In light of all the celebrities who are boinking anything that stands still long enough, and illegitimate children flying out of the woodwork, and people who claim they were "assaulted," "groped," or "touched," I've decided to make my position on this shit clear: if it didn't happen to you or you're not directly involved, stay the fuck out of it.
Mainly I'm talking about the media in all its forms and varieties. I don't need or care to see some celebrity's/athlete's/politician's sex/money/hangnail scandal in every news broadcast there is. Frankly, that sort of thing isn't news. Sorry, it's not. People with power, position, and money are not somehow public property. Their personal lives don't need to be splashed all over every media outlet there is. They're people too with every right to privacy, just as those who are hounding them and those who are "reporting" on them are entitled to their right to privacy. I can guarantee you that Jim-Bob Dipshit with the camera would be suing the shit out of any media outlet that invaded his privacy and talked about any indiscretions on his part and reported every aspect of his private life, and then speculated about how evil and immoral he must be because of those indiscretions.
Seriously, I don't care to see it, a lot of people don't care to see it. It's cruel. The only people who's business it is are those that are directly involved. It's hard enough to go through things like that without not being able to escape it. Again, the public doesn't own these people or their families and as such are not entitled to every minute detail of their lives or their existence.
Stay the fuck out of it.
*Addendum*
This, of course, doesn't apply to embezzlement or misappropriation of public funds or tax monies, or domestic violence or abuse cases. That shit I care about and I will take it out of someone ass.
18 May 2011
Offer Your Sacrifices for the Cult of Child
So I've come to the conclusion that this isn't going to come out quite the way I want it to and I frankly don't give a fuck anymore. I'm just gonna say it and let it come out how it will.
Is it just me or is everything becoming "child friendly" these days? Let me set it out for ya: there are activities, shows, channels, and places that a child doesn't belong and so it shouldn't be sanitized so parents don't have to do their damn jobs.
I'm not saying that children have no place or that parents are universally lazy or incapable. I'm not even saying that I don't like children; in general, I do. I'm just saying that children don't need to be considered and included for everything.
It's bullshit that I, as an adult who has made the conscious decision not to have children at this point in my life, have to suffer with poorly behaved children in places where they maybe shouldn't be. Movie theaters for example, but more specifically, theaters that aren't showing some fluffy children's movie but are showing something that is an adult movie. Blood, guts, ass, swearing, sex, etc. Those are all adult content, children shouldn't be sitting in there watching them with their parents because the parent couldn't find a baby-sitter. Restaurants are another place where you should really think about if it's an appropriate place for your children, particularly sit-down restaurants. There's nothing like trying to have an civil conversation with someone sitting across from me and it's punctuated by the screams of a baby, or the whining of a child who doesn't want to wait for his food and he's bored and some parent making half-assed threats about punishment and leaving if they don't stop acting up.
My parents never would have tolerated that. Going out was a privilege for us and we made damn sure we didn't fuck it up.
Networks that aren't meant for children (such as Comedy Central, Bravo, hell just about anything that isn't Disney or its affiliate) are edited for content and language, partly because of the possibility of children watching. Almost every TV, satellite, and cable company has an option to block channels or only make them viewable with a password, so parents should be taking advantage of those features instead of censoring the content broad spectrum even when there are those of us who are annoyed with it.
If you make a joke about children, it had damn well better be cute and cuddly or else you're heinous. Don't you dare use hyperbole to describe your vexation and frustration with a child, and definitely don't even hint of violence upon a child, even when it's hyperbolic and obviously not serious.
Apparently if you're not gushy and mushy about children it makes you some sort of evil freak who should be shunned and ridiculed. Particularly if you're a woman, you should be champing at the bit to have babies and should be all dewey-eyed and protective of all crotch fruit. Like I said before, I've consciously decided that I don't want children at this point in my life, possibly never. This doesn't make me some weirdo or evil person. It doesn't mean that I've less of a woman or anything, or that I don't care about my country or society, just means that children aren't my way of doing it. I think there are too many children out there with bad parents already and I don't need to add to that. I don't think I have the patience to be a parent.
I just want to know what other sacrifices we're going to offer upon the altar of the cult of child? How much further are we going to indulge this child fetish that means that everything needs to be safe and happy. I know others have said it, but how much are we really weakening our society by not letting nature take its course? George Carlin has offered varied and numerous views on children and how Darwinism works. I agree with him.
