Orson Scott Card and Homophobia

You may have seen a few articles about Orson Scott Card around the internet. The movie adaptation of his novel, Ender's Game, is due in theaters in a couple of months and groups are calling for boycotts, letters, and protests because Orson Scott Card doesn't believe in gay marriage. He not only is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ for Latter-Day Saints {notoriously part of the effort behind Proposition 8 in California and decidedly unfriendly to gay marriage} but was also on the board of the National Organization of Marriage.

As a pro-gay marriage reader, where does that leave me? Or you? Should we stop reading Card's books? Should we all discard Ender's Game, and Pathfinder, and Enchanted? Is buying his books supporting his beliefs? Is it wrong to stop financially supporting someone because of what they believe? Is it wrong not to?

I struggled with these hard questions. I'm sure the answer I've decided upon won't be popular. And yet, I believe it is fair.

It is unAmerican to stop supporting authors because of their beliefs {and to a certain extent, I believe the same of business boycotts as well}. I disagree, loudly, with Mr. Card. I cannot fathom how he believes what he does. The NOM is simply incomprehensible to me because I simply don't get how seemingly intelligent and well-adjusted people can believe the things they believe and say the things they say on a legal level. Certainly we are all entitled to our ideas of how we conduct our private lives, but I personally don't understand people who try and write that personal code into law for others.

Yet, I hold many beliefs, and I trust that the people I work for judge me based on the job I do, not on which party I generally side with, or what my thoughts are on hot-button issues. Of course, in some jobs it *does* matter. I will never get why pro-life folks want to work at Planned Parenthood. It seems counter-intuitive, right? Likewise, though I am good at being camp administrative staff and my background is summer youth programs, I would NOT apply for one at a religious Christian camp. Some jobs just don't fit your personal moral or religious code.

Mr. Card, however, is not in a positions like those. He is an author, and a very good one. I enjoy his books, and so do a lot of other people. He does his job well, and cannot be faulted for having opinions and expecting for people to judge and buy his novels based on his writing and stories. 

Think of it this way: would you consider it acceptable to interrogate a teacher on her personal beliefs if she did not share them with her students? Would you consider it acceptable to do the same to a contractor on your home or the person selling you ice cream? Probably not. If Mr. Card wrote a book about this topic, in which he explicitly shared his beliefs, I would absolutely advocate not buying that book if that is your choice. But, to do so for unrelated novels and then further a movie adaptation to those novels seems to be a far reach.

Having said this, I also think the most productive way to combat opinions you disagree with is to be an advocate. The $5 {maybe} that ends in Mr. Card's pockets is not going to limit him much if you don't watch his movie. You know what will? Showing class, rallying, and working for what you believe in with organizations who promote your cause. I, myself, am an Ally and I donate to organizations which help further equality for everyone. That goes much farther, in my opinion, than refusing to buy a novel or see a movie and then telling everyone why.

What are your thoughts? Will you see the new movie adaptation of Ender's Game? Will you boycott?

Kink Myth #2: It must be because YOU were abused

First off, I want to thank you for your encouraging response to my previous posts on this topic {On being sex-positive, Kink Myth #1}. I was a little bit nervous about them, and am glad that y'all appreciate the information and the discussion that I'm putting out there.

Today, I want to talk about one of the more popular things I hear about kink, both regarding 50 Shades and generally when these types of things hit the news {and of course, when it hits the news, we usually hear bad things}. That is, that no one would like what they like if they weren't abused as kids. That kink is not "normal" {I hate that word!} and that people only like it because something bad and traumatic happened to them.

One of the things that drives me nuts about the 50 Shades  series is that Christian seemingly plays into that stereotype. He was born to a woman who was a prostitute and did drugs, was abused by her pimp, and later entered into a BDSM-sexual relationship with an older woman when he was just 15. As a result, he says, he now has this disposition for pain and kink in his sexual relationships until miraculously he meets Ana who shows him there are "better" ways.

Le sigh. Humans are the summation of their experiences, right? Christian has issues with control and issues with keeping people safe. This obviously manifests itself in many ways, some of which do extend to his sex life. That being said, I would strongly argue that his sexual tastes are NOT the result of the things that happened to him.

