Of Abortion and Women

Just imagine that those cuffs are made of coat-hangers and fear

 I have recently come to the assertion that one of the key aspects of fundamental Christian behavior (and often all patriarchal religions in general) is an inherent dislike for females; so much so that it has become a cultural facet of Christina life. Women are not to be trusted, or given power, especially over their own bodies. This belief is taken to the extreme in fundamental Islam, but that's another post. Women in Christian societies are not equal citizens, as indicated by their position in that society, and can be easily illustrated in American society. Women still earn only about 82% (granted, it's a significant increase from what it used to be, but only because of legislation) of what men do, and often because they are relegated to low-paying jobs in the service industry. This is well-known and has been discussed for decades, and is getting better. However, there are still several strong indicators for the supposed inferiority of women in our (mostly) Christian American culture.

The big one is the recent spate of legislation concerning the reproductive rights of females. Despite the complete lack of anything in the Bible regarding the immorality of abortion (though apologist do work hard at nit-picking verses to show that God theoretically disproves of abortions), Christians have gone to great lengths to make it as difficult as possible for women to control their pregnancies, even through rape. Some of these laws require invasive (and unnecessary)  procedures before an abortion will even be considered, and even banning before a women might even know she's pregnant. Not only is this a ridiculous and unconstitutional invasion of a woman's vagina rights, it's it's hypocritical and a huge double standard.
The Bible DOES specifically look down on men "wasting their seed" either through pulling-out or masturbation, but when is the last time you heard of a law that bans or restricts either one of those activities in America? Of course there have been things said about masturbation over the years, and a few sickening contraptions aimed to keep the penis at bay, but much of that thinking went away with the Victorian era. Men have been freed to do with their sexual organs as they please, as long as it's with a woman and she (mostly) consents, and no one can say anything as long as no one sees you. My Penis, My Decision.

The Christian capacity for denying women rights is not constricted to Catholicism and Evangelicalism, I see plenty of it right here in Utah, the center of Mormonism and the Mormon population. At BYU, women are constantly shamed, confronted, and turned in to the Honor Code office for dressing inappropriately, i.e. creating the potential for enthralling the male imagination. This is blatant sexual harassment. I have read and heard countless complaints from people who have seen or women who have been treated like scum for filling out a pair of pants a little too well, or wearing a skirt so disturbingly high that it reveals that salacious "dark hollow" at the--back of the knee. I suppose that these things are bound to happen when you put 30,000 sexually repressed students on the same campus, no matter their level of religious commitment. But the problems are much worse than simple sexual harassment. Rape has been a notorious problem near and on the campus, a problem that is often quietly swept under the rug; Honor Code violations are routinely ignored for male athletes unless it is made public, and women are generally treated as second-class citizens within the church structure as a whole. The wearing pants by women in church has caused scandal enough, but if you start talking about women having the priesthood, the rhetoric gets prickly.
The position of women in the LDS religion is somewhere below men and somewhere above eternal brood mare, granted that woman actually gets into A #1 heaven, the only place you can still be married and have eternal life with your husband--and all his other wives, while he can go off and make planets for you to populate with his other wives' children. Sounds like a good deal to me, but I'm male. Being male in the Mormon church means wielding the power and authority of the priesthood, the control of the organization, and eternal polygamy. Being a woman in the church means getting the right to marry a man in the church and have his children. Yippee.

Now, I wouldn't consider myself a women's-rights activist, but I do believe that a lot of lines have been crossed by the Christian philosophy concerning a woman's body. It seems to me that via the Christian world view, a woman's body is not their own, but rather an object or device for creating children to further God's glory, especially if that woman is poor, ethnic, or conservative. It appears that anything regarding sex is int he hands of a group of old white men and a couple bitter old biddies that don't want people to enjoy the freedom of sexuality, it's expression or ramifications. This is utterly wrong in every way I can imagine, and will eventually cause social stagnation or upheaval. Women need to be treated as equal citizens, and I don't care how much these pasty old misogynists don't like it.
 As for my own views on the subject of abortion: I do not advocate taking lightly such a difficult decision; however, it is not my body, therefore not my decision to make. It's that simple to me.

You're tearing me apart, love!

In lieu of a better title, I'm choosing this altered quote from an infamously bad movie, not just because it's funny, but I'll probably get more hits that way. Sorry for the subterfuge.

