Why we should've been boycotting the Oscars all along.

As many of you may know, Jada Pinkett-Smith and Spike Lee have both announced that they are going to Boycott the Oscars because of their lack of Diversity.

While I still find Jada Pinkett-Smith's decision somewhat suspect (not because I dislike her, but because the timing seems a little... convenient?), she does bring up a lot of valid points.

The problem with the Oscars though, is that they have ALWAYS favoured the White Majority. If you look at a list of Women who have won an Academy Award for Best Actress on Wikipedia, there is one Person of Colour (POC).

Halle Berry is the ONLY WOC (woman of colour) to have won for Best Actress. Ever. Now, she isn't the only one to have been nominated, but I find it interesting that she is the only one to have ever WON. Seriously, the Oscars have been handing out awards since 1929.

So, because my interest was piqued, I went researching and here are my results (if you care to read them).

Since the first Oscar was given to Emil Jannings in May 1929 here are the number of People of Colour who have won for Best Actor or Best Actress.

In 1956, Yul Brynner became the first Asian to win an Oscar for Best Actor. He won for the musical "The King and I."

In 1982, Ben Kingsley became the first person of South Asian Descent to win an Oscar for Best Actor. He won for "Gandhi."

In 1950, Jose Ferrer became the first Latino/Hispanic to win an Oscar for Best Actor. He won for "Cyrano de Bergerac."

In 1963, Sidney Poitier became the first African American to win an Oscar for Best Actor. He won for "Lilies of the Field."

In 2001, Denzel Washington became the second African American to win an Oscar for Best Actor. He won for "Training Day."

In 2004, Jamie Foxx won for his portrayal of Ray Charles in the movie "Ray."

In 2006, Forest Whitaker won for his portrayal of Idi Amin in the movie "The Last King of Scotland."

And, in 2001, Halle Berry became the first African American woman to win an Oscar for Best Actress. She won for "Monster's Ball."

So... You may have noticed that only ONE woman of Colour is on that list... Yeah. That's a problem. You may have also noticed that there are ZERO Indigenous peoples (i.e. Native Americans). Here is a nifty little break down of what we just read.

• 1 Latino

• 5 African-Americans

• 2 Asians

• 10 African-Americans (Though Lupita Nyong'o is actually a Mexican-born Kenyan woman)

• 7 Latinos/Hispanics

• 2 Asians

• 0 Indigenous peoples (AGAIN).

To name a few:
Seriously. So don't come at me with the whole "well there just weren't qualified POCs to play the parts" because it's simply NOT true. White people get the parts, even if the part calls for a POC. And there are several POCs who can pull in a crowd! Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Will Smith, Halle Berry, etc.
It's not that hard guys. They just don't really care about being diverse.
Hence the reasons we should've been boycotting them all along, instead of just this time.

8. 8 People of Colour have won for Best Actor or Best Actress since the start of it all in 1929.

EIGHT.

Now, if you will, please follow me to Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress. This time in Chronological order!

In 1939, Hattie McDaniels became the FIRST African American to win an Oscar. She won for her role as Mammy in "Gone with the Wind."

In 1952, Anthony Quinn became the first Latino/Hispanic to win an Oscar. He won for his role as Eufemio Zapata in "Viva Zapata!"

In 1956, Anthony Quinn won again for his role as Paul Gauguin in "Lust for Life."

In 1957, Miyoshi Umeki became the first Asian woman to win an Oscar. She won for her role as Katsumi in "Sayonara."

In 1961, Rita Moreno became the first Latina/Hispanic woman to win an Oscar. She won for her role as Anita in "West Side Story."

In 1982, Louis Gossett Jr became the first African American man to win an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. He won for his role as Sgt. Emil Foley in "An Officer and a Gentleman."

In 1984, Haing S. Ngor became the first Asian man to win an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. He won for his role as Dith Pran in "The Killing Fields."

In 1989, Denzel Washington won for his role as Pvt. Tripp in "Glory."

In 1990, Whoopi Goldberg won for her role as Oda Mae Brown in "Ghost."

In 1991, Mercedes Ruehl won for her role as Anne in "The Fisher King."

In 1996, Cuba Gooding Jr won for his role as Rod Tidwell in "Jerry Maguire."

In 2000, Benecio del Toro won for his role as Javier Rodriguez in "Traffic."

In 2004, Morgan Freeman won for his role as Eddie 'Scrap-Iron' Dupris in "Million Dollar Baby."

In 2006, Jennifer Hudson won for her role as Effie White in "Dreamgirls."

In 2007, Javier Bardem won for his role as Anton Chigurh in "No Country for Old Men."

In 2008, Penélope Cruz won for her role as Maria Elena in "Vicky Cristina Barcelona."

In 2009, Mo'Nique won for her role as Mary Lee Johnston in "Precious."

In 2011, Octavia Spencer won for her role as Minny Jackson in "The Help."

In 2013, Lupita Nyong'o won for her role as Patsey in "12 Years a Slave."

If you are thinking that 19 people of colour in this category is fine, even though that's 19 out of the past 87 years, you're a jerk.

Break down:

As a comparison: 67 White People have won Oscars for Best Supporting Actor/Actress versus the 19 People of Colour. 67 to 19.

Even better comparison: 79 White People have won Oscars for Best Actor/Actress versus 8 People of Colour.

And don't even get me started on how Hollywood has fucked over the LGBTQIA community while claiming to love them. That's a rant for another day (I'm looking at you "Danish Girl").

Here's what this boils down to, if you really want my opinion (of course you do, that's why you're reading this!):

If you look at the list of Best Supporting Actors/Actresses, the majority of those roles revolve around long held stereotypes against those minorities. That's what Hollywood gives Actors/Actresses of Colour. Stereotypes.

