The Political Bitchslap Everyone Needs - All Parties Included

You know who's at fault for the state of the country? We are.

What the hell are we allowing to pass for "acceptable" out of our representatives and WHY? Are you THAT sad and pathetic that you're going to be content in sighing, shrugging your shoulders, down-talking others who are suffering in a crippled economy JUST LIKE YOU ARE, and assuming there's nothing to do about it?

Stop believing this horseshit that business-like decorum and understatement to the point of silence is good for us, helpful, or a mark of success. People who are representing us in government BETTER be fucking angry and ready to call out bullshit as it comes up, or they are literally nothing but well-dressed mouthpieces for those who want to profit off OUR suffering and need. Those people will NEVER help the rest of us get what we need, because they make far too much money on keeping it from us and giving us empty statements to lead us along. They will throw you a crumb from the big fat cookie that a corporation paid them, and then tell you that its the people suffering NEXT to you who ate the cookie you didn't get. Too many of us are willing to be complicit little assholes and blame that person suffering beside us, while that suited mouthpiece mumbles some more bullshit through his or her cookie-filled mouth.

Own up to it, for fucks sake, or we're all fucking doomed. Own up to how much time you've spent asleep.

Spare me your liberal or conservative sense of moral superiority to others. Shut the fuck up with your constant excuse making that those who are less well-off than you are living like shit because they're not up to your personal ethical standards. Your "moral superiority" doesn't mean jack shit to poverty-stricken children, and if you truly believe it's fine to shrug that off, YOU are probably the strongest arm of the of the many forces that are pushing those children away from good lives. YOU are a willing accomplice to suffering and further deterioration of the American quality of life. YOU are the voter who doesn't want to fucking bother. YOUR apathy is affording the rape and pillage of our nation's culture and well-being and you should be ashamed of yourself.

If your state representatives are sidestepping the point in endless, useless niceties and word salad, vote the them fuck out. Vote them the fuck out at the local, regional, state, and national level. What we thought were good, balanced, savvy politicians have FUCKED us for personal gain and cushy careers in well-paid jobs they barely show up for, while reaping work-offered healthcare, retirement, and sick pay benefits we are also paying for and will never see anything remotely as good offered to us as citizens. What's worse, is that we all truly understand that political figures are, as a rule, full of shit. It's a standard at this point.

Why do we keep voting for them?

If you were too damn cozy in being an uppity ass Democrat to see that it wasn't going to save you, shame on you.

Democrats have been dicking off, totally high on a sense of their own intellectual superiority, to the point that they don't even investigate who's paying their party members and how that could fuck people over. Your supreme Democratic intellect is used against you just as easily as religion is used as a tool to incite conservatives, and you can't sit here and pretend you give a singular rat's ass about the suffering of others if you can't even listen to them speak because they don't meet your personal standards. Poor, uneducated people that aren't as "worldly" as you deserve a living wage and health care as much as your comfortably numb, blue-voting ass does. To think otherwise is to be a bigot. If you think this way, accept that you are a bigot and if you truly believe that bigotry is bad, sort your fucking life out, mate.

If you let your religious preference be pandered to and thought that was just great, shame on you, too.

Republicans have been far too content to put blame their neighbors and in allowing the vanity of having their "personal relationship" with Jesus stroked as hard as any Democratic ego, to the point that no one's acting in any sort of "Christian" manner. Religion, which should be sacred, personal, and a means of self-improvement as a human being, has been made into a freaking circus side-show via which you're sold shoddy garbage, snake oil, and a ringside seat to your own destruction. Guess what? Your Republican representatives don't give a fuck about you or Jesus. Your preoccupation with Jesus just makes you a great big fucking propaganda target and you're letting it happen because you're a chicken shit who wants to be pandered to. Jesus would want the sick healed and for children to eat, from all I've read about the guy. If your representatives aren't putting that first, how the hell are you going to keep allowing them to align themselves with your savior? How are you not OUTRAGED by such blasphemy? You, as well as uppity Democrats who don't care about starving kids from out of work miners in West Virginia (cause fuck those red state people), should be entirely ashamed of yourselves. For people who want to work in the image of their savior to promote family values, you're awfully goddamn okay with little children and new mothers living in abject poverty and suffering. Just because a guy says "I'm all about Jesus" while he pulls the rug out from under families, doesn't mean he's your friend. Wake the fuck UP.

Oh, and independents? Fuck you, too. You're not helping.

You're leaning either right or left in most cases, fanning the flames of anger, and not doing jack shit to help put out the fire. You're decrying the moral decay of politics as you contribute to it on the citizen level, perfectly content to naysay and complain while everyone (including you) is suffering. What party do you belong to? I FORGOT. YOU'RE AN INDEPENDENT SO FUCK EVERYONE AND THEIR PARTY. You're too GOOD for working within the shit-stained political system, even toward the ends of changing and cleaning it up. What mass are you gathering to effect change? OH THAT'S RIGHT. YOU'RE NOT. You're sharing memes about how fucked up everyone else's party is, while you sit cozily in your little bubble, morally superior to us all because you don't see any reason you should have to pick either, corrupt side. The most ambitious among you are still doing nothing but forming utterly doomed little parties with no might behind them, cause most of you have nothing but disdain for every other party (major or minor) that isn't YOUR specific little horseshit party.

Anyone still got a case of the red-ass from 2016? I know I do. We tried all of the above bullshit for this past election, and we're sitting here with a failed Democratic candidate who didn't give enough fucks about her supporters to so much as pretend to care about the issues that most strongly affect them, nor support them when her opponent won. As a result, we are left with a volatile, moody, uninformed jackass for a Republican president, who's as ready to throw everyone under the bus as he is to throw a temper tantrum. The Democrats are too busy feeling sorry for themselves to even acknowledge the obvious progressive route they need to adopt to succeed, and the Republicans are working around the clock to hasten our demise.

We're all fucked and EVERYONE has allowed the worsening quality of American life to happen, to some degree or another. I don't blame anyone for voting any way they voted in 2016, because we were fucked either way. If you're not pissed off at how the primaries played out on EITHER side of the aisle, you haven't learned jack shit and you should review and reflect so that this shit doesn't happen again. Give yourself two or three smacks to your own, smug, stupid, self-satisfied face while you're at it.

You smug fucking Democrats didn't see anything wrong with superdelegates being allowed to choose the winner of the primary in advance of running one, and you should be slapped soundly for thinking that was anything other than corruption, cronyism, and an OBSCENE waste of money to even run a primary in that case. For fucks' sake, just the waste of MONEY alone should make us all furious that the Democrats tilted their primary in one direction, let alone the utter disrespect for all ethics in pretending that the people who support their party had any say in the outcome.

Republicans - since when the fuck was it a "family value" to encourage and cheer on an egomanical bully and praise him for being one? How is the concept of blaming others for your own problems (immigrants, etc) a "pulling oneself up by ones' own bootstraps" mindset?

Independents? You guys suck, too. If you wanted Bernie or Hillary or who the fuck ever, you should have gotten off your uppity asses and made yourself part of the process.

