Yer roots are showin'...

Growing it all out.

You'll hear women say it often: "My natural hair color? I don't remember!" Chuckle.

My hair's been everything from pink to purple to burgundy; from Manic Panic "Deadly Nightshade" to Toriphile ginger. At one point I rocked the skunk stripes.

And then one day it occurred to me that the hair color that looked best on me was my natural plain-old brown. And I've kept it plain-old brown ever since.

What I've come to realize is that I've never given this sort of trust to the nature of my body.

"My natural body? I don't remember!"

From the time it occurred to me to be self-conscious about the way I looked, I've done every terrible thing to my body this side of cosmetic surgery to change it: obsessive exercise, starving, purging, smoking, methamphetamines, cocaine, caffeine pills, crash diets, and often several of these at once. Over the last 20 years my body has seen a pretty steady 30 pound yo-yo swing.

Today though, I threw out the size 4s. I'm going back to my natural body. And I expect to hate every minute of it, at least at first.

Over the course of the last year (2012), I did something I haven't done probably since I was 14. I didn't crash diet. Not once. I exercised more than I have in recent memory, but that's not saying much. It certainly wasn't excessive. And I let myself eat things. A lot of things. Things I previously wouldn't have allowed myself to eat. Like pasta. Delicious pasta. I exceeded my ration of "annual bagel." I ATE 2 DONUTS. But I hated myself every time I indulged. I have a terrible relationship with food.

I love food. I love to cook food. I love to eat food. I will eat all the food until it's gone. And then I will hate and punish myself for it. Every. Time. And then I will eat some more.

Early this year, I counted calories for one week. The exercise made very clear my propensity to overeat, even taking into account physical activity--and you better believe I was logging the 1/2 hour of ukulele practice and the 10 minutes of dish-washing. I earned 15 more calories! Those 3 cherry tomatoes were MINE! But the calorie logging forced me to do something else, which was to cook at home more. It gave me control over the quality of ingredients and the portion sizes. I'm less inclined to eat so much meat. It's not likely that I'll ever make french fries. Ain't no hidden corn syrup or TBHQ or hydrogenated soy in my kitchen! So now I seem to be eating better, and a bit more reasonably, and I earn a handful of calories every time I clean up! Win!

The smarter eating habits coupled with normal amounts of enjoyable exercise are now showing me my "roots," or the basic shape my natural, healthy body should have. I've gained a lot of muscle mass, so my pants don't fit; same with some fitted shirts and skirts. Hell, nothing I own not made of spandex fits me anymore. I feel a little like the Hulk, which is totally sexy, right?

I should also mention that I've never thought of myself as being or capable of being voluptuous. And here's the ridiculous reason why: I have small breasts. And in my mind, small breasts can never equal voluptuousness. But I do have hips. And a butt. And big ol' head-squeezing thighs. But for all my life I thought small breasts meant I should look like this:
  

 

But what my body wants to look like is this:

WHICH I SHOULD BE REALLY FUCKING EXCITED ABOUT. 

I'm tired of living my life hating how I look, but yet yearning for how I looked last year, or the year before. It's a worthless waste of non-calorie-burning energy. And It's high time I stop being afraid of having my picture taken. Because I am. Photos of me are one of my least favorite things.

These are not easy admissions to make. As a self-proclaimed champion and celebrator of body-diversity, self-acceptance and self-love, it feels damn hypocritical of me to unleash these demons. But there they are. I don't expect they'll be easy to exorcise.

But here's to growing it out. Here's to practicing what I preach. Here's to embracing the belly. And here's to loving every minute of it.

The Rape of the American Women. LEGITIMATE TRIGGER WARNING.

I have been writhing in emotional anguish over the most recent public attacks on women in America. I am appalled. Depressed. Confused. Shocked. Sick. Anxious. Why do I know these feelings? When have I felt this before?... oh wait.

This is what you want isn't it, old boys? To terrify women? To make us feel vulnerable? To get us to submit to you against our will so you won't hurt us more? Now I remember.

You want to crush us with your weight, forcing your values on us, promising you know what's best.

You want to finish and then whisper creepily into our ears that everything is as God intended.

You want to let everyone know that we really wanted it. Shame us into not telling anyone.