More often than not, you find an Actor/Actress of colour forced into a role that is stereotypical to their particular race. Or you find White actors/actresses who are playing a POC.

Mickey Rooney
Marlon Brando
Robert Downey Jr
Angelina Jolie

A Conversation about Books

I love reading.

Books are my happy place. Always have been. I don't remember a time that being in a book store didn't make me ridiculously giddy.

Except today.

Today being in Barnes and Noble made me angry. It made me angry for a few reasons.

1. The "Men's Interest" section (which I've spoken about before) still has the same set up.
Fishing, hunting, having rock hard abs, half naked women, guns, fast cars. There were no Men of Colour on any of those magazines. Not a single one. This also goes back to the sad societal fact that Men are regarded as cavemen. They are incapable of feeling anything except for raging lust and the desire to kill things. We, as a society, have decided that this is what the definition of Masculinity IS. There is no room for people who are different. Especially if they are of a different ethnicity. Because we like to WHITE WASH everything.

2. The "American History" section.
In this section of the store I counted only 3 or 4 books that were dedicated to People of Colour. And none of them were dedicated to peoples from the Asian continent. One book was on escaped Slave narratives (which ARE important to American History, but ONE is NOT enough!), one book was written by Condoleeza Rice, one was about Rosa Parks and one about a Military Officer's wife during a Crow Indian uprising. I only count that one because it does involve Native peoples. As a book ABOUT Native Peoples... That's debatable. That's it. And the American History shelves were rather large. They could've held a whole shelf dedicated to Civil Rights, Emancipation, Native People's history, etc. Did they? Nope. Not at all.

3. The "Civil War" section.
In this section there were literally NO books on Peoples of Colour. None. And I saw ONE book on Women. That was it. I do believe the Civil War was an integral part of History, but there were more than WHITE MEN involved in that period of Time.

4. The "World History" section.
Basically it was all European history with a smidgen of African history thrown in for good measure. There was a small amount of Middle Eastern history, but almost exclusively in how it correlated to America. Last I checked that was NOT the extent of the World...

5. The Store in General.
I wandered around the store and found very few books that pertained to People of Colour or were written by People of Colour except in the Classics sections... This bothers me. Not just because its all White Washed all the time, but because Authors of Colour write books ALL THE TIME. Not just way back when.

So, I think from now on I'll shop at Second-hand stores or online where I can find variety that isn't completely white washed and only about Men.

#FreeBree

In case you haven't heard, this was a thing...



Bree Newsome, an activist, took matters into her own hands and did a beautiful, brave and AMAZING thing by taking down one of the BIGGEST symbols of racism in America. She's right, we shouldn't have to wait for some White Lawmaker to take it down. We shouldn't have to wait to take down a symbol of tyranny.

#FreeBree #FreeJames #KeepItDown

Not sure who drew this but I'd pay to have it on my wall. Today we witnessed history. #FreeBree pic.twitter.com/oDm8tw4DbO

— Bipartisan Report (@Bipartisanism) June 27, 2015

Non-POC ask often how they can be an ally. James Tyson, who stood at the base of the flag pole as @BreeNewsome climbed. THAT'S an ally.

— April (@ReignOfApril) June 27, 2015

"She needed a superhero so she became one." #FreeBree pic.twitter.com/ifh4FChDot

— Rahiel Tesfamariam (@RahielT) June 27, 2015

Quick Rant.

Quick Rant.
1. Stop trying to demean someone else's experience by saying "Not all police men," "not all men," "not all white people," etc... YES not ALL police officers, men or white people behave a certain way. That is true! However, if you are using it against someone who has experienced something terrible at the hands of *insert person type here* then you are being just as BAD. I'm so tired of seeing people saying "if this officer had been black he would've gotten away with it..." or "would the media have reported about this if a woman had done it?" That's BS and it completely demeans the experiences of people.

2. YES bad things happen to EVERYONE. That is true! Its NOT a contest! No one has had it as bad as you think you have. We're humans. We're never going to fully understand each other because how we experience things is unique to US as INDIVIDUALS. That being said, don't come in and say that a guy who has been molested doesn't understand being raped because he is a guy. That's simply not true. And its not a contest. Stop making it a contest! If we would all just SUPPORT EACH OTHER through the bull instead of trying to make ourselves out to be the bigger victim we'd a bit better off.
3. People just need to stop doing bad things to each other! Seriously. How hard is it to be kind to someone? Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean You have the right to judge!! DON'T JUDGE. We're all just trying to make it in this world. And its a crappy one. So, instead of making it harder on someone else, why don't you mind your own business and just love? Its not you. Just let it go.
End Rant.

Governor Pence and the Road to Discrimination

Hey guys!

Long time, no blog. I've been doing a lot of stuff recently. And by a lot of stuff I mean I've been stressing out and being absolutely lit pissed over things out of my control.

And one of those things is this whole RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) going on in Indiana.

Confession time:
I live in Indiana.

Its a terrible law. Its a terrible thing. There is no actual FREEDOM in this law. None. The writing is so ambiguous that you can pretty much claim Religious freedom to do anything. Technically the laws can't touch you.

Its already being used to defend against child abuse and spousal abuse charges in other states... Just fyi.

And no matter what Governor Dip-Shit (I mean, Pence) says, this was designed to enable Government Approved Discrimination. You know why?

He said that the LGBTQIA community being classified as a protected class of citizen wasn't even ON his priority list. Why? Because he is a bigot.

On Saturday I went (along with at least 3,000 other Hoosiers) to Indianapolis to protest and rally against the signing of this into Law. It was signed into law on Thursday last week.

This is reality, kiddos. This is happening. Its 2015 and the Civil Rights Movement has pretty much been trashed by a law signed IN PRIVATE (because he knew the outrage and then has the AUDACITY to say he didn't know this would negatively impact the state!) by a Bigot.