Kudos to all of you who DID try, and tried your fucking hearts out. I know that's why you're so battle-worn and bitter now. I don't blame you. I am just as hurt and angry as you are. You're going to have to drop it, though. We need to keep swimming or we're all going to drown in the aftermath of the 2016 election. Take all that you learned about election laws and rules in your state, dust yourself the fuck off, and get your pissed off asses to work well in advance of 2020, while we have a chance to do something about it.

TRUTH BOMB: sitting around in echo chambers, indulging in "Anti-Trump" OR "Anti-Clinton" circle jerks with each other all day isn't making you guys a movement. It's making your "movement" into a sad pile of angry little bitches who are only going to be angrier when this shit happens again and again. You ARE entirely complicit in the repetition of the 2016 political disaster if all you can do is conduct constant purity tests among one another and repeat things you already know, over and over again.

BONUS TRUTH BOMB: Everyone's getting fucking sick of your bellyaching, including those among you. We all know its getting us nowhere. It's time to shut the fuck up and move.
The sad fact of the matter is that we shouldn't have been so short-sighted, lazy, and apathetic as to allow the kind of choices we were left with at the end. Maybe we're used to it - all the corruption and game-playing to make a few people some cozy lives at the expense of making ours more miserable. Maybe it crept up on us, incrementally. Whatever the case, if we don't pull our collective heads out of our collective asses and DO something radically different from this point, we're even more fucked in the future than we are now.

.. and we're pretty fucked right now, y'all.

Don't sit on your fat, lazy, closed-minded, uneducated voter ass AGAIN and let the damn parties tell you who you're voting for. Get your shit together. Slap yourself in the face and say "I will not be made a bitch of, AGAIN."

Learn when primary dates are. PICK the goddamn delegates, reps, assemblymen, mayors, governors, state house reps, whatever, this time instead of letting the same fat fucks keep the same damn jobs, unopposed, that they've been sitting comfortably in for years. They don't worry about THEIR kids making it through school, and they're damn sure not sending them to school with YOUR kids. They're not worried about dying from a treatable illness. They don't have to. You're paying with your taxes to place them in positions of power and privilege, and you're also paying for your own family to wither away while these representatives you're supporting live fabulous lives on your dime.

"But I don't like the Democratic party" "Fuck the Dems, they're too corrupt" "Fuck the two party system!" "WE NEED A THIRD PARTY! I'll INVENT ONE AND YOU SHOULD ALL JOIN IT"

Well guess what, kids? The two-party system has all of us by the short and curlies and there isn't a goddamn thing any of your whining, foot-stamping, or going home with your panties in a fucking wad is going to do about it unless you're willing to get your hands (and soul) a little dirty and start getting in the right place to be plucking the con-artists out of these parties. That means you're going to have to be able to belong to them in order to have a vote.

If you think you lean more left - well guess what that means, sweetheart? I think you know the answer to that. Same goes for if you lean right. I don't care what you join. I don't care if you go Green or independent, but if you do, please stop bellyaching to the rest of us about your moral superiority when your effort inevitably fails because of a lack of numbers, electoral access, and the zombie-like mass of party loyalist voters who will always vote for whoever Team Blue or Red picks for them.

We can't fix stupid. We can't fix lazy. We can't make people want to think or grow a spine and enforce change. They'll just suffer on and whine and cry and do the same goddamn thing they always do - vote in larger elections where all the movers and shakers have already been picked for them, and then actually feel like they fucking did something by merely showing the fuck up and voting. We can't fix everyone and snap them out of the political apathy that is prevalent in our depressed society. Making fun of them isn't fixing shit, either.

Sad as it is, there will always likely be more of the party loyalists than independent thinkers. It is the responsibility of the independent thinking, hard-working, cunning progressives to get our candidates lined up in whatever party we can, to ensure that the average mindless voter mass is of some actual use to progressive causes. We can't make them NOT vote blue or red. We CAN make sure that whoever falls under the blue or red banner isn't another fucking jackass in a suit, ready to make money on the average citizen's suffering.

If you genuinely want to effect change, stop being a fucking crybaby and get in there and demand it. Get your equally woke buddies to do the same. GO TO WAR with the two parties who have the power and run for offices held by corporatist salesman who DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT. If they don't give a fuck about us, we need to actively mount a hostile takeover and throw them the hell out of those seats.

Stop with this pointless repetition of cursing out the parties, or pretending that the two parties are evil incarnate by their very names. That's pathetically superstitious and ignorant. The parties are the structures that have the power. There is every reason for them to strangle out independents and third parties, and no reason whatsoever for them to give up a single inch of the power they possess. Teams Red AND Blue will maintain this stranglehold if we don't get very hostile, very direct, and take that power for ourselves.

WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK BERNIE SANDERS DIDN'T WASTE HIS AND HIS FOLLOWERS PRECIOUS TIME BY GOING OUT TO FAIL MARVELOUSLY AS A HOPELESS INDEPENDENT?

He put himself in a position to KEEP swinging. He's not sitting on Facebook, sucking up the adoration of his many followers, bellowing endlessly about how he was cheated. He WAS cheated.

If anyone has a reason to bitch, it's Bernie Sanders.

Is Bernie being a little bitch?

Fuck no, he isn't. He's out there working himself sick trying to represent you.

If you're not supporting that effort, then YOU are being a little bitch. Not Bernie.

Stop being a little bitch. Start being a fucking warrior.

These two parties are not going to be overtaken by a bunch of protesting, angry goddamn hippies and weeping millenials (not that we all don't have a lot of shit to rightfully, angrily weep and protest over). They are two, ready-to-use power structures. NOTHING MORE. The people IN those power structures are abusing them for their own ends.

I think the solution to that is pretty obvious.

Get rid of those people.

Stop being a pussy and stand up to them. Put them out. Put new people in. Take that house over for the people. Don't sit here and wave your typing-fist at me and do nothing but complain. You're as much a part of the problem as the blind party loyalists you rail on endlessly about.

"But what of experience and time served in politics? Won't putting new people in with less experience hurt us?"

I don't know. What are "experienced" politicians doing for any of us right now?

I'll wait.

The Feminine Context

I HAVE RAGING SHE-WOOD for Lily Allen - It's Hard Out Here for a Bitch

Lily Allen, I love you.

First thing she says in opening scene...

"I had two babies.."

FOR FUCKS SAKE YES.

Tell me when the march starts, bitch, cause I'm comin' with.

DIRECT LINK HERE - ANTHEM WORTHY- HARD OUT HERE FOR A BITCH


The Feminine Context

This Week In Ignorant Fucks - 10/18/2013

Aw, goddamnit.... where do I start?

There was so much fucking stupid floating about the news this week, my head hurts just trying to round it all up.

We've had the ultimate in toddler-style temper tantrums going on with the government shutdown, in which Republicans simply can't get over the fact that they didn't get their way, so they responded by taking their toys (and continued pay) and going HOME. Never mind the fact that they took lots of other people's toys and paychecks home with them while they act like fucking jerks.

