
Men
The stereotype of the classic, heterosexual, american male is the football loving, can't listen to a word a woman says, beer drinking, belching, disgusting, unwashed, woman ogling pig that has been made the subject of numerous sitcoms and comedy shows. I might know 3 of those guys. And one of them might be a woman...
That would be one extreme of male. The other is the sensitive guy. If you have seen Bedazzled you know the one I'm talking about. This is the guy that writes love poetry, attentive to the point of obnoxious, caring, sharing, full of feelings (and tears), won't fight for you (or with you for that matter) to avoid all means of confrontation. Sweater sets and/or hippie clothes.
Ugh. To both extremes, I say...ugh. Guys, you know why women read romance novels where the man is the pirate captain who kidnaps her and then falls in love with her, right? Because the guy is rough, tough, knows what he wants, how to get it, gets it and makes sure it's known to the world too. He's vicious (this definition: dangerously aggressive : b: marked by violence or ferocity : fierce) and can leave you wanting more. He makes a woman feel like...well...a woman by sheer comparison of his manliness.
Do we understand? I say it's time for men to embrace the passion they used to have. Strike a blow for testosterone! That doesn't mean you should refuse to help around the house in exchange for more sports, bars, drinking, ogling. It means that maybe when your wife gets home, ignore her like you usually do. Then when she goes into the kitchen (or wherever), walk up behind her while she isn't expecting it. Hug her from behind, tell her something nice like "*low, dangerous growl*" Come on, do it. Women like to hear that. Primal, gutteral noises. Not grunting. Do Not Grunt! We, as women, loooove to hear that we are desired. Nothing says "I'm going to fuck you like there is no tomorrow becuase this is how you make me feel" like a dangerous growl in the ear and the desire in your eyes. If your woman doesn't respond to that...well she's nuts. Lose her. She's a hopeless case.
Ok, ok fine. Don't lose her. That's not fair. But I offially draw a blank as to what to tell you to do about her. It doesn't even register in my mind that there is a woman out there who doesn't have fantasies of being so desired that she's just taken (consentually of course. No means no).
Women
The stereotype for a classic, heterosexual, american woman isn't much better. And I have to admit, ladies, this is just embarassing. We are, conniving, shopaholic, bitching, nagging, whining, manipulating, let me withhold sex because I didn't get what I wanted from you, let me make enough excuses for my own behavior so that you feel like an ass because you're a male and that makes me better, assholes.
Yes, that's right. You're an asshole.
Stop it. Right now.
Women's biggest problem is that they are unable to use logic to solve any problem. Especially ones inside their own relationships. I'm sorry girls, but inferring that you may or may not be mad about something that may or may not have anything to do with your S.O. is going to make the man think "Uhoh, she's in that mood again. Don't know why, know I must stay away." Do you really want your man to be intimidated by you? Do you enjoy using sex as a weapon? Oi! You're giving the lot of us a bad name.
If you walk into your home and spend more than half the time that you're there annoyed by your man, he might not be the problem. It might be you. It might be the fact that you have a headache 6 nights out of the week. It might be that you cry, moan, whine, bitch, nag, argue when you don't get something you want because you don't want to go and get it yourself. Shut up. Go get it. Weak, helpless women...well...they suck.
Stop sucking.
Wait...wrong message. Start sucking. This is another problem with the classic, stereotypical woman. You hate sex. You are scared of it. You are a prude. Nothing makes a relationship less happy than prudish woman. Learn about your body. Learn what turns it on. Do some quick research. Read some literotica. Do whatever you need to do to find out what turns you on and then...here's the scary part....tell your man! God forbid, he should be willing to oblige. And then, terror of terrors...you should both be satisfied.
Sex is not scary. I don't care how many times you've done it or with what reasoning you've stopped. It's a natural function and 90% of the reason most couples get together to begin with. Men are not going to be happy unless you fuck them. I'm sorry. I even understand why some guys, who are forced to go, not months, but years without sex look for it elsewhere. That's not to say that I approve of affairs. I whole-heartedly do not. But what do you expect them to do? When you dated, you would ignore the one you were interested in the least. If you do the same to your man, he's going to find something elsewhere.