So once again, do children really need to be the key audience, the main criterion that things are centered around? I don't think so. Trust me, a swear word will not scar a kid for life. They're just words. There are no "bad words" or bad language. Words won't kill you, or make you bleed. They might hurt your feelings and sensibilities, but it's not going to kill you. The words themselves aren't bad, the intentions behind them are the only things that make them good or bad.
Is it just me or is everything becoming "child friendly" these days? Let me set it out for ya: there are activities, shows, channels, and places that a child doesn't belong and so it shouldn't be sanitized so parents don't have to do their damn jobs.
I'm not saying that children have no place or that parents are universally lazy or incapable. I'm not even saying that I don't like children; in general, I do. I'm just saying that children don't need to be considered and included for everything.
It's bullshit that I, as an adult who has made the conscious decision not to have children at this point in my life, have to suffer with poorly behaved children in places where they maybe shouldn't be. Movie theaters for example, but more specifically, theaters that aren't showing some fluffy children's movie but are showing something that is an adult movie. Blood, guts, ass, swearing, sex, etc. Those are all adult content, children shouldn't be sitting in there watching them with their parents because the parent couldn't find a baby-sitter. Restaurants are another place where you should really think about if it's an appropriate place for your children, particularly sit-down restaurants. There's nothing like trying to have an civil conversation with someone sitting across from me and it's punctuated by the screams of a baby, or the whining of a child who doesn't want to wait for his food and he's bored and some parent making half-assed threats about punishment and leaving if they don't stop acting up.
My parents never would have tolerated that. Going out was a privilege for us and we made damn sure we didn't fuck it up.
Networks that aren't meant for children (such as Comedy Central, Bravo, hell just about anything that isn't Disney or its affiliate) are edited for content and language, partly because of the possibility of children watching. Almost every TV, satellite, and cable company has an option to block channels or only make them viewable with a password, so parents should be taking advantage of those features instead of censoring the content broad spectrum even when there are those of us who are annoyed with it.
If you make a joke about children, it had damn well better be cute and cuddly or else you're heinous. Don't you dare use hyperbole to describe your vexation and frustration with a child, and definitely don't even hint of violence upon a child, even when it's hyperbolic and obviously not serious.
Apparently if you're not gushy and mushy about children it makes you some sort of evil freak who should be shunned and ridiculed. Particularly if you're a woman, you should be champing at the bit to have babies and should be all dewey-eyed and protective of all crotch fruit. Like I said before, I've consciously decided that I don't want children at this point in my life, possibly never. This doesn't make me some weirdo or evil person. It doesn't mean that I've less of a woman or anything, or that I don't care about my country or society, just means that children aren't my way of doing it. I think there are too many children out there with bad parents already and I don't need to add to that. I don't think I have the patience to be a parent.
I just want to know what other sacrifices we're going to offer upon the altar of the cult of child? How much further are we going to indulge this child fetish that means that everything needs to be safe and happy. I know others have said it, but how much are we really weakening our society by not letting nature take its course? George Carlin has offered varied and numerous views on children and how Darwinism works. I agree with him.
So once again, do children really need to be the key audience, the main criterion that things are centered around? I don't think so. Trust me, a swear word will not scar a kid for life. They're just words. There are no "bad words" or bad language. Words won't kill you, or make you bleed. They might hurt your feelings and sensibilities, but it's not going to kill you. The words themselves aren't bad, the intentions behind them are the only things that make them good or bad.
09 May 2011
Food Is Not the Enemy
I'm sick to death of infomercials and people who think they've got the inside track on what's "healthy."
I really am. I'd like to know what stone tablets these hard and fast rules are on. Experts are constantly making discoveries about foods and reexploring old grounds when it comes to foods and eating properly.