So I've been considering what have been the biggest problems facing the social fabric of our wonderful country for as long as I have politically interested in it (about ten years, give or take), and I have come to some sort of conclusion. It isn't the evolution of the modern family, changing (and defying) gender roles, or the acceptance of lifestyles other than that of white republicans that are tearing apart this country. Amazingly, it's the opposite. Attempts at institutionalized discrimination, hatred, fear, are what have been pulling at the frayed seams. Two consenting (see: over 18 and of sound mind) adults of the same gender loving each other hardly merit the downfall of Western civilization, neither do kids growing up in the home of said consenting adults.
The backlash and vitriol concerning the conservative stranglehold on  morality, disguised as a fight for "traditional values," has only increased in tempo and volume recently; this is due, in my opinion anyway, to the decreasing appeal of the Republican party in general. The newest attack on living an alternative lifestyle, which apparently is going to rend this country apart, is the reversal of gender roles in the home. Working mothers, stay-at-home dads, and even (gasp!) single parent households are further destroying the conservative notion of the "traditional" family. As if marriage equality wasn't bad enough, these shuttered-minded pundits declare that no good comes from women bringing home the majority (or all) of the bacon. Fox's own Megyn Kelly had a few things to say about her colleagues comments.
Not all the news about our social welfare (in the sense that it concerns us as a society) has been negative. A few more states have gone the way of more inclusive equality standards, Rhode Island, Delaware and Minnesota have all passed successful legislation, and Illinois is close. In my own discriminatory state, I attended the very popular Pride Festival, and saw no outward forms of protest all weekend (not that they didn't exist, they just weren't noticeable). On the radio, I've been hearing Macklemore's marriage equality ballad "Same Love" quite regularly.
No matter how much hate and fear is spread on the internet, I believe that equality (in marriage, anyway) will win out, as it is supported by love. All I can think about when I hear the tired arguments about how gay marriage will destroy straight "traditional" marriage, is that they are the same arguments used to support slavery, segregation, and miscegenation. Not to mention keeping down women, other races, religions, etc. Hate just doesn't work in bringing people together forever.

Shocked and Appalled? Not so much

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Hetero- Homo- Bi- or Omnisexual?

There's one thing I can't quite understand about this country, and that is its obsession with others' sexual identities. Every time a celebrity comes out of the closet, interest skyrockets momentarily, but is nowhere the constant buzz that occurs around those suspected of being gay. Sometimes, it's no surprise at all, or can amount to a cry for attention during a waning career. Whatever the reason it always seems to be a key issue.
Recently, a flurry of allegations and references to past statements about Lady Gaga erupted after film of her a concert showed evidence that she may be a hermaphrodite. Such a physical condition, if true, is no excuse for the deplorable things she puts out that some call music. She's been a terrible song writer for years, but having a penis shouldn't make her exempt from such activities. And further to the point, so what?
I'm getting tired of people being judged so openly on who like to hit the sack with, as long as it is a mutually consenting adult. Conservative Christians are most likely to get their panties in bunches on the subject, especially when it comes to homosexuals. Ironically, they often get caught having rendezvous in public bathrooms or caught cheating on their spouses while advocating family values and traditional marriage. Hypocrites, or just human?
I just don't quite get why people care so much in this country, while in European countries, where sexuality has not been as much of big deal for decades, centuries, if you include their views on art, homosexuals are more of an accepted part of society and can even marry in several countries. Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts on this feel free to comment.

Congratulations??

Approximately nine months ago, a close family member managed to impregnate a young girl, and the baby was subsequently born last Friday, the after my birthday. Now, regardless of the fact that the child was born out of wedlock, the parents (long since broken up), are causes for concern in the raising of this child. They are both relatively young, inexperienced, and have dubious morals. I foresee strained legalities and fierce arguments surrounding this child, since neither one of them is capable of raising it on their own, and will not be getting back together--ever. This is all a lead-up to my point.
Should such an event warrant the lauding and congratulations of numerous family and friends? Creating a child is not terribly difficult, barring any fertility problems. Worldwide, over 130 million babies are born every year. That's 360 thousand every day, 30 thousand every hour, 500 every minute, and 8 or so every second. Two stupid kids fooling around without condoms is not worthy of a celebration, in my opinion. I've been waiting for the phone call from whomever chastising me for not calling and giving my congratulations, when I feel I should be sending my condolences.
This kid is going to have to learn to grow up fast, since he hasn't done it yet in 21 years. You can't continue to act like a child when you have one. I'm not going to congratulate anyone, I would much rather sit down and have a serious chat about the ramifications of this, as if it would actually do any good. All I can hope for is that the child is resilient and surpasses his parents in intelligence and motivation. Sigh. Maybe I could get attention if I father an illegitimate child.