I know, I know. It's just not always this simple. And I understand that this isn't what happens in all relationships. But rather than find a definition of a relationship that fits your own, why not try to find out what the real problems are and work on those? Talking, fucking, understanding and honesty are just never bad ways to go. If you're too sensitive or too hard in your own relationship, it's going to fail.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Sexual Slutdom = Expertise in Compatibility?
Ok, this one is less article and more opinion. I ran across an arcticle asking "Are you Dom or Sub? Sexual Compatibility in the Bedroom." Oooh, promising by title. Even the first couple of paragraphs seem to be going in the rigth direction towards good information. But, alas, the further in I got, the more I realized that this "self-proclaimed slut" (aka TheBeautifulKind) has just managed to sleep around enough to form opinions on stuff without actually attempting to view it from any other perspective at all. Now, granted, that's what most people do. I mean, they ARE opinions, right?
So here's my beef with this article (Here). She is saying that ALL couples have some form of D/s dynamic. I agree with this to an extent. But, she also says that Dom/Dom couples do not work and sub/sub couples do not work. This just isn't true. It may not work for them in a mutually exclusive relationship, sure. But it does work. There are just too many examples of it working out just fine. Yes, this article is found in a fetish area of this website, but that doesn't mean it should be taken as gospel in the BDSM lifestyle. There are entirely too many facets and different dynamics coming into play for her to make absolute statements like she is.
She also uses a description of Dominants (as males) and submissives (as females). She doesn't elude (much) to the fact that these roles can be switched. She says that Doms are take charge, leaders, bosses and that subs are secretaries (someone has seen a few too many movies) and jewelry makers. "For the most part, dom types are extroverts, and the subs are introverted." Ok, that isn't true in wayyyy too many cases. A submissive personality type is introverted. But a submissive personality type and a lifestyle submissive just aren't the same thing. I do not have a submissive personality type but my lifestyle is a-whole-nother enchilada. I am an extrovert (for the love of god, the l/s symbol is tattoo'd on my chest like a badge).
My favorite part of the article is the last paragraph where she blatantly shows off her ego.
"Why do I think I’m such an authority on this? Well, I’m a self-proclaimed slut – I’ve had lots of sexual partners, LOTS of hands on research, and all that experience has given me insight on sexual compatibility in a way that someone who has only had sex with a handful of people can’t know."
Um. Ok. So being a slut is now reason for expertise on the subject. Alright. That means hookers should become professional sex therapists, right? And what makes a "slut" think that just because another person hasn't had but a handful of sex partners that they aren't capable of using their head in a sexual compatibility situation? TBK, advice to you, quantity does not equal quality. You spent 10 years looking for the right sex and some people find it within a few partners. And just because you have found what is right for you, does not make you expert enough to run around making statements as if you are stating facts instead of your opinions.
So, I think the reason I felt the need to criticize is that it's broad statements, stated as fact and is the stereotype that I don't fit in. It's almost as if she mixed in her few, biased observations with a couple of basic psychology definitions and threw them down as advice. Just look at her advice on how to tell who wears the pants in the family!
Oi! ::facepalm::
So here's my beef with this article (Here). She is saying that ALL couples have some form of D/s dynamic. I agree with this to an extent. But, she also says that Dom/Dom couples do not work and sub/sub couples do not work. This just isn't true. It may not work for them in a mutually exclusive relationship, sure. But it does work. There are just too many examples of it working out just fine. Yes, this article is found in a fetish area of this website, but that doesn't mean it should be taken as gospel in the BDSM lifestyle. There are entirely too many facets and different dynamics coming into play for her to make absolute statements like she is.