But before we go to the issues surrounding food, let's go to an issue surrounding appearance; being thin and slender does not equate to being in good health. The mantra of any person who's ever had a single psychology or statistics class knows that "correlation doesn't imply causation." Just because someone's thin doesn't mean they're the paragon of health and just because someone is fat or heavy doesn't mean that they aren't. I'm sure we all know someone who eats complete crap, wouldn't know broccoli if it jumped up and beat them around the head, but still manages to be rail-thin. I can guarantee that most of the time, if they were to have a physical done, their doctor would tell them they're in atrocious health. There's a lot more involved with health than just what you look like or what you weigh. You can't see cholesterol. You can't see glucose levels. There may be someone who's fat, like me, but may be in better health than some of those people who reflect more of what is considered to be "healthy." You may not know that I work out by looking at me. You may not know that I actually am in great health by looking at me.
There have been recent studies that have actually found that being overweight actually is NO MORE a liability to your health than being thin and in some cases is actually more protective against fatality. This study explains it in more depth. This article makes it a little more clear and accessible. It shows that it it's just not really a factor in determining mortality. Age is more of a factor.
But that's just to open the doors to realizing that weight and body shape do not determine health. Neither does diet, at least not alone. There are many factors that determine health: genetics, diseases that are unrelated to weight, digestive issues and intolerances, hell, even allergies. Diet plays a huge roll in almost every different type of life style. People have different diets for all sorts of different conditions: People with Celiac disease can't eat products with gluten, people with IBS should stay away from foods that contain yeast, etc. etc.
Food shouldn't be vilified. All that does is make it harder for people to eat foods that may not be healthy according to the "gurus" with their fad diets that come and go and can fuck up a person worse than what they do on their own. And that's all most of these fad diets do, they either reduce portion size, or cut out certain things and make it "evil"...things people can either do on their own, or things that don't really address the problem of educating people how to eat well for their own life styles or needs, and doesn't really address the cost of "healthy eating."
For some people, eating and food are addictions. Unlike damn near every other substance that one can be addicted to, you can't live without food. You can't avoid contact with it, and you can't change your habits by changing your friends and getting out of those situations that make you want to indulge. Food is a fucking necessity. Which is why making eating bad, and making foods bad and vilifying the act of eating and the foods that damn near everyone enjoys doesn't work. You can't avoid food. We aren't the Jetsons, food doesn't come in pill form.
I know I'm sort of talking in circles but it's because this issue enrages me. It pisses me off that entire categories of food are written off because "holier-than-thou, I know the answers to it all, bow before me" food nazis say they're not good. Education is better than just writing something off. Let people make informed decisions. I don't care how well you eat most of the time, everyone has their crap food they love and just want to indulge in every now and then.
Some eastern religions talk about moderation being the key to life. It's true. Most people (read: MOST) people, when given the tools, the knowledge, and the choice, will eat what's healthy for them without being prodded and instructed to do so. Food is not inherently "healthy" or "unhealthy." The associations people put on them are what give them the perception they are. There are certain circumstances where having a Twinkie is a very healthy option.
Let's look at long-distance runners shall we? I think we can all agree this subset of people tends to be very healthy. Let me tell you something about them: they don't exist on carrots and lettuce. Many of them eat foods that would make health nazis cry. They need foods high in proteins, fats, and calories to support the insane amount of physical activity that is involved with long-distance running. Donuts are a perfect example of a food that is considered "unhealthy" but is needed for these people to perform their healthy activity.
Now, this has gotten long enough, but I hope it's opened some moth-eaten pocket in everyone's mind and encourages them to use some common sense, not judge based on societal pressure rather than scientific fact and mitigating circumstances. I really hope you've learned that food isn't the enemy. Food is just food. It's there to be enjoyed and eaten regardless of by whom.
I really am. I'd like to know what stone tablets these hard and fast rules are on. Experts are constantly making discoveries about foods and reexploring old grounds when it comes to foods and eating properly.
But before we go to the issues surrounding food, let's go to an issue surrounding appearance; being thin and slender does not equate to being in good health. The mantra of any person who's ever had a single psychology or statistics class knows that "correlation doesn't imply causation." Just because someone's thin doesn't mean they're the paragon of health and just because someone is fat or heavy doesn't mean that they aren't. I'm sure we all know someone who eats complete crap, wouldn't know broccoli if it jumped up and beat them around the head, but still manages to be rail-thin. I can guarantee that most of the time, if they were to have a physical done, their doctor would tell them they're in atrocious health. There's a lot more involved with health than just what you look like or what you weigh. You can't see cholesterol. You can't see glucose levels. There may be someone who's fat, like me, but may be in better health than some of those people who reflect more of what is considered to be "healthy." You may not know that I work out by looking at me. You may not know that I actually am in great health by looking at me.
