Sunday, April 12, 2009

Response To Amazon

A response to a particular comment at The Stranger's Blog concerning Amazon's bone-headed decision to label all books with gay content or written by gay authors to be stripped of their sales rankings and removed from all content searches because they are "Adult" in nature. Never mind that Jackie Collins' Married Lovers is still out in the open.

And my response was to a post by the username Loveschild.

Re: “And in the worst of cases to introduce fragile minds into acceptance of homosexual (emphasis on the sexual part) behavior. There would be no other way of explaining to a kid why 'heather' would have two mommies when they and their friends have a mommy and a daddy.”

And I call bullshit on you, Loveschild. This policy isn't about "protecting fragile minds." Please. I love how conservatives always hide behind "protecting children." This policy and others like it are for squeamish adults. Unless your kid has your credit card, they can't order the damn book anyway, and they can't even read more than 2 pages in their excerpts. So again. This isn't about protecting children; it's about promoting the feelings of ADULTS.

Adults who are too scared that their kids are gonna (gasp) ASK QUESTIONS. Isn't that what kids do? Ask questions? "How am I going to tell them that Heather has two mommies?" you ask. You're going to tell them that there are gay people in the world and some of them have families. Why, Loveschild? Because they *exist.* Whether or not you agree with homosexuality, whether or not you think it's sinful and an abomination, doesn't change the fact that there are gay people in this world. Just like there are people of different races, different cultures, and different religions (different religions, by the way, are also an abomination to the Christian Lord). You can tell your child that you believe it's wrong. You can even tell your child that all gay people are full of rainbows and candy. I don't really care cuz it’s your kid. But sheltering your child (and yourself, while we're at it) from reality does not change the reality.

As for your “emphasis on the sexual” part of your comment, ALL non-platonic relationships are sexual, not just homosexual ones, sweetie. I doubt our parents initially got together to play a weekly night of bridge and NEVER had any desire to see each other naked. With your own logic, you couldn’t explain to kids why Heather would have a mother and a father, because in order for poor old Heather to have appeared, the mother and the father would have had SEX.

Sorry, Loveschild. Use better logic next time.

Friday, April 10, 2009

Enough Already!!!!!!

Dear People Who Are Shouting That Obama is a Socialist/Communist/Nazi/Satan Incarnate:

Shut the fuck up.

Seriously. Enough. Stop acting like drunk, pill-addicted, bitter housewives (hello, Rush Limbaugh), and Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

Look, I’m not happy about being taxed either. Last year, I paid 25% taxes. 25% while making less than $30 K, and I didn’t even have to pay State Income taxes, thank god. I’m not happy about being stuck with the bailout bill either.

But I’m also not happy that for 8 years, our government ignored a growing problem on Wall Street. I’m not happy that for the last 20 years, the people of Main Street thought they could get whatever they wanted whenever they wanted despite what their bank balance showed. I’m not happy that we launched 2 wars that are still going on with no end in sight. I’m not happy that we’ve squandered the goodwill we earned after WWII with the dumbass, military funded failures such as Vietnam and the current Iraq War. I’m not happy that the generation who inherited the financial boom of the 1940’s spent all the money on drugs and rock’n’roll, then sold rock’n’roll to Pepsi commercials so that my generation gets watered down shit like Creed, then bought their way into Congress to roll back every law so that they can benefit from a Ponzi scheme that left the entire country bankrupt.

I’m not happy about any of these things, folks.

But calling for Obama’s assassination, and that’s what you’re really doing by calling him names like “Hitler” and “AntiChrist,” isn’t going to change the fact that a lot of people will lose their jobs, their homes, and their livelihoods, that our healthcare system and our interstate system are on the verge of collapse, and that Creed is going to get back together and try to make a comeback.

Times are shit. But before we start blaming everything wrong on our “socialist,” “communist” President (and by the way, those are 2 very different political ideas, please pick one and stick with it), have we forgotten how bad the other ticket was? Do we remember that McCain was just more of the same shit we had for 8 years? Did we forget the bat-shit crazy train wreck that was SARAH PALIN. A woman who made Charles Manson look sane.

You have to live with what you got, folks, and this is the best our government system can do. It’s flawed, it’s imperfect, it’s been royally fucked by greedy, selfish, short sighted businessmen and voter contingencies (who vote based upon 3 things: God, Guns, and Gays), but calling for anarchy will only fuck us more.

So like I said.

Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

Monday, April 6, 2009


This was a response I wrote for an article at The New Gay:

I think defining virginity in terms of sexual acts is missing the point. To me, I liken “virginity” to “innocence” in that, if you help achieve an orgasm for someone else or vice versa, and it is an experience you have never had before, then you have had sex. Sex is essentially the mutual physical pleasuring of two (or more) people, and having an orgasm with someone else is, at least to me, an intimate act. Once that happens, there’s no going back: your “innocence” (or ignorance, for lack of a better term) in regards to sexual pleasure with another human being is gone and frankly, so is your virginity.

But the entire article illustrates how virginity was essentially thought up and used by religious organizations to enforce guilt and curb sexual behavior. Think about it: the author and his interview subjects work hard to narrowly define virginity. Let’s say for argument that over-the-clothes orgasms would count as sex, which would mean that the author lost his virginity in his early teens. His prose indicates that this would be a negative situation, so he redefines sex as a strictly “no clothing” act.

But why should he even have to do that? Why is there such a negative stigma in losing your virginity at whatever age you experience sexual pleasure with someone else? If we are going to live our lives in a “non-heteronormative way,” then maybe we need to recognize the concept of virginity for what it is:

Controlling the sexual habits of women.

Remember, virginity was never really expected of boys or men in the days of old, but my god, a woman had better be a virgin (or at least appear that way), otherwise there would be hell to pay: the man would be a laughing stock and the woman would be stoned, burned, or hanged, depending on the century we’re in.

Virginity is nothing more than an unattainable moral standard used to make people feel guilty about sex. And frankly, there is too much guilt with being gay as it is (at least for some people). So if we really want to define it ourselves, how about this:

Virginity is when a person does not yet know the wonderful, exciting feeling of pleasuring and be pleasured by someone else.

Being a virgin is not a negative thing, because the person “does not YET know.” Hopeful language there. And when virginity is lost, it’s because of a “wonderful, exciting” experience.

But maybe I ramble……