“Women Deserve Better”

July 31, 2008 at 2:34 pm (amazing things, art, feminism, injustice, movies/video/clips, politics, racism, sexism) (, , , )

From Feministe, this gave me chills. I think think the only word for it is righteous. Her name is Sonya Renee.

Fuck yeah.

Permalink Comments Off on “Women Deserve Better”

Teeth: Where They Shouldn’t Be

May 29, 2008 at 2:35 am (feminism, frightening things, movies/video/clips, sex) (, )

I have now seen this movie.

It was somewhat horrific.

But, if you want to watch a pro-abstainence good-girl christian bite off men’s dicks with her vagina, it might be the film for you!

My roommate and I are eagerly awaiting a sequel. We hope that the main character will decide to become a superhero and re-emerge in glittery spandex, guarding the world from the extreme evil of uncastrated men.

Also, this movie is self-described as “feminist horror”. Really, people?

Permalink 12 Comments

SOPP Erotica (Explicit)

May 9, 2008 at 1:38 pm (funny things, sex) (, )

Note! This post contains graphic depictions of sex, beyond the “Read the rest” link. Click on at your discretion.

For this to make the best kind of sense, please refer to back to SOPP and the guidelines therein.

This is Via the Hookah smoking and infinitely creative ways of Tayzer Carrotsauce, Staceysaurus, and Kelsa.

There are a few Antioch-specific references, but I hope that won’t throw anyone off to far.

Here goes:

Emerson and Libby shared a glance across the smoky dorm room, the sweet scent of melon shish curling delicately through the air. It was nearing the end of the second term, and with Antioch College closing for good within a few short weeks, Libby felt the pressure of her secret desires closing in. It was tonight, or never.

Libby and Emerson had become close within the first few weeks of school, but strictly within a friendly sense. Libby had entertained numerous open relationships with the boys on campus, and presented herself as strictly identifying as straight. Libby had shared details of all of her sexual encounters with Emerson, but had kept one big secret from him. She wanted him. Bad.

As friends slowly filed out as the hookah ran out, Libby worked up the courage to make the move she had been dreaming of. She took a deep breath as she struggled to finally ask him, “do you want to take a walk in the glen?” Emerson, used to these late night walks, where they talked about everything, from future plans to crushes, did not realize that tonight was a night unlike any other.

“Of course,” he said, smiling his usual roguish grin. They set off, and soon found themselves along amongst the trees. It was a pleasantly warm night in mid April, the full moon showing full and bright, illuminating the rocky steps they walked on.

“Emerson,” Libby finally broke the silence they had been walking in, “I have something to tell you.” She sat down on one of the large boulders close to them. “I’ve always wanted you. From the first day I met you, at propsp. weekend.” Emerson looked stunned.

“I’m flattered, Libby,” he replied, pressing a hand to his tightly bound chest, “but I thought you were only interested in male bodied people.”

“Well, Emerson,” Libby began, “After taking queer theory with Isabella Winkler last term, I realized that I should stop limiting my desires into the box the society creates. I realized that want you and what I want to do with you, and that is that.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 2 Comments


April 20, 2008 at 2:41 pm (funny things) ()

Happy “counterculture” holiday, everybody.

At my high school, 4/20 was traditionally a forced Senior Ditch Day. The administration couldn’t deal with with it, so they kicked us off campus. Heh.

Permalink 1 Comment

Sexual Offense Prevention Policy

April 6, 2008 at 2:47 pm (amazing things, feminism, injustice, LGBT, sex) (, , , )

In honor of the Gender-shenanigans that went down last night, and of course to afford Daisy and Emily more time to watch Lost, I am going to post briefly on something called the Sexual Offense Prevention Policy, or SOPP. It is a policy at my school designed to combat Rape Culture and make everyone feel a little more safe and secure about their sexual and gender identities, and the likelihood of harassment.

The main point of SOPP is consent. The two or more parties involved in physical activity of ANY kind, from hugging to making-out to fighting to naked jello wrestling, must VOICE explicit consent at every level of said activity. Basically, you have to hear the word “Yes” before you can throw your partner down and rub jelly in their face.