You'll try to stop us from learning how to protect ourselves so you can keep coming back for more.

You'll get a bunch of your buddies together and plan a sneak attack at our homes, in front of our families. You want to make us cry**. Humiliate. Make us weak. Incapacitate us so that we'll cede more and more control, more power to you, out of fear. Sound familiar? It does to me.

If the extreme right wing was a cock, American women would legitimately be getting raped by it. Over and over and over again.

Representatives Paul Ryan, Todd Akin, and Steve King, all co-sponsors of the "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortions Act" in 2011, all thought they could redefine rape (along with 220+ other co-sponsors). Why? Because they know exactly what "forcible rape" looks like. And they want to make you carry their babies to term... every 2 years.

If you or a loved one were beaten with a baseball bat, you wouldn't call broken legs a gift from God. You wouldn't call it an athletic injury. You wouldn't blame the victim for not wearing protective armor. You wouldn't make the victim try to walk around on broken legs. No. You'd do whatever you could to get that person's legs back in working order. And you wouldn't make her a criminal if she didn't work at the batting cages for nine months-eighteen years or more.

Rape isn't about sex or love or tiny blessings from God. Rape is about violence, power, and control--which I'm fairly certain is the entire basis for the Republican party platform.

Yeah, I know these feelings. For half my life I have battled these feelings. And I'll be damned if I spend the rest of my life doing the same.

I'm on to you, GOP. And I will legitimately knee you in the balls in November. How's that for a woman's body shutting that whole thing down?

**The video which was linked to above, via "You want to make us cry," was of an anti-choice protest ambush at the private home of Jenna Tosh, new CEO of PPGO. The title on the video, posted by the anti-choice group who ambushed her, was "Poor Baby! Why is Jenna Tosh crying?" I can only speculate that the video was flagged for hate-speech. I replaced the video link with one to an anti-choice blogger's page, describing the incident.

Please consider getting involved, educating yourself, or making a donation to the above organizations. Stop the ignorance. Stop the hate.

Gail Dines isn't Watching the Right Movies.

This is a letter I wrote to the editor of the Boston Globe in late July 2010. The original letter is first; the edited-for-brevity version follows.

In response to "The Shaping of Things" (Boston Globe, g-section, July 27)

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2010/07/27/the_shaping_of_things/?sudsredirect=true

To the Editor:

The article “The Shaping of Things” (g, July 27) about Gail Dines, author of “Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality” was most alarming. Gail Dines, who claims to have studied pornography for 2 decades, from what I have read, is shockingly ignorant in most matters of the industry and the practice of the educated viewing of pornography.

Dines' work is centered around “gonzo” pornography, described in the article as “an extreme form of pornography that specializes in the degradation of women....” This statement is simply false —unresearched, and ignorant. Gonzo porn has been around for decades, and came into widespread popularity with the advent of the home video. Gonzo porn doesn't “specialize” in anything, except to create short vignettes of sex-scenes aimed at arousing and thereby aiding the viewer in participating in sexual activity, whether alone or with partners(s). Gonzo is generally very low-budget, and, to borrow Dines' comparison, the fast-food of pornographic video. The genre's prevalence on the Internet simply due to its accessible format.

Dines blames the pornography industry as a whole for a cultural shift in how we as a culture view sex in our everyday lives. I beg to differ. I believe the consumer culture in this country changes the way people choose to view pornography: they want it cheap and easy. I say, rather than Stop Porn Culture, we stop fast food culture. Stop Wal-Mart culture. You want to see people who are “in pain, exhausted, demoralized”? Poke your head into an auto-body shop. Stop by a linen-cleaning service. Observe dishwashers in a restaurant. People want all these services, conveniently and affordably. Cheap and easy. The pornography industry is like any other. Yes, they're trying to make money. Yes, they do market research. And yes, what they've found is that the average American is not willing to seek out, let alone PAY FOR quality, high-production pornography.