Because of the efforts of (my heroes!) Anonymous, information has come out about the Maryville teen rape, terrifyingly similar to Steubenville in its cover-up and dehumanization of the victims. Thank you, Anonymous, perhaps the only justice for women now comes at the hands of "vigilantes". As an open cry to Anonymous, please tell me here if there's anything I can ever do to help. Thank you for caring about young lives that our tragically dysfunctional social climate would allow to be cast aside as easily as garbage.

Let me try to lay out some links to some of the better examples of idiocy for this past week.. in no particular order..

Fox News pulls out the sleaziest fucking criminal defense lawyer they can possibly find, and airs a textbook example of victim blaming with great enthusiasm.


Did I fail to mention that this guy's main areas of expertise are in defending mafioso AND "white collar criminals" who are charged with multi-million dollar fraud?

Clearly, Fox News was trying to put their best foot forward after the victim-blaming, slut-shaming, rape-culture inducing misogyny market was cornered earlier in the week by a WOMAN. Slate's Emily Yoffe, more commonly known as "Dear Prudence", heaped rape prevention back onto women with her one-and-a-half cents on the Maryville rape. Her choice of words was questionable, at best, starting with the pretty blatant title of "COLLEGE WOMEN:STOP GETTING DRUNK." Ms. Yoffe is actually defending her article, clearly convinced that we're all too stupid to understand that alcohol CAN be a factor in some rape situations, but obviously MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY that the ghost of Jack Daniels doesn't come out of the bottle, angry erection in hand, and rape you himself at a certain point of female drunkenness. That, in fact, it's the man who thinks so little of you as a human being and so highly of you as a sexual opportunity who takes advantage of the fact that he CAN rape you, secure in the knowledge that some smug old bitch like Emily Yoffe will wag her know-it-all, admonishing finger at the victim afterward. Ms. Yoffe also has some weirdo idea in her head that what's actually causing all these rapes is that women think they are being all feminist by matching guys drink for drink. No, seriously. Like, as in, for real.. she SAID that.. here. From the post..

"Let’s be totally clear: Perpetrators are the ones responsible for committing their crimes, and they should be brought to justice. But we are failing to let women know that when they render themselves defenseless, terrible things can be done to them. Young women are getting a distorted message that their right to match men drink for drink is a feminist issue. The real feminist message should be that when you lose the ability to be responsible for yourself, you drastically increase the chances that you will attract the kinds of people who, shall we say, don’t have your best interest at heart. That’s not blaming the victim; that’s trying to prevent more victims."

What really sucks here is that the above paragraph is pretty much the only part of her piece that does, in fact, discuss how the perpetrators are responsible for their actions. At best, this is another disgusting, stomach-turning example of an educated, professional, adult woman who has been so indoctrinated with social sexism that she actually BELIEVES this is a progressive, proactive approach to the rape culture crisis we are all suffering from. I hate to break it to you, lady, but we all know that the world is dangerous. What all of us militant feminists are raging about is that we've TRIED ALL OF THIS SHIT AND IT DOESN'T WORK. You can get raped by any man, at any time, in any social setting, no matter what the theme or central activity is. The fact that women from all walks of life and of all personality types are getting raped is terrible enough, but the aftermath might actually be worse than the attack, and guess what? Emily Yoffe, you are now part of that aftermath. A woman suffering the trauma following a rape that was NOT HER FAULT, does not need to read this tripe about what SHE was doing, wearing, or where she was. The asshole who RAPED her needs to be questioned and scrutinized and shamed. There are dangerous people EVERYWHERE. When a crime or assault is committed against a man, we don't ask him what he was doing drinking at a party (you know, where people drink), or why he was wearing a certain kind of clothing, or why he was out late at night, or hanging out without some sort of chaperoning escort to ensure his safety... oh yeah, that's right. We treat men like people. How dare us silly bitches think we deserve the same courtesy.

From "How to write a rape prevention article without sounding like an asshole" by Erin Gloria Ryan, published in Jezebel, and using a direct quote from Ms. Yoffe's piece:

"DON'T write this paragraph:

'If I had a son, I would tell him that it’s in his self-interest not to be the drunken frat boy who finds himself accused of raping a drunken classmate. Surely this University of Richmond student, acquitted in one of the extremely rare cases in which a campus rape accusation led to a criminal trial, would confirm that.'

If Emily Yoffe had a son, she'd teach him how not to be accused of rape at a party. Not how to stay sober enough to remain vigilant and interfere with potentially alcohol-fueled rape situations, or how it's not okay to have sex with a woman who is too drunk to consent. Nope. Just how not to get accused of rape. Got it."

By the way, Ms. Ryan, if you read this somehow, please know that you make my everlovin' day, girl. I read your work all the damn time, and you're fucking awesome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh SHIT, yeah

this shit totally fucking happened..


Danielle N. Lee, who has blogged for Scientific American for at least two years and refers to herself as the  "Urban Scientist" was asked by a content editor for Biology-Online.com if she would write for them, when she asked about compensation, she was called a whore. What the fuck, right? Her blog post on this matter, including screenshots of emails, can be found here.

For the record, Ms. Lee.. I wish you had been my biology teacher.
-----------------------------------

Ted Cruz - SHUT THE FUCK UP. Oh my God, you're a moron.

In Ted Cruz news this week...

Ted Cruz calls birth control "abortifacients" - Huffpost

Ted Cruz fails to disclose financial ties to Jamaican Holdings company- TIME

Ted, Jamaican me crazy, here..

Chris VanHollen, representing the 8th district of the State of Maryland in the U.S. House of Representatives and also writing for TheGuardian.com, brought this lovely little gem to light in his article "Republican Rule-Rigging Cause This Shutdown and Subverted Democracy". Here is an excerpt from that piece:

"There are enough votes in the House to pass the Senate's "clean" bill to fund government – and this already represents Democrats being willing to compromise to accept the GOP's post-sequester funding levels for the short term. It would have easily passed the House with a bipartisan majority – had the House Republican leadership brought it to the floor for a simple up-or-down vote. But House Republicans – many of whom have long had the goal of shutting down the government – effectively wrote the shutdown into law with just hours left on the clock.

If that sounds unbelievable and outrageous, it's because it is.

The chairman of the House rules committee conceded that, under normal procedure with clause 4 of rule 22, if the House amends a Senate bill and the Senate rejects the House's amendment(s), any House member has the right to bring the original Senate bill up for an immediate up-or-down vote in the House. But just two hours before the government was poised to shut down, House Republicans quietly rigged the rules in their favor. They changed that rule to ensure that only Republican majority leader Eric Cantor could bring the Senate bill to reopen the government up for a vote – something they have refused to do."

In case this hasn't reached you on Facebook, here is the video demonstrating this rule-rigging in action.


and last, but certainly not least.. Linda Oliver, the Mayor of West Union, South Carolina, had THIS to say (and then promptly delete) on her Facebook:

"What's it gonna take to get these queers to realize they don't need a piece of paper. God will not bless their union because he plainly speaks against queers in the Bible. Want to cover your queer with insurance? Buy a policy. Want your queer to get your stuff when you die? Make a will."