Welcome to Fucking Indiana.

I live here and I am wanting to #BoycottIndiana.

So, here's what I want you to do:
If you live in Indiana, please use your right to VOTE! This is how these things happen guys. People don't use their VOICES and they get drowned out.

Your vote DOES matter!
It DOES make a difference!
And if you aren't voting, shitty things like this happen. We didn't have enough people who voted (especially in my area) and this asshat got elected. Along with several other people in his party who specifically wrote this bill so that they could push their ANTI-GAY agenda on the state.

Not only that, but please only visit businesses that serve EVERYONE! This is another way to fight back. Don't purchase, endorse or help out businesses that refuse service based on "religious belief."

I am so ashamed to be living in a state that has legalized Bigotry. Seriously, this is fucking pathetic guys.

America was built on Religious FREEDOM for ALL. Not just a few. EVERYONE is supposed to be fucking free under that banner.

We are all created EQUAL.

And if you have to boost your ego/religious beliefs by being shitty and denying equality to someone else, then you are failing at religion.

If there is a God, I hope he isn't anything like the people that fucking follow him.

The Bechdel Test and Manhood.

I always find it so encouraging when Men stand up for the fight against Patriarchy and Rape Culture. It isn't that we need male saviours, it is that we need friends who are willing to back us up in any situation.

I also love that he talked about one of my favorite movies "The Wizard of Oz." (Which passes the Bechdel Test, fyi.)

It is SO empowering to know that you are not standing alone, but that you are standing with other people who know and understand and WANT to help.

I love this.

An End to Poverty

Recently my husband sent me an imgur about how Switzerland was considering a minimum income program.


The point of the minimum income program would be to provide every citizen of Switzerland with $33,600 annually as a way to eliminate the poverty line. Pretty simple right? Sound good? The picture sparked some commentary (which I was also linked to) which, in turn, brought my attention to a program in Canada from the 70's called "Mincome." The project was based in Manitoba and provided families below the poverty line with a minimum, guaranteed, income every month.

I posted the picture (and commentary) to my Facebook page as a way to share with my like-minded friends. Obviously, I have some friends who are not so like-minded. The following is commentary made by my friend (LG) and myself.

LG: The problem with this is we have tried this in various forms, and people tend not to appreciate what they get for free: hence the vandalism, wasting of food and resources etc. I do believe in some forms of public assistance, but people in general need to feel they're contributing something to society, however little. Look around at the epidemic of children in this country who have no input from their fathers, financially nor emotionally. Herein lies much of the cause.

Myself: I would have to politely disagree. The problem isn't that children have no input from their fathers (mine has been non-existent in my life for almost 13 years and I feel no need, nor desire, to vandalize) or even that people feel the need to vandalize and take advantage. The problem is people not being able to LIVE.

If the government had caused the acceleration of minimum wage to coincide with the rise in average cost for goods and production we might see less of a problem. However, because the cost of services, food, medicine, etc, has risen dramatically while the amount of money flowing into the average working man's pocket has stayed at a pitiful (dare I say, negligible) amount, we are left in a flux.

I see nothing wrong with the Government (by the people and FOR the people) taking care of its People. The fact that the Government would rather spend literally Trillions on Military and on a war that was supposed to only last a "couple of months" (I am quoting Vice President Dick Cheney there) instead of providing affordable health care, food, better Education (we're ranked so abysmally on the World Wide scores that it is rather disgusting) and affordable birth control (so that there were less Children starving and without homes/families) is an absolute travesty.

The other problem is that we have a lack of proper education to show just how truly ignorant we've been of how the rest of the world works.

Places like Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, etc. have been putting time and effort into their People so that Sweden is shutting down an astonishing amount of their prisons because there aren't any criminals to fill them. Canada has higher prices, but better health care. So much so that Americans sometimes go to Canada to receive the health care they need! Denmark is the HAPPIEST country in the WORLD. In the WORLD! South Korea and Finland out rank us in Math, Science and English. 

The cause of our problem(s), is this: Our Government has become one that would rather waste tax dollars regulating women's bodies than protecting citizens from guns (I am pro-gun and pro-regulation), become one that believes that a Corporation can have Religious Rights (last I checked, Corporations aren't people) and We The People are the ones suffering. They are still getting the money they need to waste. They are still getting fed. They are still getting to make all the decisions for people that they don't even know and don't care to know.

That is the cause of our problem(s). The government has been completely warped from what it was intended to be.


Want more info on Project Mincome?

• http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20%282%29.pdf
• http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100
• http://archive.irpp.org/po/archive/jan01/hum.pdf

When is Rape Okay?

When I was a little girl (and later, as a teenager) I was violated, sexually. Not quite the same way as rape, it never went quite that far (though there is a question about that when I was very small and have no recollection), but it was still without my consent and therefore a form of rape. Part of the problem is not knowing when to say "No" and part of the problem is that we all seem to be under this delusion that just because there wasn't a "No" means its a "Yes."

Another, far larger, part of the problem is that some of us seem to be under the impression that its okay to force someone to do something sexual; even if they say no.

What are we teaching our children about Rape? Are we talking about how wrong it is? Are we saying it is NEVER okay? That just because she didn't say no, doesn't mean she said yes? Apparently we aren't saying enough because below are the answers Teenagers are giving in response to my question. Not just teenage boys, either. Teenage girls are saying this too! Are we really existing in a time when 31% of our daughters believe they deserve to be raped if they were going have sex with their partner, but changed their minds?

The Morals of Incest.

If two consenting adults engage in sexual activity should said sexual activity be, in any way, be regulated or controlled by the government?

If said consenting adults were brother and sister (brother and brother or sister and sister), should their relationship be regulated by the government?