To continue with the fast food analogy, Dines is quoted in the article, and also writes in the preface to her book, that “if [she] was criticizing McDonald’s, you wouldn’t accuse [her] of being against eating” (a response to critics who label her “anti-sex”). That's exactly right. If she was criticizing McDonald's as a prolific manufacturer of cheap and very accessible, and not-so-good-for-you food, we would not accuse her of being against eating. If she wanted McDonald's banned for this practice we might accuse her of being anti-freedom. We have choices. We can choose to eat fast food—which we can all agree is ubiquitous, or we can choose to eat locally grown/raised organic food products, which is much more expensive and time-consuming. You get what you pay for. We can choose to furtively browse Internet gonzo pornography, or we can find high production titles featuring well paid actors who truly enjoy their chosen line of work. Again, the latter is more expensive and time consuming, and add to that the stigma which comes with viewing pornography (perpetuated by the likes of Dines) and we are left with little choice. We are not forced to search for organic carrots in stores with blackened windows, hoping no one recognizes our cars in the parking lot.

Sex is famously taboo in American culture. Dines says “Pornography is the major form of sex ed today for boys.” Agreed. Is that the fault of the pornography industry? Or perhaps because we're too afraid too talk to our kids about sex? Abstinence-only education and parents fearing that their children are perpetually “too young” for the sex talk—and I mean more than just “where babies come from,” because as we all know, we as a species have a lot of sex that doesn't make, nor does it intend to make, babies—is driving our children to seek out that information in other ways. The internet is the cheapest and easiest way to get that information. I applaud Dines for talking to her son about sex and pornography, but I disagree with her approach. Not all porn is bad, or violent, or low budget, or even chasing the male gaze. Porn can be a wonderful tool for re-igniting one's sex drive, especially since our culture is permeated by a puritanical and negatively skewed view of sex and sexuality. Women still aren't even supposed to want sex and are still counseled to save themselves for marriage. And then there's the popular notion that there's no sex after marriage. Good times.

As for pornography and its role in violence against women, Robert Jensen was quoted as having said that Dines was incensed by “the idea that there is a cultural support system for violence against women.” I agree this culture exists, and I too am appalled. However, the degradation of women is not the fault of pornography, nor is pornography the only perpetuator. The degradation of women, culturally, is global and ancient. It's the Great Chain of Being. It's biblical (Genesis 3:16). And it's everyday television advertising. I am more incensed by a truck rental company advertising their new automatic transmission vehicles by showing a woman in an a-line skirt, tucked-in blouse, high-heels, perfectly manicured and coiffed, climbing into the driver's seat, than I am by images of a woman having sex with multiple partners. In fact, that turns me on.

Most people, unlike Dines, don't spend their lives looking at free Internet porn. Most people use it for its intended purpose—to help them achieve orgasm—and then move on to something else: cooking dinner, taking a shower, driving their kids to school, or making love to their partners. Porn doesn't turn kids into rapists. Arm your children with real life information, and don't forget that just like video games and blockbuster movies, pornography is fantasy, and that's all it will ever be.

EDITED FOR MASS CONSUMPTION:

Gale Dines, “The Shaping of Things” appears willfully ignorant of human sexuality despite her “three decades” of study.

Dines' work centers on “gonzo” pornography, described as “extreme...pornography that specializes in the degradation of women....” False. Its only specialty is short vignettes of sex for viewer pleasure. Gonzo is typically low-budget, and to borrow Dines' comparison, the fast-food of porn.

While some pornography perpetuates women's degradation, this remains matter of opinion. Degradation of women is global, ancient, ranging from the Bible (Genesis 3:16) to television advertising.

Dines blames pornography for shifting our view of everyday sex. I contest American consumerism changes how we view pornography: we want it cheap and easy. Rather than Stop Porn Culture, Stop Fast-Food Culture. The pornography industry, like any other, does research to produce sellable merchandise. Average consumers don't seek quality pornography.

Dines' stigmatization of pornography only makes this worse. Instead of shopping for organic vegetables, we are left with drive-thru buckets of chicken. Why shop for quality behind blackened windows when we can browse free Internet porn?

If Dines' assertion that “pornography is the major form of sex ed...for boys,” this is the fault of parents, not pornographers. Abstinence-only education and parents' discomfort with their children's sexuality drives kids to get information elsewhere.

Unlike Dines, most don't spend decades viewing Internet porn. People use it to orgasm-- then they cook dinner, drive their kids to school, make love to their partners. Porn doesn't make kids rapists. Arm them with real-life information. Never forget that like video games and movies, pornography is fantasy, and that's all it should be.