From HuffPost:

"The post quickly drew an onslaught of criticism from Facebook users. Meanwhile, a Facebook group titled "Recall West Union S.C. Mayor Linda Oliver" was also created in the wake of the controversy.

But Oliver says she anticipated the heated response, telling Fox Carolina, "All I can say is if people want to crucify me, that's fine. I know that following Jesus, I'm going to be crucified."

On the topic of same-sex marriage, she added, "I don't want it rammed down my throat."

Though she insists she'll now use "homosexual," Oliver also defended her use of the word "queer," noting, "The way I feel toward homosexuals is how I've been brought up.""

You IGNORANT bitch, Ms. Oliver. I hope there is, in fact, a Rapture. I can't wait til it takes you, and people like you, the hell off the planet.

The Feminine Context

Three Of The BEST (so far) "Blurred Lines" Parody Videos

I won't even dignify this dudebro-anthem with a link to the original song. If you somehow haven't heard it or seen the obnoxious video for Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines", well.. fuck, you might have lucked out. While watching the following, just know that it went a LOT like these, only these videos are a lot more honest about what's going on in this highly criticized "date rape is okay" dance track.

Lemme tell ya, people... there are a shitload of DAMN GOOD parodies on this song. It's actually kind of hard to choose.

I would be remiss if I didn't place the sparkling gem "Defined Lines" by the FUCKING FANTASTIC "Law Revue". I am following their tweets and you should visit them @LawRevueGirls and do the same. Thank you, Law Revue. You are amazing, talented, and RIGHT ON TRACK.



I simply had to throw this one out by the fabulous Bart Baker, a true master of pop video parodies. PLEASE go visit him and give that guy a thumbs up. Thank you, Bart.. thank you for the #hashtagpolice, alone, let alone the goat!



Love this beauty from the brilliantly clever stand-up comedienne Melinda Hughes with the tremendously appropriate title of "Lame Lines" or "Douchebag" (as the chorus would suggest), which shows up as AND rhymes with "Hashtag" (kind of).

Speaking of which, Robin Thicke should be internationally barred from ever using hashtags again, in any context, ever. For all of time.

Ms. Hughes can also be found on the ol' Twitterverse @MelindaHug and has her own website HERE.

  The Feminine Context

Anita Perry Can't Stomach Uttering Total Bullshit Out Loud, Media Frenzy Ensues

I'm thinking that Rick Perry is shitting platinum bricks right about now..




OH MY GAWD.. A PROMINENT REPUBLICAN STATE FIRST LADY EXPRESSED A PERFECTLY VALID AND HUMAN VIEWPOINT ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS!

From the HuffingtonPost:

"When pressed on women's rights by Texas Tribune's Evan Smith at the 2013 Texas Tribune Festival, the First Lady of Texas said, "That's really difficult for me, Evan, because I see it as a women's right. If they want to do that, that is their decision; they have to live with that decision."

"Mrs. Perry, I want to be sure you didn't just inadvertently make news," Smith replied. "Are you saying that you believe abortion is a women's right, to make that choice?"

Smith pressed again, asking if she believed it's a person's decision within the law, to which Anita Perry replied, "Yeah, that could be a women's right. Just like it's a man's right if he wants to have some kind of procedure. But I don't agree with it, and that's not my view."

You can understand that women should have the right to choose what's best for them and, at once, not be all pro-abortion. To be pro-choice means that you realize that abortion is one of several choices a woman can make in the face of an unplanned pregnancy, and it IS in fact, OKAY to know that you yourself would not make that particular choice.

Kudos to Mrs. Perry for having the chutzpah to say this out loud in front of cameras. You can tell she's feeling backed down toward the end, but she didn't bail out entirely, either.

oh, and also VOTE WENDY DAVIS FOR SENATE!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Feminine Context

Sarcasm FTW! "Rape Prevention" PSA Kicks Serious Ass

TFC heartily approves this message, brought to you byAll India Bakchod kicks rape culture norms in the ass and out in the open for all to see. Good work, y'all!

Direct link here: "It's Your Fault"
The Feminine Context

I'm BACK, bitches!

Bitchitudinousness reigns again!

Well, hopefully.. I do kinda have some shit to do around here

BUT!

I'm going to try and do better about ranting my ass off on a more regular basis. I find it therapeutic.

What have I been doing with myself, you might ask (or might not.. its been FOR-FUCKING-EVER since I wrote here).. well..

-Moving
-Raising the mini-shebeast
-Being pissed off at Google AdSense which has banned me for life over a stupid misclick which they said was me trying to inflate my own ad revenue.
-Founding, forming, and whipping an MMORPG clan together
-Becoming a more righteously indignant feminist, every fucking day.

Expect more activity here.

Silence is just not on my vagenda anymore.

The Feminine Context

Sexual, Female, AND Human? Why Sasha Gray Can't Catch A Break

11/11/2011
From HuffingtonPost:

"How would you feel if an adult film star read to your seven year old child? Believe it or not, some parents in California are pretty angry that it happened in their kids' classroom.
Porn legend Sasha Grey was a guest reader at Emerson Elementary School in Compton, California earlier this month, joining first and third grade students in their Read Across America day. Grey certainly enjoyed the experience, tweeting, "Spent the am with Read Across America Compton, reading to the sweetest 1st & 3rd grade students @ Emerson Elementary!"
The problem, TMZ reports, is that parents aren't happy -- and that school officials, instead of addressing the issue, are claiming it never happened. Of course, it'd be silly for Grey to tweet about it if it hadn't happened, and more importantly, TMZ has a photo of the event (as they always seem to do)."

Ms. Gray gave a statement to TMZ regarding her participation in the Read Across America child literacy program, in which she writes:


"Read Across America" is a program that was designed to promote literacy and instill a lifelong love of reading in elementary school students. Promoting education is an effort that is close to my heart. Illiteracy contributes to poverty; encouraging children to pick up a book is fundamental.
 I believe education is a universal right. I committed to this program with the understanding that people would have their own opinions about what I have done, who I am and what I represent.
 I am an actor. I am an artist. I am a daughter. I am a sister. I am a partner. I have a past that some people may not agree with, but it does not define who I am. 
I will not live in fear of it. To challenge non-profit education programs is an exercise in futility, counter-productive and anti-educational. 
I cannot thank my fans and 'Read Across America' enough for supporting my decision. Your support and kind words continue to inspire me. I believe in the future of our children, and I will remain an active supporter and participant in education-focused initiatives."


Good for you, Sasha Gray. What a great thing for you to do for a group of kids that certainly enjoyed your reading to them. If only most kids' parents would take that kind of time and read to their children.

I don't have a damn thing against porn, and neither should you. I'm not talking about illegal activities involving non-consenting individuals. No one's backing that up. I'm talking about good ol' American (Japanese? Russian? German? Whatever floats your boat) porn, that almost everyone has looked at at some point or another, if not several times a week... or day.. or in an alternate window while you're reading this very post.