That is the question that came into my head after I stumbled upon a video featured on the Huffington Post website about a German couple, brother and sister, who fell in love and have four children together. The brother is currently appealing his jail sentence for incest and his lawyer kept saying how he couldn't believe that in this day and age we were still having to fight over two consenting adults being allowed to engage in a sexual relationship.

This brought up so many other questions for me as well... Questions regarding sexual freedom, the meaning of consent, the choices we make, etc.

I read an article once, whether it was based on fact or fiction I don't know, about fraternal twin brothers who had fallen in love with each other. They had been trying to date other men and had been trying to stay away from each other because they believed what they were doing was wrong. But they couldn't stop being in love with each other. So they asked the question "What should we do?"

Is there morality in something like incest? Why do we even believe it is wrong? It can't be from the Bible, because many famous couples, including Abram and Sarai, were brother and sister. Incest was actually something to keep bloodlines "pure."

But then you have to ask yourself, where do we draw the lines for these things? Sexuality isn't finite. It is infinite in scope, desires, etc. Is it wrong for the government to control a couple who is in love, of age and consenting?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/patrick-stuebing-susan-karolewski-incest-germany_n_1420107.html

A Feminist.

Alternate title: How becoming a feminist completely turned my world upside down.

Despite all the religious stifling/brainwashing when I was growing up, I still managed to hang on to my core belief that women should be treated as equals.

In spite of all the abuse and the attempted crushing of my spirit, I have come out on top.

And I have come out a feminist.

However, something that a lot of people don't seem to realize is that, being a feminist doesn't make me a man hater. It doesn't make me a Lesbian. It doesn't change anything about me. I'm still Sarai. I've always been this way, it was just buried.

Being a feminist is about equality. Not just women's rights, but rights as a whole. Everyone's rights. The right to choose, the right to love, the right to be who YOU are. That's something a lot of women have forgotten.

We're not fighting so that our daughters will be free, though that is part of it. We are fighting to show our sons that they don't have to be threatened by a strong woman and that being strong isn't always about who is dominate.

We crush our men. We crush their emotions into a powder, because crying is too 'feminine.' We mutilate their bodies, without their permission, and then tell them to suck it up, get over it. We tell them it isn't possible for them to be raped because they aren't a woman. It isn't possible for them to be abused by a woman because that somehow degrades them. Its wrong for a man to be smart, to be intelligent, etc. Its wrong for him to express anything other than sexual desire or anger. And even anger is supposed to be suppressed.

We've created this image of a man that has to be brave, powerful, idealistically masculine. What is masculinity?

The dictionary defines masculinity as 'The quality or condition of being masculine. Something traditionally considered to be characteristic of a male.' And we, as a collective societal whole, have turned this into being tough, not crying, not saying 'I love you.' We've turned it into suppression. We've turned it into something so twisted.

But we, as women, want a man who can open up, one who can express himself. Then we turn around and tell him to "man up," "be a man," "grow a pair," etc. We are just as guilty of tearing the male gender down as the rest of the Patriarchy.

We, as women, destroy our sons, our brothers, our husbands, etc. We claim to want them to be able to "open up" and be vulnerable, but we take that vulnerability and turn it against them. I've watched my girlfriends do this to their husbands. I've listened to them brag about the verbal guttings.

There is no equality if we are still denying it to someone else.

Take a moment to read this article and watch the video. I, personally, can't wait for this movie to come out. I want to start working on building up not just my own gender, but the Male gender. I want to help our Men get back to being themselves, not the idealistic "male" we have tried to shoehorn them into being.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/54105/the-one-thing-all-men-feel-but-never-admit

The One and Only

Has anyone seen the newest Cheerio commercial? It is one of the most precious commercials I've ever seen. It features a beautiful little girl (with the most amazing hair!) and her mom talking about the heart health of Cheerios. The little girl then runs off and dumps a bunch on her father's chest, because she wants his heart to be healthy.



Now, did you see anything wrong with that commercial?

No?

Neither did I. But apparently a bunch of people did.

I get really tired of blogging about how ignorant and racist people are. I get really tired of seeing it all over my computer screen. I get tired of hearing about the evils of immigration and the evils of gay sex and the evils of interracial relationships.

You know what I see when I watch that commercial? A little girl that loves her Daddy so much she wants him to be healthy. I don't see color, I don't see who her parents are. I see a child who loves their parent.

Its exhausting, sometimes. Standing up when everyone seems to have glued themselves to their seats. Seriously, this is 2013! GROW UP! We're not our ancestors, trapped in the muck and mire of hatred and ignorance. We are the NEW AGE. We are the FUTURE.

Its sad times when a Hispanic kid is told to "#gohome" simply because he is Hispanic. No one seems to care that he was born HERE and raised HERE. We see his skin and say "He's illegal."

We have a black president and everyone is up in arms about every little thing he does, even though the presidents before him did the same damn thing. You know why? Because he's Black and Bush was white. And even though the majority of people I know HATED Bush, they say Obama is awful and Bush was better and blah blah fucking blah!

I'm OVER it.

GROW THE FUCK UP PEOPLE!

Slammed

THIS is what I'm talking about!

Will I ever be pretty?

I wanted to write about something meaningful. Something interesting and provocative. The reality is I rarely know what I'm going to write before I do it. So this is a conglomeration of everything running through my brain.

Recently there has been a lot of uproar over comments made by the President of Abercrombie & Fitch about why they don't provide plus sizes. For those out of the loop he said (and I quote):
"In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids. Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely."

One of the articles I read said that they were clinging to a "standard" of beauty.

The truth of the matter is, that it has only been in recent years that skinnier was seen as a "standard." In fact, it used to be that if you were smaller than a size ten something was wrong with you. That isn't to say that the "standard" hasn't fluctuated over time (it has, quite a bit). Because of this fluctuation it can't really be called a "standard." It is a variable.