Chickens & Eggs and Why the Pro-Life Movement is a Sham.

Have you ever debated abortion? Does it sound something like this?:

Pro-Life: Abortion is murder of an innocent child.
Pro-Choice: Abortion does not kill a child, it kills a clump of cells.
Pro-life: Life begins at conception. That "clump of cells" is a baby. [insert picture of fetus]
Pro-Choice: Why don't we take it back further? Maybe life begins before conception. Maybe we should outlaw masturbation and menstruation? Those sperms and eggs have the potential to become babies, just like an embryo....

OR

Pro-Choice: My body, my choice!
Pro-Life: Not just your body, but the body of your innocent child. The child should have rights, too.
Pro-Choice: But the fetus is fully dependent on the mother like a parasite, not an autonomous being. It couldn't live outside the womb without the mother.
Pro-Life: So that gives you the right to be a murderer?...

OR

Pro-Life: If you don't want to have kids you should use birth control or not have sex!
Pro-Choice: Birth control doesn't always work! If I have sex responsibly and get pregnant with a kid a don't want, I shouldn't be forced to carry the pregnancy to term....

And on and on and on. It's chicken-and-egg fallacy. What comes first, the chicken or the egg? Clearly we can't always have both, don't always want both, and frankly I always thought chicken omelets were kind of weird. (ba-dum, ching!)

This is precisely why the landscape of this argument needs to change. We need to address the ACTUAL issues surrounding abortion in the United States instead of making endless justifications for our reasons, whatever they may be.

The abortion issue is about control, which I addressed in part in my post The War on Women. Part 2: Trust Women.

Why do I feel this way? I am, as you may have guessed, pro-choice. READ: Pro-choice means I believe that people should have the right to choose when and where they will bear children, and that it's no business of the government or religious figures/followers, or really anyone else but the woman in question. I believe she has the right to choose whether she will consult with her church or her friends or family or doctors or counselors or whomever in the process of making her decision. I am NOT pro-abortion. I think abortion sucks. You know what else I think sucks? Unwanted children.

So here's what I think about the so-called pro-life movement, and why the pro-life abortion mission is more about control than it is about preserving "sacred" life:

I think if they were really pro-life, they would be fighting to fund places like Planned Parenthood even MORE so that women could have all the resources they need to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Education. Contraceptives. Support. Healthcare.

I think if they were really pro-life, they would be fighting for a stronger healthcare system to support poor families, rather than whining about their taxpayer dollars going to welfare programs.

I think if they were really pro-life, they would be fighting against huge military spending (which, at the end of the day, kills all kinds of innocent born humans) at the expense of healthcare funding (both broadly and concerning reproductive services).

I think if they were really pro-life, they would be fighting to nationally legalize same-sex marriage, which would allow for loving couples to have all the same government granted rights and benefits as heterosexuals, which would in turn allow them to lovingly raise adopted children. THINK of all the loving would-be parents who are DENIED the right to raise children, just because they love others who have the same sex chromosomes as them.

I think if they were really pro-life, they would all be vegans and self-sustaining environmentalists.

I think if they were really pro-life, they would advocate for the rights of ALL people even AFTER they were born (See: homosexuals. See: quality of life.).

I think if they were really pro-life, they wouldn't be drafting anti-abortion bills that criminalize miscarriage (Utah, Georgia). If they were really pro-life, they wouldn't be working so hard at drafting anti-abortion bills with loopholes so big you could legally shoot an abortion provider through them (An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide [emphasis added] to provide for the protection of certain unborn children. SD HB 1171).

I think if they were really pro-life, they'd stop painting a picture of abortion clinics as places that use the smell of baking cookies to lure in foolish pregnant women, and then tie them down take their children. Women think long and hard before they make an appointment for an abortion. I bet 97% of them have their minds made up before even making the call. Then the other 3% maybe weren't so sure, and so took some more time to think & maybe changed their minds (which is OK, because these women have the right to choose).