She also uses a description of Dominants (as males) and submissives (as females). She doesn't elude (much) to the fact that these roles can be switched. She says that Doms are take charge, leaders, bosses and that subs are secretaries (someone has seen a few too many movies) and jewelry makers. "For the most part, dom types are extroverts, and the subs are introverted." Ok, that isn't true in wayyyy too many cases. A submissive personality type is introverted. But a submissive personality type and a lifestyle submissive just aren't the same thing. I do not have a submissive personality type but my lifestyle is a-whole-nother enchilada. I am an extrovert (for the love of god, the l/s symbol is tattoo'd on my chest like a badge).
My favorite part of the article is the last paragraph where she blatantly shows off her ego.
"Why do I think I’m such an authority on this? Well, I’m a self-proclaimed slut – I’ve had lots of sexual partners, LOTS of hands on research, and all that experience has given me insight on sexual compatibility in a way that someone who has only had sex with a handful of people can’t know."
Um. Ok. So being a slut is now reason for expertise on the subject. Alright. That means hookers should become professional sex therapists, right? And what makes a "slut" think that just because another person hasn't had but a handful of sex partners that they aren't capable of using their head in a sexual compatibility situation? TBK, advice to you, quantity does not equal quality. You spent 10 years looking for the right sex and some people find it within a few partners. And just because you have found what is right for you, does not make you expert enough to run around making statements as if you are stating facts instead of your opinions.
So, I think the reason I felt the need to criticize is that it's broad statements, stated as fact and is the stereotype that I don't fit in. It's almost as if she mixed in her few, biased observations with a couple of basic psychology definitions and threw them down as advice. Just look at her advice on how to tell who wears the pants in the family!
Oi! ::facepalm::
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Dumbing Down Women's Sexuality
So I found this article on women's sexuality. I have to agree with the author. I don't understand why certain words are taboo for so many people. Women, get a grip! You HAVE a vagina. You are allowed to use that word. Be proud of the fact that you have a vagina. Better yet, get to know it. Understand all the parts of your vagina and enjoy getting to know it.
I'd be willing to bet that too many (well over half) of the women in the US (if not the world) are more familiar with the male anatomy than their own. Don't get me wrong. I'm familiar with the male anatomy. Quite. But that doesn't mean I haven't played with my own body. I still find it interesting to learn new things about it.
So why the big deal? Why does it need to be an issue to be timid/shy/embarassed over? What's the point?
Here's the article:
Why Dumb Down Women's Sexuality?
March 16, 2008
Vagina. There. I said it. Vagina, vagina, vagina … If I could, I'd repeat it another 996 times, and let that be the sexual message for today.
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty tired of hearing and reading about "va-jay-jays." The Oprah-endorsed euphemism has catapulted this cutesy expression into common parlance. It has become a catchall phrase — an informal umbrella term — for all female genital anatomy including vagina, vulva, clitoris and who knows what else.
I just don't get the appeal. Why dumb down female sexuality? The expression "Va-jay-jay" was created by Shonda Rhimes, co-creator and executive producer of "Grey's Anatomy," to appease the standards and practices committee, because the word "vagina" had been used more than 11 times in a prior show. (They didn't seem to be troubled that "penis" was used 17 times in a single episode.) According to a Federal Communications Commission spokesman, "Context is critical in deciding whether a term is indecent." The context of the "Grey's Anatomy" episode in question is a woman giving birth. During the labor experience, she tells the intern to stop looking at her "va-jay-jay." I don't think we could find a more "decent" or appropriate context for the word "vagina" — do you?
I can't seem to escape this made-up word. As I was flipping through magazines at the hairdresser, there it was again, screaming at me in bold red letters: "Cosmo's Ultimate Guide to Your Va-jay-jay" promising "Fascinating Facts About Your Lovely Lady Parts." I have to say that for the most part, the article was very well done. It was filled with helpful informative facts, and they mentioned the word "vagina" multiple times. But I could have done without the references to "v-zone," "southern region" and "hoo-ha."
I thought I was done with "va-jay-jays" for a while, but I was wrong. The next day my phone rang and it was a 48-year-old woman calling to say she was having problems with her (yep, you guessed it) "va-jay-jay." I was delighted she had gotten the courage to call. It didn't really matter what she called her parts, but she was pretty clueless about what was out of kilter.