Let me tell you a story about someone I know. This person knew from first grade that there was something different about them. They liked some things the other kids didn't seem to have any interest in and they thought this person was weird. Years {years!} later, after puberty, sex-ed, and high school graduation, it dawned on them that these were *sexual* things that they had absolutely no context or use for until the grown-up hormones kicked in. That very early on they had tastes, even if they didn't know {and really, shouldn't know} what they meant.

This is a common, common story, friends {it is also why I fully believe in LGBT rights. If this person I know could trace their sexual tastes back to FIRST GRADE, there is no doubt that everyone else can, too}. We're hardwired, in some ways, to like certain things over others. In other ways, our environment does shape some of our preferences, even though no one is quite sure how that works. Something else you should know about my friend? Never spanked, or hit, or even put in time-out. Not abused in any way, whatsoever. And this is, again, a very common story.

People who are abused often, in-turn abuse others. But, as I've discussed, sane, consensual BDSM is NOT abuse. His relationship as a teenager {which, I will say, is ILLEGAL and he was most-certainly taken advantage of} probably played into his tastes and gave him an outlet {even though there are some serious ethical issues at play...the brain is a funny thing}, but if he wasn't pre-disposed to liking that sort of thing, he wouldn't have enjoyed it so much and wouldn't have continued with that kind of activity. Elena {the woman in this relationship} introduced him to some things but didn't cause him to like what he liked.

To explain further: you might be totally freaked out by activity A for whatever reason. If you don't want to enjoy it, you won't. It doesn't matter if your partner is reeeaaallly good at activity A, it won't be pleasurable for you. You might think you want to try it and then you won't like it, or you might do it to humor your partner and end up having a great time. This is how life works. The same thing applies in the novels. There are some things that both Ana and Christian would not consider. There are some things that Christian did that Ana drew the line at because it wasn't fun to her and some things she tried and really enjoyed.

And here's another piece to this puzzle: tastes change over time. This is what really gets me about how Ana "saves" Christian from his desires and tastes. Yes, she helps him be more open and communicative, and less controlling of everything around him, but does she save him? Erm, no. Christian illustrates this by saying that he always previously played with women who knew what all of this meant and *wanted* it. It changed when he met Ana because her tastes were *different* than the women he previously dated. He was worried about harming her because she didn't want to be harmed! This is, in essence, what responsible partners {of any variety} do. Ana, for her part, was GGG and the two of them found a middle ground where both of their needs were met, and they both enjoyed themselves.

Conclusion: Yes, our past often has an influence on our tastes in life, but sexual tastes cannot be attributed to past abuse. Having an interest in BDSM does NOT mean that someone had something awful happen to them or that they were abused. Are there folks into BDSM who have been abused? Of course. There are survivors in all walks of life with all manner of interests. However, we shouldn't  hold them up as examples of "what could happen to you" or "why people are the way they are." People are the way they are because....they are.

Savage U

This is one of those days where I put on my "I studied sex" hat and gush about sex-positive, informative things. Y'all, Dan Savage is my hero. Is he a bit over-the-top sometimes? Well, yeah. But, he provides some of the most informative and hilarious sex advice you will ever have easy access to.

He recently stepped up his game by airing a show on MTV called Savage U. It's exactly what it sounds like: Dan Savage holds sex ed forums at various universities and answers questions dropped into a hat. These are things that maybe you want to know the answer to. Maybe you have no one to ask. Maybe you had a really bad sex ed class and you still think that masturbating will make you blind {y'all, aside from how you feel about it on a moral level, it WILL NOT make you blind. That's just bad science!}. Or, as Emily points out, maybe you read smut {ahem, I never do that!} and there's REALLY bad information in there and you need someone to kick your butt and tell you TO NEVER DO THOSE THINGS.

Aside from everything else, though, I love that Dan approaches sex as a pleasurable, normal human activity. You can be safe, have fun, and be realistic with yourself. Maybe abstinence works for you if you're not married. Most likely it doesn't {I'm not making judgments here, statistically, most folks don't wait until marriage}, and Dan encourages partner communication, being regularly tested for STIs, using safer-sex practices, and generally knowing everything there is to know about your body and your desires. He also advocates for accurate information to allow for people to make the best decision for themselves. And, here's the big thing: He's non-judgmental.  Saving yourself for marriage because it's important to you? Great! Here's how to be honest with your partner and not let yourself be pressured. Feel like you can't be monogamous? Great! Here's how you handle that without being the cheater/heartbreaker/scumbag. Having some embarrassing problem? Great! Here's why it's not really that embarrassing or abnormal, and here's how you start fixing it.