Beauty is variable.


The persistent desire to be completely inside out and accepted, despite the secrets and sins, is overwhelming sometimes. Everyone wants to be seen as they are, completely exposed with nothing hidden, and be loved anyway. We all want to be beautiful, considered beautiful anyway.

As a little girl I wanted to be a man. I still wish I was, sometimes. I wanted to be a man because God would love me, even if I liked girls. I would be handsome. I could pee standing up. I wanted to be a man because men held all the power. They could be ugly, they could be fat, they could be anything they wanted and they would be catered to.

People like those who work for Abercrombie & Fitch helped with that. Men are dominant. They can be any size and still find things they want.

When I was a teenager I saw it this way:
Skinny girls - loved by fat guys and skinny guys.
Skinny guys - loved by fat girls and skinny girls.
Fat guys - loved by skinny girls and fat girls.
Fat girls - No one loves a fat girl, not even the fat girl.

I am not a standard. I am a variable. As a variable I am worthless, except in mathematics. It doesn't matter how well read I am, or how great conversations with me are. It doesn't matter if I am sweet or cute. I'm not loved because of those things. I am hated because this body is heavy.

That doesn't mean that I won't find sex. My grandmother Eileen once told my mother (and she shared it with me) that men will crawl on broken glass if they think they will get to have sex. Some men will have sex with heavier girls because we have low self-esteem. And how could we not? So we become a plaything. A toy to be used up and thrown away because we will never be the current definition of beautiful.

I walk into a store and all I feel is self-loathing.

I hate shopping. I hate it because fat women aren't supposed to look pretty. Everything you find is to guilt you into losing weight because you are ugly and a waste of space. I get tired of that. I try to lose weight, but it just doesn't come off. It is tiring, being told you aren't good enough and having people insist that you HAVE to be beautiful (skinny, perfect hair, big boobs, etc.) to be perfect. What about being perfectly IMPERFECT?

What about what lies at the core of us?

Beauty is only skin deep. There is truth in that saying.

All my dreams of being skinny, all my dreams of being beautiful. They all come down to a desire to be accepted. To be taken as I am. Inside out, exposed to the world and embraced in spite of the differences.

Even I am prejudiced against people with weight problems. I don't watch porn with heavy women. I am not attracted to women who are heavy. I look at a heavier woman and I feel pity for her. I feel pity for her because I feel pity for myself.

I look at women my size and I feel a modicum of hatred for them. A hatred for them because they mirror me. I hate myself. I hate the way I look. I hate who I am. I am smart. I am a decent conversationalist. I fancy myself to be a decent writer. But I am not beautiful.

I am not pretty. And even though I listen to Katie Makkai's "Pretty" I can't break out of this circle I've twisted myself in. I cry when I listen to her say "You will be PRETTY amazing, you will be PRETTY creative, You will never be merely pretty." I cry because I want to be more than merely pretty. I want to be more than a variable in a river of standards.

I want to be unafraid of being who I am. I want to believe that I could be loved by another man. I want to believe it when my husband tells me I am beautiful. I want to feel it. I want to KNOW it.

You look pretty up on Google and you get pictures of Megan Fox and Hayden Panettiere. You get women who seem impossibly skinny. Women with perfect breasts and they can count their ribs.

I will never be the definition of pretty. I'll always be a variable, even if I lost the weight. Even if I had the surgeries. Even if I made myself fit into the standard.

Something is lost in all that. The "pretty" I was is lost in the shuffle. The "me" I was is gone. And I'll never be pretty because of that.

Hermaphroditus

"Sleeping Borghese Hermaphroditus" at the Louvre Museum in France.

Historical/Mythological Note: Hermaphroditus was the child of Hermes and Aphrodite, the Goddess of Love and the God of War. He/She was a symbol of Bisexuality and Effeminacy. A beautiful woman with the genitals and vigor of a man. He/She was believed to bless marriages.

"But there are some who declare that such creatures of two sexes are monstrosities,"
-Diodorus Siculus; "Bibliotheca historica"

Whilst I was arguing Circumcision and "Rape Culture" with my brother, the topic of hermaphrodites came up. He asked me what I would do in that case (since I was clearly arguing against cutting my son in anyway that was unnecessary to his health and well-being), would I choose a gender for my child?

My answer was no. I would not pick a gender for my child. I would want them to be able to grow up, learn who they are, decide who THEY want to be, not who I want them to be.

He said there would be a stigma against my child. My child would be teased, bullied, harassed, etc. I came back with children make fun of, tease, bully and harass each other, genitals really won't change that. Even so, I still wouldn't change them.

There is too much up to chance in that situation. What if my child was meant to be a man and I opted for a vagina? What if the child was meant to be a woman and I opted for a penis? How is that fair? I've doomed my child to a life of wondering... A life of "who am I really?"

What right do I have to mutilate or change or erase my child's body? Is it my body?
What right do I have to alter what has been given to me? What right do I have to change one beautiful thing about a child born to me?

Who cares if they have one genitalia or another? Who cares if they are white or black or tan? Who cares if their eyes are blue or green? Who cares as long as they are HEALTHY? Who cares as long as they are HAPPY? Who am I to dictate what they do with THEIR body? To dictate WHO and WHAT they become?

When they are grown up, I would want them to say "My mother taught me to embrace who I am, with arms wide open. My mother taught me to embrace the different, the beautiful, the odd, the old and the young. My mother taught me to LOVE myself for WHO I am, not for what BODY I have. I am MORE than a body. I am MORE than a penis or a vagina. I am MORE than the names I was called. My mother let me decide WHO and WHAT I wanted to be. I choose who I am, not my mother."