Obviously SOPP gets fudged a lot if you’re in a long term relationship, and its pretty darn ineffective against rape or any sort of real sexual harassment. But if something out of line does occur, under SOPP a complaint can be filed, and that person will be kicked out of school/banned from campus/reported to the police, etc.

But what does SOPP really do? It doesn’t stop harassment. My first month at Antioch I was verbally harassed very badly, in the form of questions. I would say no to one sexual position and I would quickly be asked if I was open to another, and this would go on and on and on. There is also definitely rape, fighting, and child abuse on this campus. Although I have seen some pretty bad situations, such as fights, adverted because of SOPP.

What SOPP does manage to achieve is an open dialogue. Some people have already gotten to this place on their own, and for that, I applaud you. But partly because of SOPP and partly because Antioch is a sex-positive campus, the conversations about sex are never-ceasing. In a society where you are forced to talk about what feels good to you sexually, how you identify, even what diseases you have, all before you actually sleep with someone, misunderstandings and some bad situations are avoided.

The SOPP: talking is good. Consent is good. Dialogue about important issues, such as sex, is very, very good. And I live in a community where if you don’t follow these guidelines, then you lose the right to be a community member. Because it’s that important.

Permalink 3 Comments

Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster

April 2, 2008 at 12:31 pm (art) (, )

A post at Boing Boing has drawn my attention to a courthouse in Cumberland County, Tennessee, where awhile ago a statue of Moses had been placed on the lawn. As it is illegal to mix church and state, the lawn became designated a “free speech” zone, and many other statues of various faiths and practices were likewise portrayed.

The most recent of which is the addition of a huge 3D statue depicting the Flying Spaghetti Monster, created by local artist Ariel Safdie.

Image via the Crossville Chronicle

The Flying Spaghetti Monster was originally one man (Bobby Henderson)’s belief in/parody of Intelligent Design. More specifically, it was a protest against the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to instate the teaching of Intelligent Design as mandatory. It has since then become an internet phenomenon, and is sometimes held up as an example of atheism or empiricism. It’s system of beliefs are called “Pastafarianism”, some outlines of which include:

  • pirates as the ultimate ideal
  • monotheism in regard to the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the creator of the world)
  • the notion that Bobby Henderson is a prophet.

Feel free to learn more.

For me, this opens the debate between cult and religion, heterodoxy v. orthodoxy. Is this really a valid system of beliefs? Is it less or more outrageous than certain fringe interpretations of organized religion? For example, in Islam there is Wahabism, which even the Saudi family do not practice as stringently as they might claim. And in Christianity we have Fred Phelps and his Church‘s take, which states that homosexuality is leading the way to damnation. Who gets to make the call on what is defined rightly as “religion”, and what is not?

Permalink 8 Comments

Him that pisseth against the wall.

February 19, 2008 at 1:41 pm (funny things, stupidity) ()

Ohhhh wow:

Via Dan(Fitness), who urges:

Being a man is all about pissing on the wall. So get out there patriotic men. Unzip and pee on the wall. For America $*#dammit!

Ha ha!

Permalink 5 Comments

You think you can see, but you can’t

February 9, 2008 at 11:37 pm (amazing things, art, neat things) (, )

Okay, I think this is the trippiest shit I’ve ever seen, including what I’ve seen while actually tripping. (Via.) It’s a series of optical illusions, each of which tricks you so you think you’re seeing two different colors, but really they’re the same. There’s no good way to explain, you’ll just have to see it and experience the vertigo for yourself.

Relatedly, I’ve always though the word “vertigo” sounded like the name of a color. A very pale blue, maybe, or a dusty sort of lavender. Something muted and airy and faint, like the way that vertigo feels.

Also, many more disturbing illusions at the same site.

Permalink Comments Off on You think you can see, but you can’t

Huckabee says the darndest things.

January 15, 2008 at 6:27 pm (politics, sexism, stupidity) (, )

All of which somehow continue to validate and exceed my deepest acknowledgements of disgust. So far, I think this is the most ridiculously puke-worthy thing I’ve heard from him (video at ThinkProgress):

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.

Though other things he’s said recently come close too, for sure.