Both hands on the keyboard, buddy. I'm trying to tell you something, here.

Okay. Fine. Finish and come back after you've washed your hands.

Regarding porn..

For starters, you probably watch it. Statistical data is hard to count on because one group or another is constantly tweaking numbers up or down to try and make a point, but let's just say that the majority of reports about adult pornography use on the internet indicate that a whole fuck of a lot of everyone is watching, viewing, or reading some porn at any given time of the day or night. If one were to try and draw some sort of "average score" out of these extremely varied reports on internet pornography usage, it probably boils down to somewhere around 52% of men and 50% of women who at least admitted to it. Obviously, these numbers don't even begin to account for people who look at it and don't want to tell anyone, or who look at "specialty" porn designed to satisfy fetishes that are based on objects or ideas that most people would never identify with the term "sexy". Many people are sexually excited by the damndest, and quite frankly, most harmless things. I for one don't think I have any business whatsoever getting my panties in a wad over whether someone is attracted or excited by things like stuffed animals, trees, or bugs. I am  in no way required to participate in anyone else's turn-on, if asked, I can say no.. so how is it any of my concern if my neighbor gets a semi because he thinks the myrtle tree in my yard is hot as hell. Good for him. At least someone is noticing my tree and NOT how long it's been since I cut the grass beneath it. What do I care? If everyone is obeying the law, then he's in his house getting his jollies from that myrtle and its sexy, bark-free body, and he's not on my lawn humping it. Everyone's happy.

If you insist that you don't partake of the massive erotic pornucopia online, well what the hell ever, okay? I'm just going to be nice about it and nod, but don't push it. Porn use is so prevalent among adults that as much as you want to get a bee in your butt (fetish?) about it, probably half of your knitting club does things with their needles that would make you not only cross your legs but strap them together with leather belts. Problem being, this might only turn them on MORE. The real point is that there's NO point getting upset about it. Porn is everywhere and it's been here since our ancestors figured out they could use Saber-Toothed Cat poo like crayons on their cave walls, and that an extra stick limb on a stick figure could represent a penis.



Pornography is no longer the sad business of taking starry-eyed would be actresses and making depraved whores out of them, if it ever really was. Adult film stars see themselves as just that, "stars", not victims or objects of pity. Adult entertainment is big freaking business, and as such, working standards have improved if for no other reason than to keep everyone's asses covered on a legal front. The porn industry creates jobs, and is well-recognized as the primary driving force behind many of the technological developments that have come to benefit both businesses and consumers alike. Internet technology like credit-card processing and verification, website membership security, encryption, video technology, and file-optimization have all been developed more rapidly, competitively, and economically as a means to buy and sell adult content online.

There are a few other things that can be said, specifically about people who actually work in front of the cameras in the adult entertainment industry. The one thing that pornography professionals have done differently than most of us is that they've demonstrated that they've got 'nads enough to work in an industry that, although considered taboo, is actually STILL THRIVING in our otherwise depressed economy. I believe it's also worth mentioning that adult film actresses and models are working in a field that, by the efforts and intentions of society's effort to promote women's sexual liberty, they really ought to be given a bit more respect for. I don't mean that we should be placing banners up everywhere we go, featuring this week's DVDA princess, but considering how many people are actually watching all of this porn, how is it fair to act like these people are doing something subversive and terrible?

Why is it that when sexual acts are filmed, we talk about the individuals engaged in that act as though they should be ashamed of it? How is it any different than what the majority of single adults get drunk and do any given weekend, other than that the adult film industry is more likely to enforce the use of condoms and STD/STI testing before adults engage in sexual intercourse? Sometimes, in an effort to promote feminism, porn actresses will be discussed as though they are brainwashed, patriarchy-indoctrinated "victims" which in itself is degrading, not uplifting, to these women. How is it that violent, gory crime dramas are winning awards, but the act of two (or more?) adults doing something together that makes them feel freaking AWESOME is considered a cause of detriment to society? Sasha Gray, for example, is a beautiful young woman who has recently published a book (adult in nature, but intellectual and artistic) and is proud of her work, as she has every right to be. How is it anyone's place to tell her she shouldn't be? She's achieved a great deal of success in her former career, and is currently expanding into new territory. How is it fair that we shower women like Kim Kardashian with press, attention, and fan-worship for doing, well.. nothing without her mom's direction and her dad's money, yet we take the first opportunity we can to piss on an adult film actress who took an opportunity to do something nice and READ to little kids?

There are certainly many varieties of adult entertainment that are presented with elements of violence, and these cater to specific fetishes. Maybe it's true that much of available pornographic material promotes illusory, airbrushed, unrealistic images of women and men. It's part of the fantasy, and anyone who's had sex more than twice can easily understand that fantasy and reality are two very different things. Any information, be it text or image, that is adult in nature can be confusing to children.. this is very true. The rest of the world is not supposed to raise your children or moderate its existence in case your children see. As a parent, it's your job to explain aspects of life to your kids, often as they come up.

It's also a matter of picking your battles at an age-appropriate time for your own child.

In the case of Sasha Gray, there's no reason that any child she read to needs to know anything about her past, and should it come up, a simple "she made movies that are only for adults" would suffice for a child within that age-range. Making a big huge fucking deal out of it is only going to make the situation utterly fascinating to a child, who will then explore the issue that they thought NOTHING about before it garnered such a reaction out of their parents.

The real "problem" is that Sasha Gray doesn't feel bad about herself, her choices, or what she's done. If she seemed ashamed of her sexuality, or a victim of the porn industry, it might make it easier for people to accept her. When pressed to discuss a hypothetical situation that would be completely identical to hers, a lot of people would disagree with condemning her for reading to those children. Our society, with its seemingly indelible stain of puritanism, still has quite a lot to learn. Maybe even from a porn star.

The Feminine Context

Surrounded by Total Weaners And Staying A-Breast Of Research

No, I didn't misspell anything. I am surrounded by weaners. Big, obnoxious weaners who are constantly trying to pummel me with their weaniness.

I don't go all breastfeeding-nazi on here, and that's for a reason. As strongly as I feel about the subject, and I DO feel strongly about it, there are PLENTY of websites and blogs available for for breastfeeding mothers and bottle-feeding mothers to duke it out and sound like bitches together. I'm not going to participate, thanks. This bitch has nothing to prove to the rest of you bitches, and that's half the point of this post.

There are so many blogs and websites devoted to the daily minutia of motherhood, that it leaves me certain of a future field of psychotherapy that will deal exclusively with the tortured offspring of the web's former UberMommies, who have all been busy fighting for Alpha-Bitch rank while their kids sat in playpens and watched them type... WITH INDIGNATION. If possible, I'd like to avoid doing any more emotional damage to my daughter than the standard amount that she's sure to accuse me of by the time she hits sixteen and obnoxious. She's already slated to hit me with a full onslaught of teen angst when my powers of reason and self-composure will be weakened by menopause. Why should I leave my future opponent a time-capsule cache of surplus ammunition? That's like leaving the Terminator a "hope chest" full of weapons and emergency contact numbers for Sarah Conner. It's just asking for fucking problems..