The Cut

Recently I was linked to an article, posted on the website "Barrel of Oranges," about Rape. The title intrigued me, as I'm sure it would just about anyone (good on you, Barrel of Oranges!), because of the simplicity of it.

"Teaching my 2 year old how not to rape" is what it said. I was intrigued because of the idea behind it. The idea that we have to teach our children not to harm others. The idea that if we don't teach them not to harm, someone else will to teach them how to harm. The idea kind of blindsided me and I realized I had to read the article.

If you are interested in reading it for yourself here is the link:
http://barreloforanges.com/2013/03/24/teaching-my-2-year-old-how-not-to-rape/

Surprisingly, however, it wasn't her views on rape that astounded me. It was what I read about circumcision. She doesn't hide her opinion on the matter. Its right there in the first paragraph. It jolted me a bit, because I've never really thought about circumcision. At least, not as in depth as I did after reading a couple of her other posts on the topic.

I grew up in church. The majority of the people that know me (or have read a few of my rants) know this. I was taught that circumcision (of male genitalia) is required by God. I don't know why, actually. I never really understood why it mattered whether or not the foreskin was cut off of a man's junk. In fact, for the longest time I had NO idea what a foreskin even was. I had never seen an uncircumcised penis, actually. Not that I had seen very many penises at that time anyway.

But the Bible is FULL of verses on Circumcision and how men are to be circumcised. Even Abraham got circumcised at the ripe old age of ninety-nine (Genesis 17:24). What I do know is that God believed it was a valid part of a covenant between himself and Abraham (its been a while since I picked up my Bible). He even says so in Genesis. If you want specifics, chapter 17:10-11.

I've also always believed that circumcision was healthier for a man than remaining uncircumcised. Something that I discovered, upon researching, isn't entirely true. I thought that a man received more sexual pleasure if he was circumcised versus uncircumcised. However, circumcision comes down to aesthetics more than health and sexual pleasure. And, often times, it can be botched.

Now, if you had asked me about female circumcision I would've told you that it was genital mutilation. There is no aesthetic or enhanced sexual pleasure to female circumcision. It is purely to mutilate to the point that a woman no longer feels enjoyment or pleasure from sex, keeping her faithful to her husband. It is also so that a man remains "undisturbed" by the natural shape of a female sex, or her being "over-sexed." I remember being horrified as a kid reading an article on the topic by Waris Dirie, a Somalian actress and model, who had been "circumcised" at the tender age of five.

But the post by Barrel of Oranges made me think. It made me consider a few things.

Recently my god-daughter, who is 3, got a hold of a pair of scissors and cut off a decent portion of her hair (think Sinead O'Connor). Obviously, her mom was freaking out. This beautiful child, however, was not upset and told her mother that it was "perfect." I didn't "fight" with her mother, but I did tell her that if the child wants to cut off all her hair that is her right. It is HER body, not her mother's. She should be able to express herself however she wants. If she thinks she is beautiful, I want her to believe that. I want her to grow up believing that no matter what she is beautiful because she LOVES how she looks and fuck anyone who doesn't think so.

The belief that it is her body and that her mother shouldn't interfere is something I had never considered when it comes to circumcision.

The absence of a "no," doesn't automatically mean "yes."

Why would I cut off healthy, living, tissue from my son's penis just because I think circumcised is more attractive? He has no way of agreeing to this and I am doing irreparable damage to his body. Circumcision is permanent. I can't go back later and let him undo it. There is NO going back from that. And I would want my child to decide what they want. Not what I want.

My husband is circumcised. And yes, I prefer the look compared to uncircumcised. After reading up on it, doing some research and thinking very carefully about body rights, I have decided that if I ever had a son, I would never circumcise him. I would let him decide when he was old enough to understand what he was doing.

I had the audacity to ask an adult male (that I had a crush on) if he was "cut" or "uncut." I remember his being appalled at the idea of being "uncut." As if that was a disgusting thing. Why is a piece of flesh disgusting?

We can argue aesthetics all day long. I don't find penises particularly attractive to begin with, so it would be easy for me to say I prefer my husband's. It would be easy to say that the only other penis I have ever found attractive was Yul Brynner's and he was uncircumcised. Either can be beautiful. Either can be perfect. It is a matter of opinion.

What isn't up for debate, at least where I am concerned, is the ethics of it. Is it ethical to remove healthy tissue from a healthy penis without the consent of the patient? No matter how young? Is it ethical to alter someone else's body without their permission, just because they won't "remember" or because we find it more "aesthetically pleasing?" I don't think it is.

Let my child remain uncut. Let them decide when they are old enough to understand it. Let them decide what to do with their body. They only receive one in this lifetime and who am I to tell them what to do with it?

My question for my male friends/readers is this:
* What are your thoughts?
* Are you circumcised? Uncircumcised?
* If you are circumcised, do you wish you hadn't been? Are you comfortable as you are?
* If you are uncircumcised, do you wish you had been? Do you prefer being "uncut?"

Stoplights are a Go.

I was on StumbleUpon (one of my favorite websites) and came across this concept for a new stoplight. I find the idea intriguing and think it would help with traffic quite a bit, because you'll know exactly how much time is being spent while at a stoplight.



The concept is simple as you can see. The hourglass shows how much 'sand' is left before the color changes. In the case of a yellow light it shows you how much time is left before you are either able to go or how much time you have to stop.

However, this thought on time swiftly followed the traffic lights leaving me wondering if traffic lights that show how time runs out would be a good idea after all?



I can't imagine life without time. I can't imagine not having an i-phone or a clock or a computer somewhere near by to tell me what time of day it is. What did our ancestors do before they began marking the passing of time with sundials? Did they worry over all the things we worry over now? Did they imagine their time, their lives, slipping like sand through a vast hourglass, slowly disappearing?