I think if they were really pro-life, they'd be less busy calling pro-choicers slutty, irresponsible, murderers, and more busy advocating for a society that can adequately care for its children. (NEWSFLASH: Jesus is not going to fix this. He's been slacking pretty damn hard the last 2000+ years. I'm really beginning to believe that when he died, he just...died.)

As far as the pro-lifers who use a religious basis: I was taught that we are all God's children. That God loves every one of us. That God granted us free will. That God will deliver final judgment. It's NOT OUR JOB. I think if they were really pro-life, they would accept everyone who is not like them as one of God's beloved children for whom only HE/SHE/IT shall deliver judgment.

As far as secular v. non-secular arguments go, we're wasting our time. Just leave it at that.

Side Note: I recently had a Catholic pro-lifer try to convince me to "come back to the church" (I've been excommunicated, on various counts, but definitely for abortion), that if I took Jesus into my heart, then I would be forgiven. That if I repented, I would be forgiven. That if I confessed my sin, admitted I had done wrong, that I had strayed from the path, that I did a BAD THING, I would be forgiven.

Here's the thing: I do not need, nor do I want forgiveness, because I believe with every ounce of my being that I made the right choice. The RIGHT choice. It was the right choice for me, for the could-have-been child, for my partner, for my community. It was the right choice for my future children, should I choose to have them. It was a VERY difficult decision. I did not want to have an abortion. No one wants to have an abortion. But I could not have brought a child into the world I was living in at the time. I also know that adoption was not an option for me. So in the end, I chose abortion. I do not seek forgiveness. I seek acceptance. I seek the respect and trust due to me for making what was a responsible and right decision concerning my body, my life, and my family.

In the end what we have is a pro-life movement which doesn't seem to advocate for any life outside of fetal life. We have a pro-life movement which is (oxymoronically, given their tendency to be anti-big government) advocating for Draconian, fascist legislation of the female body. We have a pro-life movement that doesn't celebrate, honor, or respect life outside the womb.

This is not about "life" at all. It's about cultural, social, governmental control over a person's body. So let's talk about THAT.

War on Women. Part 2: Trust Women.

In this country and in many parts of the world, our cultures and societies have told us that women aren't to be trusted.

We've not been trusted to elect our government representatives. We've not been trusted to hold a job outside the home, or to hold a job while simultaneously being married. We've not been trusted to own property, but rather, upon marriage, became property. We've not been trusted to choose our own life partners. We've not been trusted to stand in a pulpit and preach the word of God. We've not been trusted to speak our minds, to be artists, to be politicians. We've not been trusted to make decisions.

After all, Eve ate the apple. Pandora opened the box.

We are stupid, silly creatures who cause trouble when left unsupervised.

And we keep getting pregnant when we don't want to.

I did some research into why it is that women get pregnant WAY more often than men. As it turns out: MEN CAN'T GET PREGNANT. They can have sex 75 times a day, 365 days a year, for 75 years and they will NEVER, EVER become pregnant. Not once. Who knew?

But, still, why is it that so many women are having unplanned, unwanted pregnancies? Sure there are the cases of rape and incest, but those only account for a relatively small percentage. Don't the rest of these women use birth control? Even if they do, the failure rate is, at best, 2% (with IUD) which gives women a 1 in 50 chance of getting pregnant even with the BEST birth control method used 100% properly 100% of the time. So if a woman has sex an average of once a week, she's got a shot at getting pregnant once a year. The failure rate rises with the use of hormonal contraceptives (the pill, patch, ring, etc.) and rises even more with barrier methods (condoms, diaphram, cervical cap, etc.).

*NOTE: I do not intend to entertain the notion of abstinence in this post. We all know that one cannot get pregnant if one does not have sex, but I'm guessing most people will have sex in their lifetimes.

According to the Guttmacher Institute:
"The average woman must use some form of effective contraception for at least 20 years if she wants to limit her family size to two children, and 16 years if she wants four children."

Ponder that for a moment.

What that statement is telling us is that even if we use contraceptives for 20+ years, we're still probably going to get pregnant at least twice.

Those are bad odds if you don't want kids. And also bad if it means you can't necessarily CHOOSE when those pregnancies will occur. Not to mention how much worse those odds get when you consider that there are many women who
A. Are allergic to latex.
B. Experience serious physical side affects arising from both hormonal contraceptives and IUD.
C. Experience serious psychological and emotional side effects from hormonal contraceptives.
D. Have little or no access to birth control due to financial problems or availability, or simply were never given the information on how to obtain or use such preventative methods.