Ack, I’ve got to sleep off the headache Huckabee’s political existence has given me today; wake me when the serious candidacy of this man is only conceivable as a laughably deranged figment of distant memory.

Via Echidne.

Permalink 4 Comments

Let Everything Be Enough (A Rejection of God-Belief)

December 18, 2007 at 12:54 pm (injustice, proclamations) ()

Where to begin. This is more of this.

I’ve just been reading this article at Salon, another in the well-worn “science vs religion” vein. Interesting reading, but I was fuming mad just two paragraphs in.

Christianity is not the only religion. “Religious” DOES NOT EQUAL “Christian.” Gah.

Anyway. It’s an interview with a Catholic theologian named John Haught. Mr. Haught’s current work is developing a “theology of evolution.” He’s a big critic of mega-atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. Here’s Mr. Haught (emphasis mine):

[The “old” atheists] wanted us to think out completely and thoroughly, and with unrelenting logic, what the world would look like if the transcendent is wiped away from the horizon. Nietzsche, Sartre and Camus would have cringed at “the new atheism” because they would see it as dropping God like Santa Claus, and going on with the same old values. The new atheists don’t want to think out the implications of a complete absence of deity. Nietzsche, as well as Sartre and Camus, all expressed it quite correctly. The implications should be nihilism. . . . They thought it would take tremendous courage to be an atheist. Sartre himself said atheism is an extremely cruel affair. He was implying that most people wouldn’t be able to look it squarely in the face.

I think it’s time to get out the dictionary. According to my Oxford American Dictionary, atheism is “the theory or belief that God does not exist.” Okay. And nihilism: “the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.”

Haught goes on to talk about how only theism can “justify” hope. Hope!

I’ve been having a lot of interesting conversations about religion lately, which I’ll surely blog in the future. But for now, I’m just going to use the insights from those conversation to examine Haught’s assumptions. This is what he (and religion in general) are saying to us:

– There is nothing in the world that could inspire or account for hope.

– The world — the entirety of the perceivable world — is not enough to give life meaning.

– The entire world is not enough to generate moral principles.

The entire world is not enough.

– Atheism is “extremely cruel” and most people just can’t handle it.

These ideas are not the work of Haught, and I don’t blame him for them. They are some of the most insidious ideas in modern culture, and I fucking hate them. Seeing them laid out like they are above, the reasons to hate them should be pretty clear. Basically, they’re all founded on the deep conviction that the entire world is shit.

Why is atheism “cruel”? It’s only cruel if you find the world to be so awful, so incomplete, so lacking, that an entire separate supernal realm is the only way you can bear to live.

And let’s look at the world “supernal” for a moment — it comes from the Latin supernus meaning above. It means celestial, literally — of the sky. But its usage, quite frequently, is “of exceptional quality.”

Embedded in our very language is the idea that to be of the sky is to be inherently better. Embedded in our language, our religion, our culture is the idea that THE WORLD IS BAD and that to be very good means to be not of this world, to be of the sky.

And this idea causes pain. It causes actual, daily pain in the lives of real people. It has caused me pain. It has rung me through several existential crises and brought me to the brink of suicide one or two or twenty times.

I don’t give a shit about truth. I just don’t. The only thing I care about is suffering. The only work we have to do is the work of preventing suffering. When a culture or an idea or a religion causes suffering, we should reject it. We should replace it with ideas that cause joy and love.

If anything is evil, this is. It is wrong to tell people that everything around them is bad. It is wrong to tell people that everything they will ever taste, touch, see, hear, or smell, everything they can ever perceive, is bad, wrong, tainted, sinful, “fallen.” It is wrong to tell people that the only real goodness, that the divine, exists in another realm which is by definition unreachable.

So this is my message today: The fact that bad things exist in the world does mean that the world is bad. The logical conclusion of “some things are bad” is not “everything is bad.” Some things are good. Some things are very good. Some things are senselessly good. Some things are absurdly, unbelievably, unjustifiably, unnecessarily good. And we don’t need God or gods or John fucking Haught to tell us that.

Let the entire world be enough.

Permalink 7 Comments

Next page »