We have a tendency to see time as a finite thing. A thing that ends. And it does, in a sense. For all of us the clock will eventually cease to tick, the sand cease to fall, the sun cease to set. We end, therefore, for us, time ends.

Time however is immeasurable. It is like taffy, pulled out into endless ropes of forever. It pulls further and further. We do not have the capability to even begin to comprehend the infinite amount of time there is stretching out before us. Yawning out like a black chasm, an endlessly long tunnel.

I think that makes it scary. Time will go on. Life will go on. We won't. We will end. Everything ends. But even after everything is gone, there will still be time. In the abyss of everything there will always be time.

A Fool, A Day

I should know better than to argue with fools. Especially on the day of Fools. Does this day give them super powers or just make them EXTRA stupid? Just curious.

If being Liberal is wrong, then I willingly embrace it. Last I checked believing in the Freedom of the Individual didn't make me a Satanist or a Liberal Pig. It made me a human being!

Why do we put labels on ourselves? Why do we feel the need to do that? It makes no sense to me. We are all HUMAN. What labels are needed? What does it matter what I believe and what I don't?

I'm not sorry that I believe in Equal Rights and I don't understand how that makes me wicked.

I'm not sorry that I believe EVERYONE should have the right to Health Care, Education, Marriage, Religion, etc. And I don't understand how that can be so wrong. I don't think I'll ever understand. I don't think I WANT to understand. I want to continue believing in what I believe is right.

I see nothing wrong with being who you are in the supposed "Land of the Free." You know, the one that says I have the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the Pursuit of HAPPINESS?

Bisexual Bias

The following is my response to an article written by a student at Indiana University. You can read the article for yourself at:
http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=90666

Dear Sir,
In regards to your article "Bisexual bias" in the IDS, I would like to say a few things.

"I’ve had a saying for a few years now. Bisexuals are like unicorns. You really want them to exist. But they just don’t."
1. Comparing a bisexual person to unicorns is mostly, if not entirely, ridiculous.
There are many cases in which unicorns can have existed, thus leading one to believe that you are saying bisexual homo sapiens do, in fact, exist.

Examples: If we were to go completely old school Biblical on the matter, if you are one who believes in the Bible, you would find there are several verses involving the unicorn. This might lead one to believe that you were saying that bisexuals at one time existed, but don't any longer. For your in-depth research (which I am sure you did for your article) verses involving unicorns can be found in the KJV Bible, said verses being: Numbers 23:22, Job 39:9, Psalms 29:6, Job 39:10, Numbers 24:8 and Psalms 92:10.

Or, if you don't believe in the Bible, we can look at the Narwhal, oft considered the Unicorn of the Sea or any other animal with one horn.
    *The word "unicorn" stems from early 13th century Old French "unicorne" and from Late Latin "unicornus" meaning, quite literally, "having one horn." Uni- meaning "one" plus cornus meaning "horn." If we go with this, that means that anything having one horn is considered a unicorn, making them quite real in the etymological sense of the word.

I'm sure, however, that you meant them in the purely fairy tale sense of the word, being a horse with a lion's tail, a single horn protruding from its head and a billy goat's beard (or, if you prefer, Pliny's version: a creature with a horse's body, deer's head, elephant's feet, lion's tail, and one black horn two cubits long projecting from its forehead). Or maybe you meant it in the allegorical sense, which was used as a tool by the Christians to teach morals. Such morals being that a Unicorn can only be tamed by a virgin (virgin in almost any sense of that word), the Unicorn being Christ in certain tales. And dire consequences for those who pretended to be virgin as they were skewered on the horn of the beast. That doesn't seem to fit quite as neatly as your original simile, but if we're talking of backwards philosophies it seems to fit quite nicely.

"It’s very difficult in our society to believe in something as free-spirited as bisexuality."
2. It also seems very difficult, in our society, to believe in Love and Marriage being uninhibited by things such as age, sexual preferences, gender, race, religion, etc. Love is apparently tethered to concrete ideas and laws. "Free-spirited" makes it sound as though it is a childish thing. Sexuality isn't an idea that we follow, like the Flower Power movement. Sexuality is not Hippies in the summer of '69. It is a deep and personal thing, grounded in one's sense of self. It is something we all find inside of ourselves. It is longing to be with another person in the most intimate way, sharing bodies and things that no one wants to talk about because they are "shameful."  And that longing is not restrained by your narrow view of the world.

"it’s threatening. For heterosexuals and homosexuals, we have to contend with only being attracted to half of the population. Those odds aren’t terrific. For someone who’s bisexual, the world is their genital oyster. It’s actually a very picturesque image. Men, women, who cares? I’m attracted to everyone."
3. I don't understand this part at all. You say it is threatening, bisexuality that is, but don't explain how it is threatening. How does bisexuality threaten your sexuality in any way? Truly, I'm curious. Explain to me, without Biblical or personal biases, how Bisexuality is threatening in any way, shape or form. You then say that the world is a "genital oyster." That is, not only, a vile pictorial image, but also shows just how little you understand about sexuality in general.

Yes, sexuality does, often involve, genitalia. However, there is so much more to sexuality than just sex. Sexuality is a strong basic instinct, a need, a desire, an attraction. It involves emotions and physical sensations. It can be impacted by the atmosphere one grows up in. It will never leave you. It is a key part of one's identity.

You make it sound almost as if sex meant nothing except, simply, getting one's rocks off. As if a bisexual is a selfish or greedy being for being attracted to more than one sex. Bisexuality is an attraction to either gender, that is true. But often the attraction is deeper than sexual. One can be attracted to anyone; beyond their gender, religion, sexual preferences, age, race, cultural background, etc. And what one finds sexually attractive doesn't even have to be human. There are those who are sexually attracted a person's mind or even inanimate objects. Wherever humans are involved there is no strict definition for sexuality. No strict definition for anything. We are more than the limits placed on us by other, simpler, creatures.