Given how the recent GOP primaries have been going, I personally think it is past time for this country to embrace a frank discussion about sexuality. People who are past puberty {teens, twenty-somethings, adults, and even senior citizens} are having sex and they're enjoying it {did you know that one of the fastest growing rates of STIs are among senior citizens? That's because they don't know about safer sex and assume that they aren't at-risk!}. And there's some AWFUL information out there. Grown people think you can use two condoms for double protection {NO! DON'T DO THAT} or that gravity works against pregnancy {NO! IT DOESN'T}. Radio personalities find it acceptable to terrorize women who are sexually active. Ridiculous!

What that does is make a hostile environment for anyone to get any kind of accurate information. So,
if you're remotely interested, if you have teens and need a way to start "the talk," if you have any questions about sex, pleasure, desire, relationships, anything: you should watch SavageU. It's airs Tuesday evenings. It's a bit, erm, graphic {think lot's of off-color humor}, if you're not used to this kind of thing, but has SO MUCH valuable information.

Just do it.

International Women's Day!

Happy International Women's Day, everyone! How fitting that today is also Purim {Jewish holiday celebrating the story in the Book of Esther} which has a female hero.

{These young girls in Jerusalem are dressed as Queen Esther}

Women are strong, ad beautiful, and important members of our world and our society. International Women's Day celebrates the progress we have made toward global equality, and towards recognizing that if you empower women to make their own choices that we have happier families, healthier children, and more productive economies.

Source: project-insomnia.com via Lauren on Pinterest

WE did that, sisters! WE DID THAT!

There is still a way to go {and I am providing links at the end of this post}, but for today? Let's celebrate how far we have come.

Here are some resources and posts I loved:

10 things I want my daughter to know at Wildly Convinced and You're Uncommonly Beautiful.

The International Women's Day website.

V-Day. Until the Violence Stops

Sseko Designs: I don't have any of these yet, but I do love this mission.

Feel free to add any links to the comments!

V-day: Victory, Valentine, Vagina

When I was an undergrad, I wandered into an audition one day. I thought, "surely they can find a place for me in this show."

They did. And I changed. I went onstage and said things that I didn't know I could say in front of people. I braved protesters. I felt like I was part of something bigger than myself. I felt like I was making a difference.

That show was The Vagina Monologues written by Eve Ensler.

Source: goodreads.com via Lauren on Pinterest

If you've never seen this show, well, you need to see it. It is a show that narrates the feelings women have toward their vaginas through a collection of monologues performed . You didn't know that women had feelings about that, did you? They do, and they are as varied as women themselves and stem from experiences women have had.

Some women love their vaginas because they are powerful and have delivered babies. Some love their vaginas because they give pleasure. Some feel empowered by discovering their vaginas and learning about the magnificent way women have been created.

But, many women don't like their vaginas. Some have been raped. Some have been told that their vaginas are dirty, nasty, unclean, not beautiful or normal enough.

That, friends, is what the heart of V-day is about. Ending violence towards women. Ending the expectation that you must look and act a certain way to be normal and beautiful. Ending the ignorance of those who would force women to be meek, be raped, be controlled. THAT is what V-day is about.

{Source}

I was honored to be part of the production at Texas A&M for two years. In those two years we showcased monologues from New Orleans and the Congo, and raised money for The Sexual Assault Resource Center of the Brazos Valley by selling tickets and vagina lollipops {oh yes, we did}. And we made a difference.

Today, this Hallmark holiday, think about what this day means. That we force significant to shower us with affection, to make us feel loved and special, and if we don't have a significant other we feel worthless and sad. That we spend money of flowers and candy and fancy, expensive dinners.

We don't need these things. Our self worth is not contingent upon the love of others, of how beautiful or perfect they think we are. We are strong. We are powerful.