"Where's the problem?" I asked as gently as I could.
"Somewhere down there," she answered timidly.
We set up an appointment. Turns out she has perfectly satisfying vaginal functioning. We traced her concerns about a change in her orgasmic intensity to a new anti-hypertensive medication. With a change in medication and a chance to talk, she's having better orgasms and feels more comfortable about her sexual response.
As I'm writing this, I'm chastising myself … "Scantling, lighten up! It's just a silly funny little word that helps women (and men) feel more comfortable." So what if it sounds like baby talk? Language emerges when it is needed. It's obviously filling some void.
But there's a louder more determined "sex educator" voice that keeps protesting. "No, we can't take the easy way out. We're not going to walk into a drugstore and tell the pharmacist we have a boo-boo are we?"
As long as there is ignorance, shame and embarrassment about speaking the names of legitimate body parts, we have a problem. We can't "jolly" ourselves into feeling less anxious about grown-up subjects by resorting to childish platitudes. Language is powerful. It's your body, so you can call it what you want. There was a time when all women were "girls," and this affected our ability to be taken seriously.
So many parents work hard to teach their sons or daughters the real words for their body parts so their children are prepared for the adult world. We worry that they are not lulled into some heinous "baby talk" game with a child molester who preys on children's trust and innocence. We tell them, "This is your penis, or these are the lips of your vulva, and this opening is your vagina — it connects to your uterus. These areas are private and belong to you."
When a 5-year-old calls her vagina "mychina" or "bagina" or when a boy calls his penis "my peeper" — it's adorable. And if you and your lover have affectionate pet names for your intimate parts, go for it. But when adults blush crimson at the thought of talking to their doctor about their vaginas, and prefer words like "va-jay-jay," I think we have to take notice. If we can't say "vagina," how will we teach our young women to clearly communicate their medical needs, birth-control questions and concerns about STDs?
If saying "vagina" makes you wince, ask yourself why. Some say the word is fearsome. They call themselves vagina- phobes. It reminds them of a hole, an absence, something dark, mysterious and wet. I suppose it's a matter of perception. Women who have experienced sexual abuse or have considerable anxiety about their genitals often feel more comfortable using words that soften the experience. Others associate the vagina with a place that offers comfort and life-giving energy as it connects with the womb.
I've always enjoyed studying languages and took Latin for many years. "Vagina" comes from the Latin word for sheath or scabbard — for the purpose of "holding" and protecting. You might not know this, but when we order our most popular flavor of ice cream, "vanilla," it comes from the Latin word "vagina" that was adopted into Spanish for "vaini" and later "vainilla" for little sheath — a sweet fragrant plant with pods resembling a sheath — inspiring such artists as Georgia O'Keeffe, Judy Chicago and Edward Westin.
For years, Eve Ensler countered the mythology and shame shrouding the vagina in her widely celebrated play "The Vagina Monologues." She painstakingly helped so many of us speak the word without cringing. I understand that our language choices for female anatomy range from overly clinical to uncomfortably vulgar. As we begin to use some of the "clinical" words with more confidence, I assure you that they'll flow with more ease.
Dr. Sandra Scantling is a licensed clinical psychologist and certified sex therapist in Farmington. You may e-mail her at AskDrScantling@aol.com; her website is www.drsandy.com. This column is not intended as a substitute for professional, medical or psychological advice, diagnosis or treatment. Case material used here includes composites and is not intended to represent any actual individuals.
Original article found here: http://www.courant.com/features/lifestyle/hc-drscantling0316.artmar16,0,993706.story
I'd be willing to bet that too many (well over half) of the women in the US (if not the world) are more familiar with the male anatomy than their own. Don't get me wrong. I'm familiar with the male anatomy. Quite. But that doesn't mean I haven't played with my own body. I still find it interesting to learn new things about it.
So why the big deal? Why does it need to be an issue to be timid/shy/embarassed over? What's the point?
Here's the article:
Why Dumb Down Women's Sexuality?