This is probably not going to be the only post that I ever make on the subject of breastfeeding. I don't think it's wise of me to say "only once, and never again", because that's a rule I'm sure to break at some point. Be assured though, this isn't going to be a major trend on this blog.

So.. why does everyone seem to think they have a right to an opinion when it comes to me breastfeeding my child?

When my daughter was born and I committed to breastfeeding her, women I knew who didn't breastfeed their own children became noticeably uncomfortable. I started getting these bits of advice and "support" from other stay-at-home mothers like ..

"Well, even if you can only do it for (two weeks/a month/three months) that's good. That's enough"

"I guess it helps. They always say breast is best. It's just impractical."

"Oh dear, that's going to be exhausting"

"Don't force yourself to do it, if you can't, it's fine"

"If you're going to breastfeed, start pumping NOW. When you get tired of it, you can put her on a bottle and she can have breast milk longer."

and my favorite..

"Why are you letting her father be so LAZY? Pump that milk and make him feed her when he's home. Feeding just from the breast is too hard on anyone, and you might be risking her dad's ability to bond with her."

So by naturally feeding my child, without artificial food or implements (like bottles), I was apparently running headlong into a situation that undoubtedly wouldn't work out on a long-term basis, and I was denying her father some important bonding experience with his child. What a silly, impractical, selfish bitch I am!

What a load of bullshit.

These were stay-at-home mothers. The title alone can only suggest that the woman's primary function is to care for her child, herself, at home. I had determined that I, too, would stay home and thus, have the time and availability to my child so that I could feed her exclusively from the breast.

So what's the problem? Why is there an assumption that it's only human to want to pack it in on the nursing and toss the kid a bottle? With breastfeeding, I don't have to clean bottles, worry about the formula being warm, or if she's allergic to it. Not to mention the fact that there isn't a credible doctor ANYWHERE that's going to tell you that bottle-feeding is best or ideal. I'm willing to do it, so where is the problem?

Once that group realized that their lukewarm support (or negative opinion) of my breastfeeding wasn't affecting me in any way, the same crowd pretty much shut the hell up. Friends of mine who had primarily or wholly breastfed their children patted me on the back with a "good for you for sticking with it". However, without fail at every three month mark in my child's first year, someone invariably asked "oh my, are you still breastfeeding her?", as though they were surprised that I hadn't given up all that idealistic nonsense by now.

So here we are and my daughter is one year old, just popped out her first tooth (working on five more), no allergies, ear infections, etc, and her doctor says she is "perfect". Suddenly, even some of those who supported my breastfeeding are starting to assume I'm weaning her off the breast, some a little taken aback when I tell them I plan to nurse her for another year unless she gives it up herself before then.

It's really simple. I don't do things for her based on what's "comfortable" for me. I make decisions on how I care for her based on my research and careful consideration of all variables involved. I do things for my child based on what's best for her. 

That's called being a parent. It's not about me. It's about her. I'm a mother, and my baby is helpless and incapable of making any decisions or interventions regarding her own care. If I'm not her advocate and I don't put her first, no one else is going to do it.

Sure, breastfeeding can be really difficult, especially at first. Right after delivery, the entire lower half of your body (and I do mean the ENTIRE lower half) feels like someone dragged it behind a truck for about five miles. That's enough. When you breastfeed, the upper half starts to experience pain that really doesn't seem to make any sense. Before you have the baby, its easy enough to imagine that your nipples are going to be sore, but it's more than that. I remember hurting in places around the back of my rib cage, thinking, "what the FUCK? why would it hurt back THERE of all places?". Then, I did the damn research.

There's really no excuse to not know how your body works, considering that the internet makes it possible for you to learn these things without even getting out of your pajamas. Mammary glands and associated/connected glands were being used for the first time ever, at high volume and QUICKLY. You're damn right that shit is going to hurt. Why didn't the nurse tell me THAT at the hospital? Why did I hear "if it hurts, you're doing it wrong" instead of "hey, just a heads up, your armpits, breasts, rib cage, and shoulders are probably going to be pretty sore for the first month, but it goes away if you stick with it"?

It is a big commitment, as well. Solely breastfeeding means that no one can feed the baby but you, AND that the baby will eat about twice as often as a formula-fed baby, so that means you ain't goin' NOWHERE without her. It also meant that my girl never went to the pediatrician for anything but routine checkups and shots. As far as my physical discomfort was concerned, It DID get better and in the long run, breastfeeding my child cost less money, time, and effort than bottle feeding would have.

So why, when the World Health Organization recommends that babies breastfeed for two years, are my previously supportive peers getting weirded out that I choose to keep feeding my baby in the most medically-sound way possible? I'm the one with the chubby little darling using my breasts as a jungle gym, how is it anyone ELSE'S business to make my commitment to my child's health and well-being any more of a challenge than it already is?

My partner said, "Oh, don't worry about them..". I really don't WORRY about what people say and think when I make parenting decisions. I tend not to worry much about what people think or if they like me, but I do get irritated at the selfishness of insensitivity and by people's negative intentions. In short, if you see someone breaking their ass to be a good parent, what with all the people out there who pop out kids like their candy and don't even seem to LIKE their children (let alone concern themselves with their development), what in the hell would possess you to make a negative comment on someones parenting of a well-developed, healthy child who (under this same parents' care) is doing JUST GREAT?

I think the short answer is that sometimes, people need to shut the fuck up and mind their own business and their own kids. Here's a wild idea.. maybe bother to educate yourself so that you can make independent decisions for yourself and your own children, based on facts and data and not on what your mom (who you've been pissed off at since you were sixteen years old an obnoxious) said you should do. It's not that you can't take advice from people, but make sure it's good advice, especially before you go cramming it down everyone else's throat.

Yeah. This was a rant. Deal with it.

I need to go nurse my baby now, so before I go.. here are words and links from the World Health Organization that provide information about the benefits of breastfeeding. It IS the best for babies.

------------------------------------------------------------

WHO recommends

WHO strongly recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life. At six months, other foods should complement breastfeeding for up to two years or more. In addition:

• breastfeeding should begin within an hour of birth;
• breastfeeding should be "on demand", as often as the child wants day and night; and
• bottles or pacifiers should be avoided.

Health benefits for infants

Breast milk is the ideal food for newborns and infants. It gives infants all the nutrients they need for healthy development. It is safe and contains antibodies that help protect infants from common childhood illnesses - such as diarrhoea and pneumonia, the two primary causes of child mortality worldwide. Breast milk is readily available and affordable, which helps to ensure that infants get adequate sustenance.