We can end rape, and sexual slavery, and misogyny. We can empower women to be whatever they want and provide accurate information. We can call on police and judges and world leaders to We can do that. YOU can do that.

On this day. On V-Day.

{Now you know why I like these brackets! Source: V-day}

SOPA

Have I told y'all I interned on Capitol Hill? It was such a great experience and I learned a lot about how "the system" works. That is, I know enough to know that it *doesn't* always work. Longtime readers will know that I try hard to keep politics out of this blog. It could easily take over, and I'm not ready to make that leap yet. I'm not very good at keeping that balance in my life {my family and friends will tell you I come on a bit, erm, strongly} and this is a space where I can talk about other things.

I am making an exception today. There's currently a bill in the House Judiciary Committee called the Stop Online Piracy Act {SOPA}, or H.R. 3261. Introduced by Lamar Smith {R TX-21}, this bill seems like a good thing, like it would protect your intellectual property, your creativity, your work. That is not what this bill would do. It could end the internet as we know it.

Why? The way this is written, if you put something on your blog that someone thinks infringes their intellectual property, EVEN IF IT DOESN'T, YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT DOWN. Period. Do you know what this means? How many of us use pictures from Pinterest? How many of us simply write about other blogs critique books, review recipes? All fair game. By simply talking about things, you run the risk of "violating" someone's intellectual property.

And let's not forget about those of you who sell on etsy. How many of you make ruffle bags? Cards? Coasters? Paintings? What if you write about them on your blog and someone with a similar design thinks you've copied? You now have to take down your content related to YOUR product.

It is a gross violation of the spirit of the internet and frankly, the First Amendment. 

Sound sketchy? That's because it is. The bill hasn't made it out onto the floor yet {Reps. can't vote until it makes it onto the floor, so nothing will happen until then} but be proactive. Don't take my word for any of this. Read the bill and the CRS summary. Read Standford Law Review's commentary. Find out which corporations support this bill and which of those support Representatives and Senators {Huffington Post makes a good start in this article, but you can do the research yourself}. Visit this petition.

Most importantly, spread the word. Tweet this post, write your own post, call your Representative and Senator {or write a physical letter. Calling is better, but be prepared to give your address and zip code. That's how they know you're from their district or not}. Call the White House if it looks like this thing is going to pass. Fight back.

Tebow Time?

If you follow me on Twitter, you know that I have been trash-talking the Broncos and Tim Tebow since the moment they won last week and we found out they were playing the Patriots. I mean, really. Here's this newbie quarterback, whose gotten really lucky in the last few minutes of some games and people can't stop talking about him. I was so ready for The Patriots to beat the hell outta Tim Tebow and for Tom Brady to essentially say, "Quiet youngin! Get off my field!"

Source: google.com via Lauren on Pinterest

But, I'd like to set the record straight. I don't hate Tim Tebow. I don't dislike him. I think he's dynamic, talented, honest, and a leader. I think he's an all-around good person, and if I was going to hire men to work at my camp, I would hire someone like Tim Tebow. I have no problem with his faith and even with the way he chooses to practice, even if I would not be comfortable making those same choices {different religion, y'all}. And, if it wasn't for the fact that he played MY team, I wouldn't really care one way or the other if he made it to the Superbowl or lost every single game this season {well, I wouldn't want anyone to lose all their games, but you get my point}.

Source: zimbio.com via Roxanna on Pinterest

Let me be clear: I do not dislike Tim Tebow because he is a Christian. I do not dislike him because he spends a lot of time praying on the field. What I DO dislike is the hype. He is not the first good guy NFL player. He's not the first religious guy. He's not the first one to have a foundation, or support a cause {don't get me started on that}, or visit sick children. He's not the first great leader. But to listen to ESPN and just about everyone else you'd think that he was.

Source: google.com via Lauren on Pinterest

What about players like Ty Warren {former Patriot} who grew up in Bryan, Texas and flew kids from his old Boys and Girls Club to watch the Superbowl? Why are we not celebrating the players who read in schools, donate money, visit hospitals? Why are we only celebrating Tim Tebow? Why can we not highlight the MANY great, honest, charitable players out there? Why must we wait for the latest media sensation, the latest trendy player to show these things? 

What's your take?