March 16, 2008
Vagina. There. I said it. Vagina, vagina, vagina … If I could, I'd repeat it another 996 times, and let that be the sexual message for today.
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty tired of hearing and reading about "va-jay-jays." The Oprah-endorsed euphemism has catapulted this cutesy expression into common parlance. It has become a catchall phrase — an informal umbrella term — for all female genital anatomy including vagina, vulva, clitoris and who knows what else.
I just don't get the appeal. Why dumb down female sexuality? The expression "Va-jay-jay" was created by Shonda Rhimes, co-creator and executive producer of "Grey's Anatomy," to appease the standards and practices committee, because the word "vagina" had been used more than 11 times in a prior show. (They didn't seem to be troubled that "penis" was used 17 times in a single episode.) According to a Federal Communications Commission spokesman, "Context is critical in deciding whether a term is indecent." The context of the "Grey's Anatomy" episode in question is a woman giving birth. During the labor experience, she tells the intern to stop looking at her "va-jay-jay." I don't think we could find a more "decent" or appropriate context for the word "vagina" — do you?
I can't seem to escape this made-up word. As I was flipping through magazines at the hairdresser, there it was again, screaming at me in bold red letters: "Cosmo's Ultimate Guide to Your Va-jay-jay" promising "Fascinating Facts About Your Lovely Lady Parts." I have to say that for the most part, the article was very well done. It was filled with helpful informative facts, and they mentioned the word "vagina" multiple times. But I could have done without the references to "v-zone," "southern region" and "hoo-ha."
I thought I was done with "va-jay-jays" for a while, but I was wrong. The next day my phone rang and it was a 48-year-old woman calling to say she was having problems with her (yep, you guessed it) "va-jay-jay." I was delighted she had gotten the courage to call. It didn't really matter what she called her parts, but she was pretty clueless about what was out of kilter.
"Where's the problem?" I asked as gently as I could.
"Somewhere down there," she answered timidly.
We set up an appointment. Turns out she has perfectly satisfying vaginal functioning. We traced her concerns about a change in her orgasmic intensity to a new anti-hypertensive medication. With a change in medication and a chance to talk, she's having better orgasms and feels more comfortable about her sexual response.
As I'm writing this, I'm chastising myself … "Scantling, lighten up! It's just a silly funny little word that helps women (and men) feel more comfortable." So what if it sounds like baby talk? Language emerges when it is needed. It's obviously filling some void.
But there's a louder more determined "sex educator" voice that keeps protesting. "No, we can't take the easy way out. We're not going to walk into a drugstore and tell the pharmacist we have a boo-boo are we?"
As long as there is ignorance, shame and embarrassment about speaking the names of legitimate body parts, we have a problem. We can't "jolly" ourselves into feeling less anxious about grown-up subjects by resorting to childish platitudes. Language is powerful. It's your body, so you can call it what you want. There was a time when all women were "girls," and this affected our ability to be taken seriously.
So many parents work hard to teach their sons or daughters the real words for their body parts so their children are prepared for the adult world. We worry that they are not lulled into some heinous "baby talk" game with a child molester who preys on children's trust and innocence. We tell them, "This is your penis, or these are the lips of your vulva, and this opening is your vagina — it connects to your uterus. These areas are private and belong to you."
When a 5-year-old calls her vagina "mychina" or "bagina" or when a boy calls his penis "my peeper" — it's adorable. And if you and your lover have affectionate pet names for your intimate parts, go for it. But when adults blush crimson at the thought of talking to their doctor about their vaginas, and prefer words like "va-jay-jay," I think we have to take notice. If we can't say "vagina," how will we teach our young women to clearly communicate their medical needs, birth-control questions and concerns about STDs?
If saying "vagina" makes you wince, ask yourself why. Some say the word is fearsome. They call themselves vagina- phobes. It reminds them of a hole, an absence, something dark, mysterious and wet. I suppose it's a matter of perception. Women who have experienced sexual abuse or have considerable anxiety about their genitals often feel more comfortable using words that soften the experience. Others associate the vagina with a place that offers comfort and life-giving energy as it connects with the womb.