Even with all those numbers stacked up against us, you'll be happy to know that a great number of those unwanted pregnancies grow up to be delightful "surprises" or who find themselves in wonderful adoptive homes. However, another great many go on to become the victims of their unwantedness: abused, neglected, NOT adopted into loving "forever homes," but rather shuffled through a struggling, underfunded foster-care system (did you know that the average age of the American homeless person is NINE?).

And then there are still a great many who never get born--this, at their mothers' discretion.

This is a decision that mothers should not only be able to make, but should be TRUSTED to make.

Why? Because it's HER body. It's HER life. YOU don't know what is going on in her life to lead her to make that decision, and frankly it's none of YOUR business.

Maybe she's engaged to be married. Maybe on the same day she found out she's pregnant, she also found out that her fiancé is engaged to someone else, too.

Maybe her community would shun her so badly for being pregnant out of wedlock that abortion would actually be safer.

Maybe she already has children. Maybe she is treading a fine line of poverty and knows that another child would put her family on the street.

Maybe she got pregnant the first time she had sex. At fifteen.

Maybe she's in an abusive relationship with the father.

Maybe she has a terminal illness that she would pass on to her child. Or maybe the father does.

Maybe she has an illness that would be so complicated by pregnancy that it would kill her AND the baby.

Maybe she wants children when she's older and the idea of giving her child away breaks her heart.

Maybe she has a substance abuse problem she doesn't trust herself to be able to kick in time to save the child from the damage it would inflict.

Or maybe she just doesn't want children at all.

Whatever her reasons, they are HERS. NOT YOURS. Women are not here to be controlled.

HEAR THIS NOW:

WOMEN ARE NOT PROPERTY OF THE STATE.

Do you hear me Georgia? Where they not only want to make abortion illegal, but also miscarriages. Where they want to close ALL abortion clinics.

WE ARE NOT YOUR BABY-MAKING SLAVE-FORCE.

Do you hear me, Texas? Where they want to require a waiting period and a sonogram before a woman can receive an abortion, and where they want to limit abortions to only in the cases of rape or incest.

WE WILL NOT BE TERRORIZED.

Do you hear me, South Dakota? Where they want to require a 3 day waiting period and "spiritual counseling." Where they want to make the murder of an abortion doctor legal, under the guise of self defense.

WE ARE NOT YOUR MISGUIDED SHEEP.

Do you hear me, Indiana? Where they want to require abortion providers to dispense FALSE information about a debunked theory linking breast cancer to abortion.

WE ARE NOT STUPID.

Do you hear me, U.S. House of Representatives? Who are trying to strip all funding to Planned Parenthood (including funding for birth control outreach and education, STD testing, cancer screenings, etc.), who are trying to redefine rape as something that would only be legitimate if the victim was visibly physically battered, and who are trying to make it so that insurance would not cover birth control, thereby giving the right to hospitals to deny abortion even in the case of saving the mother.

WE WILL NOT BE BEATEN INTO SUBMISSION.

We women pay taxes, too. We fund half of your billions-of-dollars military wars. We will NOT fund your war on us.

Do you hear me?

WE WILL NOT LET YOU TAKE OUR FREEDOM.

War on Women. Part 1: Let's Talk About "Rape Culture"

Yes, those are scare quotes I put around "Rape Culture," because I believe that term to be a misnomer. I'll get to that in a minute.

The phenomenon labeled "Rape Culture" was originally termed "Rape-Supportive Culture," which I find more appropriate, but not perfect either. I don't know when "supportive" got dropped, but it was sometime between the first time I wrote on the subject about fifteen years ago, and now.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, Rape Culture is a culture which at least subconciously, if not unconsciously, makes sexual assault (on women specifically) seem excusable, acceptable, and expected.

The recent news article printed in the New York Times about the gang rape of an 11 year old girl by eighteen males ranging in age from middle-schoolers to a 27 year old, is a shining example of what is described as Rape Culture. The article makes mention of how the young girl presented herself : "They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground...."