There have been recent studies that have actually found that being overweight actually is NO MORE a liability to your health than being thin and in some cases is actually more protective against fatality. This study explains it in more depth. This article makes it a little more clear and accessible. It shows that it it's just not really a factor in determining mortality. Age is more of a factor.
But that's just to open the doors to realizing that weight and body shape do not determine health. Neither does diet, at least not alone. There are many factors that determine health: genetics, diseases that are unrelated to weight, digestive issues and intolerances, hell, even allergies. Diet plays a huge roll in almost every different type of life style. People have different diets for all sorts of different conditions: People with Celiac disease can't eat products with gluten, people with IBS should stay away from foods that contain yeast, etc. etc.
Food shouldn't be vilified. All that does is make it harder for people to eat foods that may not be healthy according to the "gurus" with their fad diets that come and go and can fuck up a person worse than what they do on their own. And that's all most of these fad diets do, they either reduce portion size, or cut out certain things and make it "evil"...things people can either do on their own, or things that don't really address the problem of educating people how to eat well for their own life styles or needs, and doesn't really address the cost of "healthy eating."
For some people, eating and food are addictions. Unlike damn near every other substance that one can be addicted to, you can't live without food. You can't avoid contact with it, and you can't change your habits by changing your friends and getting out of those situations that make you want to indulge. Food is a fucking necessity. Which is why making eating bad, and making foods bad and vilifying the act of eating and the foods that damn near everyone enjoys doesn't work. You can't avoid food. We aren't the Jetsons, food doesn't come in pill form.
I know I'm sort of talking in circles but it's because this issue enrages me. It pisses me off that entire categories of food are written off because "holier-than-thou, I know the answers to it all, bow before me" food nazis say they're not good. Education is better than just writing something off. Let people make informed decisions. I don't care how well you eat most of the time, everyone has their crap food they love and just want to indulge in every now and then.
Some eastern religions talk about moderation being the key to life. It's true. Most people (read: MOST) people, when given the tools, the knowledge, and the choice, will eat what's healthy for them without being prodded and instructed to do so. Food is not inherently "healthy" or "unhealthy." The associations people put on them are what give them the perception they are. There are certain circumstances where having a Twinkie is a very healthy option.
Let's look at long-distance runners shall we? I think we can all agree this subset of people tends to be very healthy. Let me tell you something about them: they don't exist on carrots and lettuce. Many of them eat foods that would make health nazis cry. They need foods high in proteins, fats, and calories to support the insane amount of physical activity that is involved with long-distance running. Donuts are a perfect example of a food that is considered "unhealthy" but is needed for these people to perform their healthy activity.
Now, this has gotten long enough, but I hope it's opened some moth-eaten pocket in everyone's mind and encourages them to use some common sense, not judge based on societal pressure rather than scientific fact and mitigating circumstances. I really hope you've learned that food isn't the enemy. Food is just food. It's there to be enjoyed and eaten regardless of by whom.
03 May 2011
When You Use Text-Speak, Something Cute and Fluffy Dies...Violently
This is probably one of my biggest pet peeves ever. People who use text abbreviations in areas where there is no character limit make me want to punch babies.
For example, when posting on Facebook. There's not really a character limit, so type out the bloody word. Please. Or when writing an email, there's definitely not a character limit there. Or in the for really-real world, you know, when actually using your voice box to make sounds that are carried across the air and enter into someone else's ear canal, and makes vibrations. I know some people are unfamiliar with this concept in the modern world of electronic communication, but this is known as talking. If you're too much of a lazy hump to say actual words when speaking, then please do me a favor and don't procreate. That would require much more effort I would think. It takes more effort to use the text-speak and then explain it than to just use the actual words. After all, the average person speaks at the rate of about six words per second. That's pretty damn fast. It doesn't take anymore time to just speak properly.
Using text-speak outside of a text message (where character space is limited if your carrier won't let you send multi-page texts to someone not with that same carrier) just tells me you think I'm a gullible retard who doesn't understand the King's English. It also tells me that that free education you were entitled to until you turned 18 was wasted. Yeah public education isn't as great as it could be, but I went to public schools in several states, and I have absolutely zero problems with using actual English to communicate with someone else.