Benefits for mothers

Breastfeeding also benefits mothers. The practice when done exclusively often induces a lack of menstruation, which is a natural (though not fail-safe) method of birth control. It reduces risks of breast and ovarian cancer later in life, helps women return to their pre-pregnancy weight faster, and lowers rates of obesity

Long-term benefits for children

Beyond the immediate benefits for children, breastfeeding contributes to a lifetime of good health. Adults who were breastfed as babies often have lower blood pressure and lower cholesterol, as well as lower rates of overweight, obesity and type-2 diabetes. There is evidence that people who were breastfed perform better in intelligence tests.

Why not infant formula?

Infant formula does not contain the antibodies found in breast milk and is linked to some risks, such as water-borne diseases that arise from mixing powdered formula with unsafe water (many families lack access to clean water). Malnutrition can result from over-diluting formula to "stretch" supplies. Further, frequent feedings maintain the breast milk supply. If formula is used but becomes unavailable, a return to breastfeeding may not be an option due to diminished breast milk production.

HIV and breastfeeding

For HIV-positive mothers, WHO recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months unless replacement feeding is:

• acceptable (socially welcome)
• feasible (facilities and help are available to prepare formula)
• affordable (formula can be purchased for six months)
• sustainable (feeding can be sustained for six months)
• safe (formula is prepared with safe water and in hygienic conditions).

Regulating breast-milk substitutes

An international code to regulate the marketing of breast-milk substitutes was adopted in 1981. It calls for:

• all formula labels and information to state the benefits of breastfeeding and the health risks of substitutes;
• no promotion of breast-milk substitutes;
• no free samples of substitutes to be given to pregnant women, mothers or their families; and
• no distribution of free or subsidized substitutes to health workers or facilities.

Support for mothers is essential

Breastfeeding has to be learned and many women encounter difficulties at the beginning. Nipple pain, and fear that there is not enough milk to sustain the baby are common. Health facilities that support breastfeeding - by making trained breastfeeding counsellors available to new mothers - encourage higher rates of the practice. To provide this support and improve care for mothers and newborns, there are now more than 20 000 "baby-friendly" facilities in 152 countries thanks to a WHO-UNICEF initiative.

Work and breastfeeding

WHO recommends that a new mother should have at least 16 weeks of absence from work after delivery, to be able to rest and breastfeed her child. Many mothers who go back to work abandon exclusive breastfeeding before the recommended six months because they do not have sufficient time, or an adequate place to breastfeed or express and store their milk at work. Mothers need access to a safe, clean and private place in or near their workplaces to continue the practice.

The next step: phasing in new foods

To meet the growing needs of babies at six months of age, complementary foods should be introduced as they continue to breastfeed. Foods for the baby can be specially prepared or modified from family meals. WHO notes that:

• breastfeeding should not be decreased when starting complementary feeding;
• complementary foods should be given with a spoon or cup, not in a bottle;
• foods should be clean, safe and locally available; and
• ample time is needed for young children to learn to eat solid foods.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Acceptable medical reasons for use of breast-milk substitutes

Authors:
World Health Organization

Infants who should not receive breast milk or any other milk

except specialized formula

􀂄 Infants with classic galactosemia: a special galactose-free formula is needed.

􀂄 Infants with maple syrup urine disease: a special formula free of leucine,

isoleucine and valine is needed.

􀂄 Infants with phenylketonuria: a special phenylalanine-free formula is

needed (some breastfeeding is possible, under careful monitoring).

Infants for whom breast milk remains the best feeding option

but who may need other food in addition to breast milk for a limited period

􀂄 Infants born weighing less than 1500 g (very low birth weight).

􀂄 Infants born at less than 32 weeks of gestational age (very pre-term).

􀂄 Newborn infants who are at risk of hypoglycaemia by virtue of impaired metabolic adaptation or increased

glucose demand (such as those who are preterm, small for gestational age or who have experienced significant

intrapartum hypoxic/ischaemic stress, those who are ill and those whose mothers are diabetic) (5) if their

blood sugar fails to respond to optimal breastfeeding or breast-milk feeding.

Maternal conditions that may justify permanent avoidance of breastfeeding

􀂄 HIV infection1: if replacement feeding is acceptable, feasible, affordable, sustainable and safe (AFASS)

 

Maternal conditions that may justify temporary avoidance of breastfeeding

􀂄 Severe illness that prevents a mother from caring for her infant, for example sepsis.

􀂄 Herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1): direct contact between lesions on the mother’s breasts and the infant’s mouth

should be avoided until all active lesions have resolved.

􀂄 Maternal medication:

- sedating psychotherapeutic drugs, anti-epileptic drugs and opioids and their combinations may cause side effects

such as drowsiness and respiratory depression and are better avoided if a safer alternative is available (7);

- radioactive iodine-131 is better avoided given that safer alternatives are available - a mother can resume

breastfeeding about two months after receiving this substance;

- excessive use of topical iodine or iodophors (e.g., povidone-iodine), especially on open wounds or mucous

membranes, can result in thyroid suppression or electrolyte abnormalities in the breastfed infant and should be

avoided;

- cytotoxic chemotherapy requires that a mother stops breastfeeding during therapy.

Maternal conditions during which breastfeeding can still continue, although health problems  may be of concern

􀂄 Breast abscess: breastfeeding should continue on the unaffected breast; feeding from the affected breast can

resume once treatment has started (8).

􀂄 Hepatitis B: infants should be given hepatitis B vaccine, within the first 48 hours or as soon as possible

thereafter (9).

􀂄 Hepatitis C.

􀂄 Mastitis: if breastfeeding is very painful, milk must be removed by expression to prevent progression of the

condition(8).

􀂄 Tuberculosis: mother and baby should be managed according to national tuberculosis guidelines

Extreme Reversionist Report 2011! - Part 3 - Rick Perry

Alrighty, let's stomp some more points into the ground... First, let me re-cap on what this post is about..

From my first "Extreme Reversionist Report 2011" post

"This post is one of a series that I plan to post over the next week or so. The purpose of these posts is to pick at the social conservatism of several American politicians who are each campaigning for the endorsement of the Republican party for the 2012 Presidential election. For this, I offer no fucking apology whatsoever.

The candidates that I have chosen for this tarring and feathering are throwing their political weight behind ideas and policies that endanger the rights and lives of many, many people in this country. Their "talking points" promote radical theories that are ignorant, shortsighted, and diminish the personhood of many American citizens. You don't have to be gay to know that you want a good life for your brother who is. You don't have to be a woman to want proper health care and reproductive options for your daughter. You don't have to be (insert any religion other than Christianity/Catholicism) to agree that if you don't want your own faith to determine how the state treats YOU, that it wouldn't be appropriate for anyone else to be treated that way"

That said, let us move onto the NEXT Texas Good Ol' Boy that thinks his accent and his propensity for becoming befuddled when asked a direct question may be JUST charming enough to get him the Republican endorsement.