I've always enjoyed studying languages and took Latin for many years. "Vagina" comes from the Latin word for sheath or scabbard — for the purpose of "holding" and protecting. You might not know this, but when we order our most popular flavor of ice cream, "vanilla," it comes from the Latin word "vagina" that was adopted into Spanish for "vaini" and later "vainilla" for little sheath — a sweet fragrant plant with pods resembling a sheath — inspiring such artists as Georgia O'Keeffe, Judy Chicago and Edward Westin.
For years, Eve Ensler countered the mythology and shame shrouding the vagina in her widely celebrated play "The Vagina Monologues." She painstakingly helped so many of us speak the word without cringing. I understand that our language choices for female anatomy range from overly clinical to uncomfortably vulgar. As we begin to use some of the "clinical" words with more confidence, I assure you that they'll flow with more ease.
Dr. Sandra Scantling is a licensed clinical psychologist and certified sex therapist in Farmington. You may e-mail her at AskDrScantling@aol.com; her website is www.drsandy.com. This column is not intended as a substitute for professional, medical or psychological advice, diagnosis or treatment. Case material used here includes composites and is not intended to represent any actual individuals.
Original article found here: http://www.courant.com/features/lifestyle/hc-drscantling0316.artmar16,0,993706.story
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Oral Sex and Pot Use = Cancer??
I just don't know how much of this I believe. Where do ideas for this type of research even come into play? Here is the original link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/12/health/webmd/main3928520.shtml?source=RSSattr=Health_3928520
Basically, here is what it says:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/12/health/webmd/main3928520.shtml?source=RSSattr=Health_3928520
Basically, here is what it says:
(WebMD) Certain head and neck cancers may be tied to sexual activity, marijuana use, and human papillomavirus (HPV ) type 16.That news comes from Johns Hopkins University's Maura Gillison, MD, PhD, and colleagues, who studied 240 people with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (head and neck cancers). Some of their cancers tested positive for HPV 16; others were negative for HPV 16.The patients answered questions about their lifestyle. For comparison, 322 cancer-free people answered the same lifestyle questions.Here's what the researchers learned:
Head and neck cancers that were positive for HPV 16 were associated with having more oral sex partners and smoking more marijuana.
Head and neck cancers that were negative for HPV 16 weren't linked to sex or marijuana. Instead, they were tied to smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, and having poor oral hygiene. Because the study was observational, it's not clear if those risk factors caused cancer.Based on the findings, Gillison's team argues that HPV 16-negative and HPV 16-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinomas should be considered two different types of cancer.The study appears in Tuesday's advance online edition of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Introduction of an Asshole
I suppose an introduction should be the first order of business. Especially seeing as I'm an unknown entity who just happens to have opinions on way too much to keep it to myself. We learned to share in our early years, right? Well I'm going to push a bit of my vain side to the forefront and set my opinions out to the world as if they were important to someone. We'll see how that goes, shall we?
I am a LiveJouranl user so I am vaguely familiar with how this blogging thing goes. The thing about LJ is that unless you advertise yourself, it's hard to find the really keen, interesting bits floating around in there. There are a total of 5 people on my friends list that I don't know in person. So, again, to get my opinion out to a more personal venue, I choose here. Hey, some of that stuff in LJ you just don't need to know, ok?
On to the actual introduction. I am a 29 year old woman from southeast Louisiana. Before there are too many ideas as to what it involves to be from SE Louisiana, let's paint you a picture. I am from a state who glorifies eating roadkill and large, dangerous reptiles. We don't hunt deer nearly as much as we do Nutria. We like the water, we have funny sayings for everyday things, and we talk about food way more than we actually spend time eating it. We make groceries and say things like "How's yamamannem?", "Yeah, you right" and we live out (most of us anyway) "Lassez les bon temps roulez." Turtle soup, alligator on a stick, roasted pig, nutria rat, and catfish (yes bottom feeders) aren't delicacies, they are regularities. Despite our reputation, we very often maintain high intelligence (just maybe not in the same way you think of it). We love the blues, zydeco, country music and we like to dance, party, have a good time and drink. I fit into most of those categories.