The article goes on to print community accusations of the girl's mother and her perceived lack of parenting skills: “Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking? How can you have an 11-year-old child missing...?”

The New York Times also felt the need to print only this community response to the attackers: “These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives.”

Now, whether this was shoddy reporting on the part of the New York Times, a serious case of denial happening in Cleveland, Texas, or a combination of both, one can't be sure. What we can be sure of however, is that the same old song is being sung here:

That 11 year old girl asked to be gang-raped. She dressed inappropriately and hung out with older boys. And her mother is to be blamed, too.

Why?

Because boys will be boys. Men have needs. And any other cliché you can conjure.

Now, on to the imperfection of the concept of "Rape Culture" itself. I do not disagree or deny that this cultural phenomenon exists. However, I perceive sexual assault (of women in particular) to be a symptom of a much larger cultural problem: Sexual Oppression.

Sexual Oppression of women in our culture is historic and pervasive. Women are taught from an early age what they should look like and how they should act--most notoriously that we should say "no" when we really mean "yes." When it comes to sex, we are taught to lie.

On the playground the boys chase us and pull our hair. They snap our training bra straps and playfully wrestle us. We are told that this is flirting. And I believe this to be true.

Little girls respond by squealing, running away and hiding, yelling "no, no!" We are told that this is also flirting. I also believe this to be true.

Fast forward 10, 15 years and put that little girl in a bedroom with that little boy, maybe at a party, maybe with a few beers, and therein lies the problem. He gets aggressive. She tries to get away... Hey, I thought that was flirting?

So we lie. And then sometimes, we don't. When we don't, we are sluts. And sluts are bad. So we either don't get what we want, or we get what we want and are shamed because of it, or we get what is coming to us because we deserved it. Lose, lose, and lose.

From our homes to our media to our government (more on that in Part 2), women are being seriously shortchanged on the sex front. We women bear the brunt of the responsibility in rearing humankind, yet are forcibly stripped of the very tools needed to promote our species with pride.

I was raped when I was seventeen. Prior to that I had been what some people would call "promiscuous." I was just having fun, checking out this thing called sex. I did not want sex that night. I said "no" repeatedly. I struggled. But I was already a slut, a big scarlet S on my sweater.

If only I could have been thought of as another human. Unfortunately, "slut" sticks.

But that shouldn't have been an excuse then, and never should be an excuse in the future.

You think what I'm wearing is sexy? Thank you. No, I am not going to have sex with you. Good night. [End Scene]

Everyone should have the right to have sex. But YOU don't have the right to have sex with EVERYONE and EVERYONE does not have the right to have sex with YOU. Say "yes" when you mean "yes" and "no" when you mean "no." And have the respect to honor your partner(s) either way.

How fucking simple is that?

Why you gotta make us beg?

This is just a quickie.

I'm on vacation in a tropical paradise concerning myself with the following first-world problem:

Updating my various social networking feeds, reminding my followers to vote for my projects in the local paper's reader's poll.

While I appreciate the recognition from the press, the fact that I feel like I have to beg for votes makes me a little ill.

And why do I feel like I have to beg for votes? Because if I don't spam my followers daily with reminders, like many of us do, then I may lose a nomination. And frankly, I would prefer if my work were judged for its quality and by how much it entertained its fans, rather than how diligent I am in my social network. I do not live to tweet. And I certainly don't tweet to live.

So, that said, I hope that when these "elections" arise, as they so often do, that you do indeed take the time to vote for your favorite taco, your favorite nail salon, your favorite band, your favorite yoga studio. For a lot of entrepreneurs and artists, a nomination in these polls can bring about the kind of attention we need to continue in our successes. And it helps us to know that you really really like us.

We don't like begging for votes, and it's not our fault, really, what with the whole "you can vote once a day every day for 6 weeks from each of your email addresses/IPs so that all the potential nominees will spam you once a day and drive you to our website once a day" strategy.

If you're a follower of mine, I suspect you know what I produce and in what categories to nominate my productions, if you deem them worthy of recognition.

Thank you for your support and your time and your ear/eye. This is my last piece of voting spam, then I'm going back to the beach. Sending sunshiney vibes up north...

Excess and Ohs,

Sugar