Why Comprehensive Knowledge is Important

I recently read something that made me angry. As you know, I don't typically use this blog as an opinion forum {although, I'm thinking of venturing into that a little bit more}, but I also feel as though I have a responsibility to talk about research and things I read that could be misleading or damaging. I have been privileged to get a MS degree, and to write a thesis on sexual behavior. That means that not only do I know a bit about sexual situations, but I also know about how they are studied, and all of the things that people are socialized to believe about sex and gender.

So, when I read this article about how men can't tell the difference between what a rapist says and what a men's magazine says, I was skeptical. Did men really not know what sounded acceptable? Is there really a wide-spread problem? And then I read the accompanying article from the university and I was even more skeptical.

Basically, the researchers read a book of interviews with convicted rapists and took some quotes. Then, they read "lad" magazines {Playboy, GQ, the male versions of Cosmo} and took those quotes and scrambled them with the quotes from rapists and asked normal people to identify which quote came from where. Turns out that they were misidentified a whole lot, and the researchers came to the conclusion that normal people identified more with the rapists than they do with lad magazines and that they somehow find those situations more acceptable.

Hold up. I agree that there are some serious issues surrounding the way we, as a society, talk about sex. Women are often treated as a commodity in one sense, and then vilified if they decide to own their own sexual desires. We're supposed to be innocent, yet sexually experienced, the girl-next-door, but a bombshell and frisky. Men are told they're love machines, should be able to go at it constantly, shouldn't show emotions and that women are irrational. Some people think it's OK to ignore clear "stop signs" in a sexual encounter {and that no really means yes}, and yes, rapists generally think they're giving their victims what they want or what they deserve. They also take cues from the people around them to justify their actions {go read this story; you will never make a rape joke again}.

BUT, this study gives an overly simplistic view of these "sound bytes." In a magazine, we don't know the context of situation and these participants didn't know the context of the article the quotes were taken from. That, in addition to the fact that rapists tend to use language {on purpose, I might add} that casts doubt onto whether what they did was actually rape means that it's pretty easy to see why quotes-out-of-context could be misinterpreted as coming from somewhere they didn't.

And let's talk for a minute about fantasies. One of the quotes which came from interviews with rapists {but was identified as coming from a magazine} said that women love to be tied. Well, yes, many women DO like that. And {don't freak out on me}, many women have rape fantasies. What that means is, that many women {and men, btw} sometimes want for someone else to take charge in the bedroom and want to feel helpless, as if they don't have a choice. These situations, if they transpire, take a lot of pre-planning, communication, and trust. There are safe-words, negotiations, and all kinds of things that make it role-play and safe, rather than a sexual assault. How would you know which is which from a quote? You wouldn't. And these people didn't either.

So, while I have some serious issues with magazines like "lad mags," Cosmo, etc., it's also important to really look at how they're saying what they are. They perpetrate gender bias, women as sex objects and mysterious and hysterical, and men as tough, and sexually dominant. They tell us to feel bad about our bodies {both men and women}, our wardrobes, our partners, etc. That's how they sell magazines. But it doesn't help anyone when researchers come in and decide that also they're teaching men to be rapists. They're not.

Book Review: Cinderella Ate My Daughter

{source}

If ever a book was to embody what I try and profess everyday, it would be this book. Oh yes, it would.

In this hilarious yet en pointe opinion piece, Orenstein highlights what she sees as current issues facing girls, especially related to girl-targeted products and marketing. Mind you, she does not insinuate that princesses, liking pink, or wanting to be girly are bad or harmful. Rather, she argues that the way that these are often presented by marketers, and then adapted by parents and kids themselves can be harmful to body image and self-awareness. In fact, it's not just princesses; she also analyzes pop culture icons {like Miley Cyrus}, Facebook, American Girl dolls, and the pageant culture.

Most salient with me are the points she makes regarding gender roles and sexualization of young girls. Disney {who I still love, let's just get this straight} is notorious for this. Not in any sort of obvious or malicious way, but one only has to look at performers like Britney Spears to notice the cycle. Young girl is "made" by Disney, projects innocent yet sexy {and unaware of sexiness} image, pledges to virginity until marriage and then poses nude for a magazine {sometimes at the age of 15!}. This, of course sets Disney into a flurry of panic, whereby they quietly bring forth their new wholesome pop star who has been waiting in the wings. Orenstein argues that this commodifies sexuality in a few ways. One, the obvious expectation of unaware sultriness, and two they value perceived virginity and purity over all else. Girls are taught that their purity matters more than anything else. You can be successful, a pop star, a singer, but not a virgin? Or don't act like one? Tough luck, you're done.