I'm not a cajun, although I do have cajun blood. I'm also english, french, dutch, german, and have a splash of blood from the Canary Islands. I love to do geneology research when I'm not bitching my way through an entire semester of school. I am an Environmental Science major and the University of New Orleans. After I receive my B.S., I plan to go to the nearest college to offer me a fellowship in the research field I want to pursue. I want to study poopy water. Yes, that's right. You heard me. I want to study the poop. How to clean the poop, filter the poop and make the poopy water safe for reentering the ground/water table. And yes, those ARE the technical terms.
I am one of the most open minded individuals out there. I am willing to have a conversation with anyone who isn't being an asshole just to be an asshole. I love to talk. I love to listen. I love to share opinions on subjects. I LOVE to debate logically, even-tempered on a very wide range of topics. And yes, I will touch on religiton, politics, sex, human nature, idiocy, etc as this blog goes on.
This blog will not be about me. This blog will be about my perspective on the world. That's the great thing about internet blogging and its popularity, all those opinions floating around in the world. What better way to understand that a person truly isn't alone?
So I welcome opinions, criticism, debates, jokes, etc I'm not likely to be offended by something you say. Please, though, no flaming anyone else who comments on my blog. It's immature, unnecessary and just won't be dealt with.
Thank you,
Autumn H.
I am a LiveJouranl user so I am vaguely familiar with how this blogging thing goes. The thing about LJ is that unless you advertise yourself, it's hard to find the really keen, interesting bits floating around in there. There are a total of 5 people on my friends list that I don't know in person. So, again, to get my opinion out to a more personal venue, I choose here. Hey, some of that stuff in LJ you just don't need to know, ok?
On to the actual introduction. I am a 29 year old woman from southeast Louisiana. Before there are too many ideas as to what it involves to be from SE Louisiana, let's paint you a picture. I am from a state who glorifies eating roadkill and large, dangerous reptiles. We don't hunt deer nearly as much as we do Nutria. We like the water, we have funny sayings for everyday things, and we talk about food way more than we actually spend time eating it. We make groceries and say things like "How's yamamannem?", "Yeah, you right" and we live out (most of us anyway) "Lassez les bon temps roulez." Turtle soup, alligator on a stick, roasted pig, nutria rat, and catfish (yes bottom feeders) aren't delicacies, they are regularities. Despite our reputation, we very often maintain high intelligence (just maybe not in the same way you think of it). We love the blues, zydeco, country music and we like to dance, party, have a good time and drink. I fit into most of those categories.
I'm not a cajun, although I do have cajun blood. I'm also english, french, dutch, german, and have a splash of blood from the Canary Islands. I love to do geneology research when I'm not bitching my way through an entire semester of school. I am an Environmental Science major and the University of New Orleans. After I receive my B.S., I plan to go to the nearest college to offer me a fellowship in the research field I want to pursue. I want to study poopy water. Yes, that's right. You heard me. I want to study the poop. How to clean the poop, filter the poop and make the poopy water safe for reentering the ground/water table. And yes, those ARE the technical terms.
I am one of the most open minded individuals out there. I am willing to have a conversation with anyone who isn't being an asshole just to be an asshole. I love to talk. I love to listen. I love to share opinions on subjects. I LOVE to debate logically, even-tempered on a very wide range of topics. And yes, I will touch on religiton, politics, sex, human nature, idiocy, etc as this blog goes on.
This blog will not be about me. This blog will be about my perspective on the world. That's the great thing about internet blogging and its popularity, all those opinions floating around in the world. What better way to understand that a person truly isn't alone?
So I welcome opinions, criticism, debates, jokes, etc I'm not likely to be offended by something you say. Please, though, no flaming anyone else who comments on my blog. It's immature, unnecessary and just won't be dealt with.
Thank you,
Autumn H.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)