If you've read this blog for a few minutes, or paid even the slightest attention to the HUGE collection of keywords to the left of this post, you've probably figured out that I am a strong supporter of American citizens' access to sex education and birth control. Typically, conservatives vote for abstinence-only sex education programs, which have been proven again and again to be ineffectual in preventing teen pregnancy or circumventing disease. The idea of the abstinence-only programs were to affirm that sexual abstinence before marriage was the only acceptable standard of behavior for young people in America. Sounds like a freakin' fairy tale, doesn't it?  Rick Perry doesn't think so. His strict abstinence-only sex-ed policies in Texas  high schools resulted in MORE teens having sex and more births to teenage mothers in as little as a year.

From a Huffington Post article by Shawn Lawrence Otto:

"Instead of providing fact-based information, the programs use fear and Jesus -- over-emphasizing the risks of sexually transmitted diseases leading to cervical cancer, radical hysterectomy and death, together with Christian morality.

One Texas public school district's sex ed handout is entitled "Things to Look for in a Mate:"
I. How they relate to God
A. Is Jesus their first love?
B. Trying to impress people or serve God?

Another public school district uses this:

Question: "What does the Bible say about sex before marriage/premarital sex?"

Answer: Along with all other kinds of sexual immorality, sex before marriage/premarital sex is repeatedly condemned in Scripture (Acts 15:20; Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13,18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7).

The results? Teen pregnancy in Texas went up -- higher than before "abstinence only," and more than 50 percent higher than the national average. Even more troubling was that repeat teen pregnancy went up -- to the point that it, too, led the nation. It turns out that Texas kids thought that "if birth control doesn't work, why use it?"

It's also extremely tough for teenagers to get contraceptives in Texas. "If you are a kid, even in college, if it's state-funded you have to have parental consent," said Susan Tortolero, director of the Prevention Research Center at the University of Texas in Houston."

What the holy hell, man? Abstinence-only programs are as effective at deterring hormonally-charged, horny teens from sex about as well as most anti-drug commercials deter people from smoking pot. The point made by Otto is quite valid in that if people are taught that birth control doesn't work, there's no reason to use it. Additionally, these abstinence-only programs are well known to use misleading curriculum to scare young people away from sexual activity, as well as outright lies that could incite hateful attitudes toward students who are NOT Christian or adherent to Christian lifestyles. Some of the misinformation that ab-only programs are known to teach are as follows...

Educational fictionalizations that are racist in nature

The Holy Bible cited as a "medical reference"

Abstinence-only education ignores lesbians, gays, bisexual, and transgendered people

Same-sex behavior is only discussed in the context of disease and promiscuity

Half of all gay male teenagers test positive for HIV

Pregnancy can result from touching another persons genitals

If you don't believe me on the last one, try reading this desperate question from Yahoo Answers.  This kid knew enough about sex to know she'd had some variety of it, but too little to determine her actual risk factor.

Yeah, That's really fucking healthy, right there. Are we really wondering why kids are suffering from anxiety problems at that age?

Rick Perry's answer? Well, he doesn't really have one other than "abstinence works". This is his roundabout way of saying it when confronted with the fact that teen pregnancies had actually INCREASED in Texas with the implementation of these programs.



From AdvocatesForYouth.org:

"On one side are those that support comprehensive sex education—education that promotes abstinence but includes information about contraception and condoms to build young people's knowledge, attitudes and skills for when they do become sexually active. On the other side are those that favor abstinence-only-until-marriage—programs that promote "abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard of behavior. Proponents of abstinence-only programs believe that providing information about the health benefits of condoms or contraception contradicts their message of abstinence-only and undermines its impact. As such, abstinence-only programs provide no information about contraception beyond failure rates.
....
..Abstinence-only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they show some negative impacts on youth's willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. Importantly, only in one state did any program demonstrate short-term success in delaying the initiation of sex; none of these programs demonstrates evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation among youth exposed to the programs or any evidence of success in reducing other sexual risk-taking behaviors among participants."

Not to be facetious, but here's a little clue about what happens with poor sex education...


I'm really not trying to beat anyone's head into the ground with this issue, but it's extremely important. Misinformation about a natural biological function that bears as many potential ramifications as sex does, is dangerous, ignorant, and I truly believe this misinformation is a major cause of so much fear and hatred in our society.

Right now, none of the major contenders for the 2012 republican candidacy are talking about this subject at all. To support abstinence-only education would leave them open to a full-assault on its ineffectiveness, to condemn it would risk their base of conservative voters. I'll leave it to you to decide.. do you really think that any of the GOP nutcases would agree to fund comprehensive sex education should they win the presidential election?

It's a pretty safe bet that they won't, actually. It would increase the awareness level of a whole generation of young, future voters, and they can't have that. They wouldn't be as easy to manipulate anymore through fear or guilt.

The only thing that I can say that's remotely positive about Rick Perry and sexual health is that I do agree with his Texas mandate regarding HPV vaccinations, which he's now trying to downplay as much as humanly possible.  He's AT LEAST one of the few GOP candidates that believes in abortion rights for incest/rape victims and in the case of maternal health risk, but that sad part is that almost all the rest of them seem to want to eliminate abortion rights completely. By comparison, Perry comes across as almost human.

Oh wait. Perry thinks that homeless people are homeless by choice...

"When Los Angeles passed an ordinance prohibiting people from camping out on city streets and sidewalks throughout the day, the ACLU sued; the ordinance was ruled unconstitutional. Recognizing that some people suddenly find themselves homeless because of tragic, unanticipated circumstances, I would not say that all homeless people are voluntarily in their predicament. Many homeless have chosen their lifestyle--not as a conscious lifestyle choice made in prior years of sobriety but through a series of decisions that not only led to their homelessness, but also perpetuate it. They choose to drink, they choose to get high, they choose to engage in a life or crime, and often they choose to do it all on the streets instead of in shelters where there is strict enforcement of prohibitions on such behavior. The homeless need help. But the help they need is to make some of their behavior more difficult to engage in. If you take a hard approach to blight, then you create a disincentive for continuing blight "


Source: On My Honor, by Gov. Rick Perry, p.127-128 Feb 12, 2008  

I'm sure the (more than) 15% of Americans living in poverty are really going to appreciate that sentiment. Especially when you compare the civil rights movement to the Republican struggle for lower corporate taxes..

Yeah, seriously. Check this out..

Now that's a guy who cares about the plight of Americans!

Perry likes to brag about all the jobs that have been created in Texas under his administration, but what he carefully avoids mentioning is that nearly all of those jobs pay minimum wage. Perry's job creation "accomplishments" have been called "one stage away from slavery", because although the people of Texas may be working, they are largely working for minimum wage with no medical benefits. The national average of Americans living in poverty is 15.1%, whereas in Texas that average stands at 18.4%. I suppose when someone breaks a limb, that's some sort of subconscious choice to be homeless, according to Perry's views on these matters.

"I'm Governor Rick Perry. And I'm proud to be here today with the Tea Party Express. And I simply want to get America working again and make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential in your life as I can. "

Source: 2011 GOP Tea Party debate in Tampa FL Sep 12, 2011   

Shit. Maybe it IS time for "class warfare".. Rather, maybe it's time for the subjugated class to actually fight BACK.