But, over and above how much I agree with most of her points {surprised?}, I love how Orenstein discusses her own struggle with this. She has a daughter and struggles with the same questions all mothers, and those of us who work with youth struggle with. What's so wrong with being girly? Surely, pink isn't going to teach young girls to be airheads? Why can't we indulge them in princess stuff? None of these are terrible questions and are important to ask. I myself was permanently attached to a "Cinderella" dress as a toddler {or, until I was 7} and I'm extremely outspoken about gender and body image. It's important that authors who make these points are clear: it's not the glitter, or the Disney, or the pink, or anything. It's the package. It's the complete message, and the whole message isn't coming from you. It comes from school, the internet, friends, TV, and books {hello Twlight!}. I love that she articulates this, and is not just another pink-hating author.

This is a wonderful read for anyone who is interested in gender, and girl-targeted marketing. Its easy to read. I finished this in less than 24 hours. Part of that was because I didn't want to put it down, and the other part was that it's written for a general audience and is easy to digest. Even if you don't agree with all of the points Orenstein makes {and I didn't}, she presents a compelling argument and balances that with real-world experience and limitations. You won't be disappointed.

No H8

UPDATE: The Student Body President vetoed the bill as of 4/26 at approximately 3:00. It now goes back to the Senate.

Pardon me. I'm about to hijack my own blog, and get on my soap box. I'm going to be controversial, and I'm going to say things that you might disagree with. I don't usually do that; the last place I need a political/social debate is on my blog. But, sometimes, you just have to say something. And for me, it's now. I just have to say something.

I've posted before about why I love Texas A&M. I love that guys still give up their seat on the bus for me, and hold open doors. I love that people are generally friendly and look out for each other {(one time I felt sick riding my bike to campus and laid down on some grass. Within seconds someone pulled over to make sure I was OK)}. I love Silver Taps, and Muster, and Yell Practice, and The Spirit, and The War Hymn.

Yet, I'm growing weary of the rhetoric surrounding the GLBTA (Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Aggies) and the GLBT resource center. Recently, the Texas A&M Student Senate passed a resolution to support legislation that would require campuses with LGBT resource centers to also have "Traditional Family Values Centers." This was recently put into the budget bill passed by the Texas House. In addition to requiring these centers, the legislation does not allow student fees to be raised to cover it's operation; rather funds allocated for LGBT resource centers would be split.

The argument is that all students should have access to services and resources based on their own beliefs. And while I respect that being part of the LGBT community is controversial {(although I have a hard time understanding this)}, I have to wonder what the true motives of the bill are. On this campus, there are over 100 recognized religious organizations, of which roughly 90 are Christian organizations {(this doesn't count the ministries in the area which serve the college-aged population)} for students who wish to learn about "traditional family values {(and would someone please tell me what those are, anyways?)}. All are eligible to apply for various funding through the university. In contrast there is one organization for members of the LGBT community, and one resource center {(which doesn't push information on anyone, btw)}. Studies have shown that in conservative areas that LGBT youth {(which arguably can describe people up to the age of 25)} are more likely to commit suicide than their straight peers.

This is no surprise when you consider that since I've been here (August 2004) there have been numerous protests comparing LGBT individuals to animals, or refering to them as subhuman, as satanic. It is being made clear that many do not consider LGBT individuals Aggies. In a recent open letter to the student senate, one commenter says as much. This is unacceptable to me. At one point, women weren't Aggies, but here I am. At one point, minorities weren't Aggies. But they are. We are ALL Aggies. We don't have to agree, or like each other, or speak to each other. But we should treat each other with respect, and dignity. If we can't even do that, then what good is our honor code, and our claim that we're one of the "friendliest" college campuses in the nation?

