Thursday, November 29, 2012

It's not the size of the boat, it's the duration of the storm.


A quick, light-hearted read after that last post.

Thank Venus they pointed out that foreplay is not, I repeat: NOT, included in the 3-13 minute suggested time frame.

And thank Aphrodite that they let the women wear the stopwatch, instead of making the men. I can only imagine how much unnecessary pressure that would have put on the fellas.

Speaking of pressure on the fellas: Guys, don't worry about how long you last. There really is such thing as too long. You know, because of friction and what not. Just make sure you show interest in pleasing us. That's not to put pressure on y'all to make us reach orgasm. That's different. I'm saying, just show us that you care. Which usually equates to great foreplay and some afterplay.

P.S. I wonder how long is the ideal length of intercourse for lesbian couples?

~A

Locked up



This is an article Loren posted on her Fbk. She always shares the best shit! Hopefully on here one day, too *wink, nudge*

First of all...I initially used this photo and titled the entry "Locked Up Ladies" and decided not to because this isn't a funny topic. But laughing is good for you, so here:

Second, indulge me in a few "HOLY FUCK!"s
    - 641THOUSAND girls a YEAR enter the system?! That seems like a lot, no?
    - 41% have signs of vaginal injuries
    - many only receive healthcare in jail? yet,
    - many facilities aren't compliant with recommended minimum levels of care?! isn't that what our tax $$ go to?

Okay, thanks. 

In Bernalillo, girls are only asked if they have been raped "in the past 5 days". That's a problem for me. Many people who are sexually assaulted take longer than 5 days to even process the event, and awhile to report it. Sexual assault, like many traumas, can be so incredibly disorienting to the victim, that it takes time for a person to fully realize what they experienced. And that's not even getting in to how long it can take to actually process, understand, and cope with the assault. Besides, law enforcement officials are often not trained properly to handle discussing such sensitive information, so you can imagine how scary it could be for someone to talk about the event. Oh man and can you even imagine how terrifying that might be for someone who is in jail?! I mean, they are in jail, so automatically they are stigmatized, judged, and viewed through a lens of preconceived notions. Who the fuck would believe them, much less help them? Tragic.

Back to the low quality health screenings - so people who have little access to healthcare outside of the pen are checked out in 15 minutes. That's absurd. And without any privacy. That's a violation of a plethora of legal and ethical regulations. But, who cares, they are criminals afterall.*
      *sometimes i panic that my sarcastic tone doesn't translate well. i hope it does. i'll take more lessons from jezebel

Now I'm going to rag on one of the speakers a tiny bit. Acoca said, "These are girls with a history or rape and assault and their boundaries might not be well established,"   I just want to clarify that 1) just because a person was assaulted, does not mean his/her boundaries are poor; 2) girls are no more or less prone to boundary issues than boys; and 3) they have a history as a victim and as a result (*NOT A CAUSE), they are likely to be confused about trust, which could, understandably, lead to a change in boundaries. I guess I'm not really ragging on Acoca, I just wish she had chosen different words, or the author had allowed more explanation. 

When the author keeps mentioning these girls rarely receive medical attention outside of the system, I can't help but wonder if there is a correlation between poor (medical) attention and high risk behaviors.*

Isn't it safe to assume that most of those entering a detention facility are depressed? I mean really. Whether the prisoner is good or bad, guilty or not-guilty, they still are probably pretty bummed they're in jail. Maybe the one thing we should assume about this population is that they are depressed. At the very least, a really horrible evil villain would be depressed that he got caught and can't do x,y, or z tomorrow. 

[This is the kind of article I wish I could write comments directly over  the line I'm referencing, like you can in Microsoft Word. Sorry if I'm hard to follow.]

Wow, imagine that; a male judge refers to female teens as "dramatic" and implies that they are more challenging than boys. Props to him for trying to help out a little bit, but wouldn't it be great if he saw how his language about this population is reflected back onto the people who work directly with them? Sigh. 

Great article, thanks for bringing it to our attention, Lo. You're gonna change the world, babe, and I hope to help every step of the way.