You using text-speak when speaking to me in particular tells me that you think I'm a retard who's incapable of higher thought and isn't even of the same caliber of non-sense euphemisms that we speak to children. In all reality, it makes me want to deduct about ten or twenty of your IQ points.
It's kinda sad that this is becoming more mainstream. Like we as a society need to have things dumbed down and overcomplicated at the same time so we don't feel like squares or something. A pox on that I say!
Psst!! I don't know if you knew this, but every time you use text-speak (as part of your normal communication, not for limited space or to make a point), something cute and fluffy gets tossed in a wood chipper. Ever seen Fargo? It's something like that.
So if you won't do it for me, for yourselves, do it for the fluffy animals. Their lives are hard enough, what with having to live up to the cute and fluffy expectations without the fear of wood chippers.
For example, when posting on Facebook. There's not really a character limit, so type out the bloody word. Please. Or when writing an email, there's definitely not a character limit there. Or in the for really-real world, you know, when actually using your voice box to make sounds that are carried across the air and enter into someone else's ear canal, and makes vibrations. I know some people are unfamiliar with this concept in the modern world of electronic communication, but this is known as talking. If you're too much of a lazy hump to say actual words when speaking, then please do me a favor and don't procreate. That would require much more effort I would think. It takes more effort to use the text-speak and then explain it than to just use the actual words. After all, the average person speaks at the rate of about six words per second. That's pretty damn fast. It doesn't take anymore time to just speak properly.
Using text-speak outside of a text message (where character space is limited if your carrier won't let you send multi-page texts to someone not with that same carrier) just tells me you think I'm a gullible retard who doesn't understand the King's English. It also tells me that that free education you were entitled to until you turned 18 was wasted. Yeah public education isn't as great as it could be, but I went to public schools in several states, and I have absolutely zero problems with using actual English to communicate with someone else.
You using text-speak when speaking to me in particular tells me that you think I'm a retard who's incapable of higher thought and isn't even of the same caliber of non-sense euphemisms that we speak to children. In all reality, it makes me want to deduct about ten or twenty of your IQ points.
It's kinda sad that this is becoming more mainstream. Like we as a society need to have things dumbed down and overcomplicated at the same time so we don't feel like squares or something. A pox on that I say!
Psst!! I don't know if you knew this, but every time you use text-speak (as part of your normal communication, not for limited space or to make a point), something cute and fluffy gets tossed in a wood chipper. Ever seen Fargo? It's something like that.
So if you won't do it for me, for yourselves, do it for the fluffy animals. Their lives are hard enough, what with having to live up to the cute and fluffy expectations without the fear of wood chippers.
01 May 2011
To Porn or Not To Porn-Need This Be A Question?
Can anyone explain to me why porn still has such a stigma attached to it?
The entire industry still has this stigma like it's something dirty and disgusting. Now, while there may be certain fetishes and acts that may not be to your tastes, and may go against your hygienic preferences, but let's leave that aside. Let's talk straight up fucking. Gay, straight, orgies, whatever. Just straight up fucking.
There are a lot of people who look down on porn just because it depicts in stunning detail, what many people still only do in the dark. I don't get it. Are we trying to step backwards and put sex back into some locked room? Are we reverting back to Victorian-era ideals where women would lie back and think of England?
Porn is nothing more than fantasy. That's all it is. Visual fantasy. Nothing more, nothing less. It's just a form of stimulation that can be enjoyed solo and for masturbation (and not even that, sometimes it's just the stimulation that someone wants), or *gasp* by couples who are adding in visual stimulation to their physical stimulation and pleasure.
If I were in a relationship, I'd rather have my partner spanking his monkey every day to porn whenever I'm not there or simply don't have the same drive than for him to be repressed or to go out and cheat on me because he isn't getting what he needs. Simple fact. I don't feel threatened by porn. If you do, I think you have to work on your self-esteem or examine what it is that your partner is getting from it that they're not getting from you.
But going back to the stigma of being associated with porn, I still don't get why. We have porn stars that are household names, idolized and adored, even role models for people (not children, just people). Porn stars have reality TV shows, books, etc. Hell, some have been in major motion pictures. And vice versa: major motion picture stars have been in Playboy, some of them more than once. They've posed nude, they've posed in compromising positions by themselves or with others. So what's the problem? If people can transition from one arena to the other and no one really cares, what's with the stigma?