You say that "Those odds aren't terrific" when speaking of being "only" attracted to half of the population. Being attracted to only a man or only a woman isn't terrible. The odds are fine. In fact, when did odds even enter the picture? You make it sound like a race. As if we are all in a race with one another to see who is more attracted to who. It isn't a race. It isn't a game. There are no "odds." There are only people. People who love and hate, create and destroy, write good articles and shitty ones.

"Now, I am not bisexual."
4. Clearly.

"I also can’t assert assurance on things like Bigfoot, John F. Kennedy’s assassination or the contention of Jesus’ divinity."
5. I cannot say, with certainty that Bigfoot does or does not exist. JFK was, in fact, assassinated, though by whom is still up for debate. And whilst Jesus did exist, I cannot say with certainty that he was divine. However, I also can't say with certainty when we will die. I can't say that Coca Cola is the superior of all carbonated beverages. Nothing in this life is particularly certain. Truth is defined by who is looking at it, not by what it actually is.

"The real issue has to do with the male psyche and sexuality."
6. Yes, yes it does. At last, something we agree on! It DOES have to do with the Male psyche and sexuality. Men are generally insecure about their sexuality, no matter their preferences. Everything about sex makes one insecure. The length and width of his organ, whether he is doing well, how quickly he can reach orgasm, etc. Men are generally quite insecure with anything having to do with their own emotions and their being as well. I have yet to meet a man who is completely secure with being emotionally honest. Does that mean that he doesn't exist somewhere? Does that mean I am going to have to start writing wildly inaccurate articles on male emotions?

"The same notion just doesn’t extend to heterosexual women. You’d be hard pressed to find a straight woman finding the same sexual stimulation from watching two men go at it."
7. You, sir, clearly have never met a woman willing to talk about being aroused by two men "going at it" as you so delicately put it. I myself enjoy watching two men fornicate, kiss, etc. I find it arousing when a man kisses another man. The funny thing is that you would be "hard pressed" to find a straight woman who is NOT aroused by two men having sexual intercourse. There are numerous articles you can find about straight female arousal whilst watching male on male pornography, but I'm assuming you didn't actually try to find any. Your whole article suggests a lack of study on the topic at hand.

To quote a poster on one of the response brought up by my searches: "What I find hilarious, is that so many straight men assume that women don't find it erotic, just because THEY [men] don't."

"But after years of men grind stoning women’s sexuality to the fine powder it is today, why should anyone be the wiser? Two women going at it? Crack a beer and enjoy. Two men going at it? Ultimate party foul. It’s typically pretty hard to party once the gay bomb drops."
8. I don't understand that first sentence at all. "But after years of men grind stoning women's sexuality to the fine powder it is today," what does that even mean? Did you even edit this before posting it to such a public forum? And what do you mean by "grind stoning women's sexuality"?

Two women are having sex with one another and this is suddenly a party? Do men do that? They all get together and watch lesbian porn whilst drinking beer? Someone puts in a gay porno and then all bets are off? "Gay bomb?" Truly, your word choice is ridiculously childish.

"I can’t begin to believe in bisexuality in a society where men’s sexuality isn’t nearly as fluid as women’s."
9. The problem with men's sexuality being fluid has nothing to do with whether or not bisexuality exists, but lies (once again) with the male psyche. Men seem to have this preconceived notion that it is unacceptable for them to be bisexual. Out of all the homosexual and heterosexual men I have met it comes down to this idea that they have to choose. That there is no "this" and "that." It is all "this" OR "that." It astounds me, actually, the number of men who find some other men attractive, but won't do anything with that attraction because they also find women attractive. That is definitely a problem with today's society, you are correct on that part. Society says it is totally wrong to think or exist outside of the sexuality box it has created for us.

"Recently in Hollywood, loads of successful women have come out as bisexual."
10. Hollywood is DEFINITELY a good place to look for reality and facts. Plenty of people will say whatever it takes to become famous or to have the spotlight shine a bit brighter on them. That doesn't make it fact.

"But the future may be bright. Frank Ocean is one example of a successful man who’s admitted to having a relationship with a man."
11. I find it sad that the final breath of your article is a sarcastic, and pithy, "Men in the limelight aren't bisexual so no one can be bisexual."

I am a bisexual woman. I am proud of my sexuality and who I am as a person. I have a loving husband and a wonderful girlfriend. I can't imagine going through my life without either of them. There is more to my being attracted to them than their gender. More to my love for them than their genitalia. Its people like yourself, that raise the banners of prejudice and bias against what you don't understand and don't bother to understand.

sincerely,
Sarai.

Pretty.

You will be "pretty" intelligent! You will be "pretty" creative! You will be "pretty" AMAZING! But you will NEVER be merely "pretty."

Lair of the Unicorn

So... Apparently North Korea has discovered a "unicorn lair" that may have once belonged to the King Tongmyong.

How did they discover this amazing find of the century? A very helpful rectangular rock with the words "unicorn lair" carved into its face. How helpful! Why didn't this get discovered sooner? I mean, unicorns should be important to anyone's country! We should all be looking for secret "unicorn lairs" for the good of our history and culture! I mean, having grown up a girl (against my will), I know just how important unicorns are to the world!

They are symbols of purity and virginity, which is why if you are a 'ho' you shouldn't go near one because they've been said to run you through with that horn of theirs. They are status symbols of wealth and prosperity. They are symbols of strength and magnificence.

All things that North Korea needs to prove that they are, in fact, the best country in the world.

I'm off to look for my own unicorn lair, feel free to read the following article discussing this amazing and transcendental find! Good on you, N. Korea.

http://news.sky.com/story/1019118/north-korea-researchers-find-unicorn-lair