- some resources: How To Support a Victim of Sexual Assualt             Safe Place
     RAINN             Some tips *i don't agree with the whole article, but there is some good advice

~A


Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Republicans think gender traits are biological; Democrats think they're social


Okay so my title is a little extreme, but you get the point (or you will after reading the article). I enjoy the topic of gender because, well, it's totally relevant to life and it's one of the greatest examples and studies of nature vs nurture. I'll start with one of my usual diatribes about the terms 'gender' and 'sex'. Sex is the biological state of being male or female. Gender refers to masculine and feminine characteristics. It is a spectrum. (Actually, I have a great argument for sex being a spectrum too, but I won't get into that right now). Masculine and feminine characteristics, what we consider to be masculine or feminine traits, are socially developed and reinforced. They aren't, for the most part, determined by one's sex (or sexual orientation, but again, I'll save that for another entry).

Props to Harrods for reorganizing how their toys are showcased. I bet it is actually a lot easier to shop with toys organized by theme. Like this article about body shapes, this article about toys touches on the age-old "art imitates life/life imitates art" controversy. Maybe if we stop displaying products with such blatant gender stereotyping, 6 year olds won't already have rigid gender stereotypes. 

Now to go a little deeper into the article and talk about the author's main point. The studies referenced show that Republicans/conservatives typically believe gender traits are biological, written in stone; and Democrats/liberals believe gender traits are sociocultural. Or to twist that a little more: Republicans are more likely to believe a statement about gender traits and roles if it is explained through science and biology. Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to believe it if it explained by societal and cultural norms. Not really that surprising, right? So, do we care? I mean, sure we care about gender stereotypes, but do we care about the political spin this article puts on it? 

*side note: funny that they mentioned a Dallas paper. Dallas, in my opinion, is a blinding example of rigid gender roles.

~A

Fat people work out too


Lindy West brings up some interesting points. Being on the heavier side of most members at my former gym, Gold's, I definitely know what she's talking about. People look at you (or blatantly try not to) with this look that I can only describe as a mix of pity and embarrassment, with a touch (okay, a LOT) of judgement. It's a motivation crusher, at the least, and soul crushing at the worst. For me. I'd love to be like West and Anderson and not give a fuck, but how do you get there?! Part of me wonders if it's because I haven't always been fat (ugh I really hate that word. I do not take pride in my weight and refuse to "own" that word with gusto, like some own 'cunt' or 'queer'. Total props to owning those labels though!) heavy. Like if I had always been bigger/struggled with weight gain, maybe I could own it and be totally content with my body and have a lot less "fuck-giving". But anyway, I digress, and should save this shit for therapy.

A few points I wish West had been able to elaborate more on:
    Size does NOT equate health - Basically, "don't judge a book by it's cover". Just because a person looks fit, doesn't mean they are actually healthy.
    Results vary - Duh. Every body is different. Someone can bust his/her ass off at the gym 24 hours a day and eat perfectly etc. and still not look skinny/fit/healthy. It doesn't mean they we aren't trying. For whatever reasons, the results just aren't the same. That's to say, they aren't translating to the physical. Exercising and eating well (taking care of yourself) always feels great, regardless of the results in appearance.
    And finally, let's remember that health has many layers. Physical, emotional, and mental. One's health isn't determined solely by a number on a scale or shape of body parts, and so it shouldn't be judged by an outward appearance.

Thoughts?

~A

Hello!

Hi friends!

I decided to start a blog to share interesting articles I come across. My hope is to share info that might be useful or interesting to others, and maybe even have a conversation about it. I frequently find myself getting frustrated with comments left on articles by people who are acting like assholes. I'd like this to be a way for us to share our responses to an article without having to sift through a bunch of strangers' ignorant/insulting/disheartening comments. I think it would be fine to share this link with whomever you want, but please keep in mind the mission.

One of the top 5 blogging etiquette rules is to not repost an entire article because that diverts traffic from the original poster. So, I'll include a picture and a link for each article I'm referring to. I know, I know, more clicking for you, but that's life in the first world. (Puhlease let me know if you have other suggestions/better ways to do this!)

Feel free to engage us in a conversation about any articles that bring something up for you and post articles too.

<3
A