Hell, one of Hugh Hefner's former girlfriends (and I believe she was or is a porn star) is on Dancing with The Stars. No real issues there. But one of the professionals? She posed for Playboy and there was immediate backlash about whether she should continue to be employed by the show because she's not presenting a wholesome image; in essence, children shouldn't be looking up to her because she was in Playboy.
Also, who is porn hurting? Really? Don't tell me about guys who hurt women because they saw it in porn. That's bullshit. There was more going on with those guys than they just watched a lot of porn and waxed their carrots. And don't tell me porn subjugates women and demeans them. Do you know who's in control of most of porn? It's not the director...it's the female actress. She gets paid anywhere from 3 to 10 times as much as her male counterpart and if she's uncomfortable with something, that's the end of it. It doesn't happen.
Porn is just another medium of imagination and sexual expression. I think that if more people were open about their sexuality and their sexual natures, things might be a bit easier for us all. It's one of the last areas where you can be judged based on your "proclivities."
You're not really allowed to judge people because of what they wear, what they believe in, what their politics are, etc. (I mean, we do, but it's not usually acceptable), but if you mention someone has a high sex drive, particularly if that person is a woman, and if they indulge that drive? Time to bust out the torches and pitchforks and drive the raging harlot from society.
The entire industry still has this stigma like it's something dirty and disgusting. Now, while there may be certain fetishes and acts that may not be to your tastes, and may go against your hygienic preferences, but let's leave that aside. Let's talk straight up fucking. Gay, straight, orgies, whatever. Just straight up fucking.
There are a lot of people who look down on porn just because it depicts in stunning detail, what many people still only do in the dark. I don't get it. Are we trying to step backwards and put sex back into some locked room? Are we reverting back to Victorian-era ideals where women would lie back and think of England?
Porn is nothing more than fantasy. That's all it is. Visual fantasy. Nothing more, nothing less. It's just a form of stimulation that can be enjoyed solo and for masturbation (and not even that, sometimes it's just the stimulation that someone wants), or *gasp* by couples who are adding in visual stimulation to their physical stimulation and pleasure.
If I were in a relationship, I'd rather have my partner spanking his monkey every day to porn whenever I'm not there or simply don't have the same drive than for him to be repressed or to go out and cheat on me because he isn't getting what he needs. Simple fact. I don't feel threatened by porn. If you do, I think you have to work on your self-esteem or examine what it is that your partner is getting from it that they're not getting from you.
But going back to the stigma of being associated with porn, I still don't get why. We have porn stars that are household names, idolized and adored, even role models for people (not children, just people). Porn stars have reality TV shows, books, etc. Hell, some have been in major motion pictures. And vice versa: major motion picture stars have been in Playboy, some of them more than once. They've posed nude, they've posed in compromising positions by themselves or with others. So what's the problem? If people can transition from one arena to the other and no one really cares, what's with the stigma?
Hell, one of Hugh Hefner's former girlfriends (and I believe she was or is a porn star) is on Dancing with The Stars. No real issues there. But one of the professionals? She posed for Playboy and there was immediate backlash about whether she should continue to be employed by the show because she's not presenting a wholesome image; in essence, children shouldn't be looking up to her because she was in Playboy.
Also, who is porn hurting? Really? Don't tell me about guys who hurt women because they saw it in porn. That's bullshit. There was more going on with those guys than they just watched a lot of porn and waxed their carrots. And don't tell me porn subjugates women and demeans them. Do you know who's in control of most of porn? It's not the director...it's the female actress. She gets paid anywhere from 3 to 10 times as much as her male counterpart and if she's uncomfortable with something, that's the end of it. It doesn't happen.
Porn is just another medium of imagination and sexual expression. I think that if more people were open about their sexuality and their sexual natures, things might be a bit easier for us all. It's one of the last areas where you can be judged based on your "proclivities."
You're not really allowed to judge people because of what they wear, what they believe in, what their politics are, etc. (I mean, we do, but it's not usually acceptable), but if you mention someone has a high sex drive, particularly if that person is a woman, and if they indulge that drive? Time to bust out the torches and pitchforks and drive the raging harlot from society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)