The GLBT resource center offers advice, resources {(duh!)} and support to any Aggie, gay, straight, transgender, bisexual, or questioning. It is a place to go when students feel like no one wants them here, when they see protests against them, when they are discriminated against or verbally assaulted. It offers awareness programs, supports the Allies {(whoop!)}, and encourages those seeking services to participate in the A&M community and follow the traditions. Forcing the resource center to split funds with a "traditional family values center" effectively dries up funding for the GLBT resource center which those fighting for the bill have admitted is the purpose in the first place. They really don't care about a "traditional family values" center.

It's time we all respect each other and treat each other as we want to be treated. We are the Aggies, a term which does not come with qualifiers. Let's act like human beings and stop with the politics and the discrimination. Let's stop the H8.

Notes:
-The pictures are from the recent walk organized by the GLBTA and the resource center to promote equality on campus.
-I welcome rational, polite, respectful conversation on this topic. I will not allow comments which are hateful {(to anyone)}. 

It doesn't matter

If there was ever an issue where I was unabashedly liberal (and let's face it, there are many), it is choice in sexual preference. And I'm not talking about simply choosing a life partner, being gay, bisexual, straight (and no, I don't think the last three are choices), etc. In terms that are even more broad, I respect people's sexual choices, as long as they are consensual between all partners. Why then, would I care about partners who choose to engage in sexual activities that I would choose not to? All you have to do is check out google and I guarantee you'll find some things that you think are awkward, weird, creepy, etc. But, it's not my business as long as no one is being damaged.

And so, when I read a blog post by Jill Carroll over at the Chron, I had to give her a shout out. She makes this point far better than I did. In particular, she said:

I fail to see why it should matter if people choose to be gay or not, especially in a country that respects human rights and affirms basic individual freedoms. So what if some people choose to live as homosexuals? Are they not free to choose this? Do people not have the right to choose whom they will love and partner with? Is this most central and intimate of relationships to be submitted to the approval of the government? Or someone's bishop or imam? Those who wish to submit their choices to a religious authority are certainly free to do so. But should the rest of us, who don't acknowledge that authority, have to submit our choices as well?

Assuming no direct and measurable harm is done (which is the boundary test of all freedoms), why do we not get to choose the nature of our personal, sexual relationships?

We are free. We get to choose.

For the record, she's not making the case that sexual orientation is a choice. She's arguing that even if it were it shouldn't matter because we live in a society which {supposedly} allows for personal choice.

Of course, most of the commenters didn't get the memo and think that Jill is a bigot, and others are just ill informed themselves. For example, a guy named phd dave (yeah right, PhD) said:

Homosexuality is a choice just as is pedophilia, bestiality, and panoply of others. They are all just as equally disgusting, grotesque, perverse and wrong

I'm guessing Dave is of the "if the girl is on top, it's wrong and ungodly" variety. However, there were a small number of literate people who commented accordingly. One of my favorite comments (by Daaron) sums it up pretty nicely:

For me, it always boils down to your third point: who cares? If you don't like gay marriage,  don't marry someone of your own gender. If you don't like gay sex, don't have sex with someone of your own gender. After that, it's none of your damn business.

Well done, Jill.

The Chronicle, fall edition

I ran into a rather cranky commenter the other day. There was a blog post (that you can read here) about an illegal immigrant who was (presumably) paid for work for 9 years and then let go because it was discovered that she was not legal. So, now, she's suing her former employer, a candidate for the California Gubernatorial election (for what, exactly I don't know, I have not read the actual story).

Now agree or disagree with this blogger (having not read the real story, I don't even know where to begin figuring out my opinion), you have to admit that what she is writing is pretty provocative. This is where Darwin Awards comes in.

Darwin Awards wrote:

Conservatives are raised to believe they can do anything in the land of opportunity. Democrats are raised to believe they're being screwed.

Now, there are a few things wrong with this statement (besides the fact that I obviously disagree with it): 1) You can have a conservative Democrat and a liberal Republican. Conservative and liberal are not terms owned by, or synonymous with any one party, and frankly, the terms liberal and conservative have become so distorted from their original meanings that half the world doesn't know what they mean anyways and, 2) The commenter provides zero proof to back up his claim. He does not say "as evidenced by" or "according to." He just makes this overgeneralized statement that indicates to me that he doesn't really have any back-up.

