Dear Miss California

Dear Miss California,

I wanted to congratulate you. You are about to become the Christian Right's favorite martyr. You will be held up as the prime example of why gays are evil...because they make fun of you and oppress your right to say your God-approved opinion by criticizing you in public. Oh I know what you're thinking. They didn't actually take away my right of free speech. I said what I wanted in a public forum and I was criticized in a public forum. That's the way public forums work. But don't you give in to that rational logic and thought! That has no place in the Christian Right. You are a martyr, dying at the hands of evil, horrible gays.

I also wanted to thank you for the phrase "Opposite Marriage." It's a goldmine of a title and I can't believe no one had thought of it before. After all, if gay marriages are abominations, then straight marriages must be the opposite of abominations. What a mind you have, Miss California!

I myself am going to use your phrase, but in a slightly different context. You see, since almost 60% of straight marriages end in divorce--such as your own parents--I don't want my marriage to emulate straight marriages. No offense, but why pattern your life after so many abysmal failures? So my marriage will be "Opposite Marriage" too!

I think we could campaign together. I really do. We can both argue for "Opposite Marriage." When you strip away the lip gloss, the collagen, and the silicon, you and I are not that different, Miss California. We were both hurt by a vicious lie: that marriages are sacred. I can't imagine the horror you must have felt when your own parents betrayed that sacrament by an act of sacrilege known as "divorce." And then to have icky, icky gays want to participate in that same sacrament. How horrible it must be for you!

For me, I learned that since marriage was so sacred, and I was so not, I couldn't participate in the Renaissance Festival known as the Wedding Ceremony. Oh to never know the joy of spending thousands of dollars on clothes to be worn only once, to shove a cake with a five hundred percent mark-up in someone else's mouth, to pose for countless pictures as if we were the lead story in "Vogue," and to play the party host to hundreds of people who only came for the free booze. My eyes still tear up to this day that I can't spend half a year planning a single party that will end up being nearly identical to all the ones that came before and would come after it.

Miss California, we're both the victims of injustice, and I say we fight that injustice. We should fight for "Opposite Marriage." Marriage today is not the promise and commitment it once was, what with prenuptial agreements, no-fault divorce, and the fact that this country allows you to marry as many times as you want. (Hello, Rush Limbaugh!) It's time that we reclaim marriage's moral high ground, making it the flip side to the marriages of convenience and "covering up unexpected pregnancies." Indeed...making it "Opposite Marriage."

So I applaud you, Miss California, for your beliefs and your strong moral convictions. Those same convictions that led you to posing nude and having your breasts augmented a week before your crowning competition. You are the new botoxed face of feminism and free speech. Live long!...knowing that your breasts will be here for millions of years after because they're not bio-degradable.

Sincerely,

Chris

P.S. ~ A word to the wise. The Christian Right aren't kind to their martyrs once they've finished using them. They treat their martyrs just like they treat their whores: use 'em up, throw 'em out. So if I were you, I'd brush up on those typing skills. If you'd like, I can give you some references.

Media Hot for Teacher/Student Liasons

So today at the gym I was jamming out to VH1 Classics as I often do when on came Van Halen’s “Hot for Teacher” video—you know, the one where Van Halen and their 7th grade doppelgangers make lewd and suggestive comments about teacher-beauty queen-strippers. At first I was merely struck, as I always am when subjected to anything Van Halen, at how dead-on Metalocalypse creators Tony Blacha and Brendon Small have captured the essence of David Lee Roth and the band with their characters Dr. Rockzo the Rock-n-roll Clown (I do Cocaine!) and Zazz Blammymatazz, the clown band. I mean, that dance number with them wearing matching peach suits and white gloves?! C’mon!


But as the video progressed, I became more surprised that it hadn’t been censored, or at the very least, prefaced by a disclaimer declaring it for adult audiences only. After all, here it was glamorizing, nay celebrating, what current news hysteria dubs a horrendous crime—student-teacher sex. I mean, even the original Sesame Street got slapped with a parental advisory sticker when it got released on DVD—too much depression, visible poverty, and cookie-eating for our delicate little snowflakes these days. But nope, not a single “views expressed in this video in no way reflect the opinions of VH1, VH1 Classic, or any of its affiliates” popped up.


This got me to thinking. What makes the news media so hot for teacher-student sex? Why has what was once the subject of rock songs (The Police’s “Don’t Stand So Close to Me” is another one) and bad jokes now one of the hottest headlines in a news outlet’s tackle box? Is the shock and outrage real? Merely feigned to mask our still prurient fascination with sexual coming of age? Displaced guilt? When did it stop being culturally acceptable for the young male to be initiated into sex by an older woman? Young women are almost as likely to engage in sexual activities are their male peers, so perhaps it’s a natural evolution that the current ideal seems to be for two equally inexperienced teenagers to grope their way to knowledge together.

Or perhaps it’s a reflection of our need to prolong childhood well into adolescent years, despite the hyper-sexualization of teenagers in the media. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, as my mother would say.


Yet, I think the new villainization of older women who engage in sexual contact with teen boys also reflects our changing definitions of masculinity—at least adolescent masculinity. We’re slowly becoming more accepting of seeing males as victims of sexual abuse, though the journey is constantly hindered by entrenched and entrenching ideals of hyper-masculinity. I mean, isn’t that why female teacher/male student sex was glamorized? Because being a manly man means not only wanting sex, but making women of all ages want your sex?


That’s the idea all those Axe commercials sell anyway.



For your enjoyment, Van Halen's "Hot for Teacher":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0XLKcMoXRE

Why is there still Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

Dear President Obama,

I mean this with all respect, because I do respect you. However, would you please man up and repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Or do you want to idiotically lose more servicemen and servicewomen who are working for our country and our intelligence agencies? Especially Arab linguists, because you know, what with our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we *certainly* wouldn't need them....don't be a bush..be a light. Like you promised you would be. Repeal DADT.

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/obama-to-fire-his-first-g_b_199070.html

What we lost 8 years ago.....

While there has been an overwhelming bout of hysteria concerning Obama taking everyone's wealth away (and yet, I don't see a shortage of people with iPods so everyone's bank account must have remained intact during the first 100 days), let us not forget what former President Bush took away from us....a little thing called DUE PROCESS.

Because of the Patriot Act, a 16 year old boy is in jail and will probably remain so because there are no such things as trials or appeals once the government calls you a terrorist. I repeat, under the Patriot Act, an FBI or CIA agent only has to label you a terrorist and you are no longer a United States citizen--a citizen with a right to a fair trial, a right to a proper defense, a right to an appeal. This 16 year old, barring an act of God, will probably remain in jail for the rest of his life for doing absolutely nothing.

I would also like to point out, to those of you who think this won't happen to you because you're not Muslim and you don't have a darker skin pigment, this kid is white and is not a Muslim. Funny how everyone is screaming about Obama taking their rights away (oh my god, he's gonna take my gun and my inflated bonus away! Marxist!!!) when they've failed to realize, Bush already did that. But nobody seemed to notice because they got overpaid and fat. Me? I'd rather have freedom and protection.

And I don't know about you, but I'd rather pay higher taxes than go to jail because some asshole hacked into my IP address. Just sayin'....

link: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5049867

Now...President Obama...repeal this under-handed, ham-fisted, Orwellian piece of legislation and STAT!

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.

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.

V-Card

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……