So, I wrote:

What an overgeneralization that has no ounce in fact. I'd bet you anything that you haven't done an ounce of research to support this theory of yours, Darwin. On the off chance you have, I would love to read what you've found.

And DarwinAwards wrote:

Do me a favor. Stay away from me. If I wanted to argue with a socially afflicted person with a massive activist induced Liberal inferiority complex, I would chose someone other than a simple minded regurgitating puppet. Go ahead, spew your oppressed people puke you so easily believe. Just leave me out of your excuses for failed culture. I've had enough of retarded oppression logic, and come November, it'll go back under a rock where it belongs.

Wow. Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed, no? And this, ladies and gentlemen is my problem with politics as it is now. We hear far too much from the extremists on both sides that like to shout a lot and not provide much information. And so, you end up with DarwinAwards who not only can't back up his statements (I mean, it's an opinion, so it shouldn't be THAT hard), and doesn't like people who argue with him, but who also feels the need to seriously insult anyone who dares to question his (her?) logic.

Wingnuts and other fun people on campus

I figured this was a good time to restart my blog. I hope you find it as entertaining as I did!

For those of you who know me well, you know I love a guy named Tom Short. He's a missionary who likes to sit in a camp chair in front of Sully (statue of Lawrence Sullivan Ross....guy who let women into A&M, Whoop!), drink Mountain Dew, and talk to us all about the Bible, fornication (yes, he does use that word) and other generally sinful things. Those of us who enjoy chatting with him sort of camp out, play S-H-O-R-T bingo, throw paper airplanes at each other, argue a bit, and generally have a good time. I haven't seen him in awhile, which is pretty sad. He's great entertainment. Well folks, I found someone WAY better than Tom. Shawn the Baptist. Hanging out near the Academic building was a group of people with this sign (note, there was much yelling involved):

Yes, you read that right, we are all going to hell. I, for one, am quite damned because I'm a feminist and "evilutionist", and because I know that although I don't see myself this way, I also fit the sodomite, abortionist, porn freak, sex freak, pagan, and liar categories.

And, in case we weren't clear, there's that little "and all other non-Christians" clause at the end.

Amused, I ran to get a friend of mine who I know will be amused, and we listen to this guy (I'll call him Messenger):

Messenger proceeds to outline many things about Aggieland which you may not know:

1. We all get drunk on weekends.

2. We are idolators {Aggie football, maroon, learning in general, all bad}.

3. All Ags with curly hair smoke pot.

4. There are no Christians on campus.

Say what?! We have the *greatest number* of missionaries from any public school in the U.S., but no Ags are Christians. Apparently, you are *only* Christian a) if you are Messenger (or his wife, or the little minions holding his sign) or b) you tell God to send you to hell because you are so undeserving of heaven and hope that he might be nice. Not even accepting Jesus will help. At this point, I think Messenger might possibly be referring to Zeus and not Jesus.

At some point this guy with this sign appears (warning: dirty, possibly offensive joke):

Other funny things that happened around this time:

1. Messenger says he loves even the worst men and is accused of being gay.

2. Random person starts reading from his Linear Algebra book in fire and brimstone fashion.

3. Cool Southern Baptist minister stands nose-to-nose with Messenger and screams back.

4. Person argues with Messenger about the beauty of the f-word.

A little time passes, and I find the other Jews.

We, of course, start a slow clap immediately followed by a nice rendition of Havah Negilah.

I start to wonder why feminists are going to hell.

So I ask:

"What's so bad about feminists?"

{Messenger ignores me}

"Are you ignoring me because I have a vagina?"

(Still no answer. Subsequent questions to other group members, who I'm calling minions, yielded the same response)

I did get some nice cheers and Whoop!s to my second question though.

Meanwhile, one of Messenger's minions walked around beating his Bible. Literally.

On the way back to class, I had my friend (who does not have a vagina) ask about the feminist thing. Apparently we're all supposed to support our men, be subservient, etc. etc. Eve, the serpent, man's rib, whatever. I also got a picture of the carrying case for the yellow sign:

I particularly like the one that equates the fairytale about the frog turning into a prince to evolution. These people clearly don't know how to read. That might explain a few things.

All in all, a highly entertaining way to spend an afternoon.