I want your sex . . . lyrics

Scientists always find new ways of blaming problems on various causes, sometimes with dubious research to back it up. This appears interesting, though, and potentially valid. A recent study links sexually explicit lyrics to teenage sex. Overall, it appears as more of a factor than a cause in a higher incidence of underage copulation, which one would hope isn't that easy to influence with music. If it is, I'm definitely listening to the wrong CD's when I have a lady over.
However, you need to take into account the many, many variables when it comes to teenage sex. Background, religion, ethnicity, personality, parental involvement and many others. No one just hears a song and acts on the basest message their subconscious derives from the lyrics. By that logic, after all the Queen I've listened to I should be gay by now, but I'm not. Or by all the angst-ridden, melancholic angry music I've passed over my inner ear I should have scars on my wrists or be in jail for beating someone near to death. Hasn't happened. This cause-and-effect discussion gets rehashed constantly, every subsequent generation coming up with new reasons why their kids are horrible and the world is spiraling into a pit of apathetic, cancerous degradation. If every generation was that much worse than the one before, by now we should all be beating each other to death over simple eye-contact and having unprotected sex with animals in the street. But we're not.
Video games aren't making your children violent, they merely bring out their inherent violent tendencies. Sexual lyrics are not making your children have sex, they'll figure it out without listening to degrading music they shouldn't be listening to anyway because it's mostly garbage, not necessarily because of the lyrics. This kind of music may only enhance certain ideas and actions they already have a mind to do.
If anything, I take exception with the complete lack of imagination these type of lyrics show. Back before the relative sexual freedom of the eighties, writers had to be more careful to conceal the true meaning of a song instead of just saying it outright, which is often done these days. There's no cleverness in songs of a sexual nature anymore, they just blurt it out. I blame Frankie Goes to Hollywood.

Mother, do you think they'll like this blog?

During one particularly chilly evening in San Diego last week, I got lassoed into a 'discussion' with my mother and grandmother about the issue of gay marriage. I call it a discussion only under the terms that there were two sides to an argument being 'discussed.' I am of the pro persuasion, and they are against. I consider myself informed on the issue, knowing both sides of the argument. I am postulating that my mother and hers are only informed of the anti aspect, and both being fervently religious, designate it as a moral issue. I do not.
A few minutes into the 'discussion' my grandmother attempted to ascertain my sexual orientation, and learning that I wasn't gay, seemed satisfied and gave up control of the conversation to my mother. Apparently, if I believe that any adult should be allowed to marry another of their choosing, I must be gay. I'm afraid not. I know many straight people that do not care whom marries whom, mostly because they realize it does not affect their life. These are people young and old, with children or without, from all walks of life. The few I know that do care, fall into a narrower category. They are overwhelmingly religious Christians, conservative and fairly politically ignorant. Some are worshipers of the Republican deity Sean Hannity, and that explains plenty.
I tried to explain why I felt the way I did about the issue, delving into the social, legal, political and even economical impacts of 'gay marriage.' But for my mother, as with the others I have 'discussed' this with, it always comes back to the 'moral' and religious aspect. They never say it, but I can hear the 'God Hates Fags' chanting going on somewhere in the back of my head. And even though the research overwhelmingly shows that most homosexuality is caused by a genetic aberration showing up in many species, particularly mammals and birds, I could not convince my mother that most homosexuals do not choose it merely on a whim. And it never ceases to amaze me how quick people are to pull out the 'but in the Bible' or 'God said' defense, and almost none of them can quote or even reference a scripture to back it up. Some people cannot make a division between homosexuality being a 'sin' and the legal right of people to marry to their preference. I reminded my mother how it used to be against the law in many places in this country for people to marry across race lines up until 1967, for which she had no reply. The Nazis had a similar law, as did Apartheid South Africa until 1985.
After much personal reflection upon this, I have come to the conclusion that this is the religious majority imposing their beliefs on an entire state (Nation soon to come, they surely hope) by turning a legal issue into a moral one, and forcefully denying rights to a segment of the population; which, as far as I am concerned, is against the Constitution. So once again, in our 'free' country, the minority is being repressed by the Christians, who are acting oh, so Christlike. Hint: he never said a word about homosexuality. Don't believe me, Look it up. I have read my Bible.
At the conclusion to this 'discussion,' the tension was palpable as I attempted every reasonable justification for my belief, and finally was released from my defendant position by a phone call notifying us that my uncle was in the hospital. Then there was a completely different tension in the air, this time not coalescing about my shoulders.
Another word was not breathed about the subject afterward, but I'm sure it will come up again in the future. And since I know I will not change my mind, hopefully I planted a seed of doubt in one of their minds. It was the best I could do. It isn't always easy being the minority.

You do not need the Bible to justify love, but no better tool has been invented to justify hate. - Richard A. Weatherwax

I cross my fingers to avoid VD

A study released today shows exactly how effective 'virginity pledges' are in real life, despite the I'm-better-than-those-sinners good feelings, armbands and nightly self-flagellation. They just do not work. In fact, there is a big downfall to the practice. Those taking the pledges are more likely to not use protection when they break that vow just-this-once. This seems to me like fallout from the Bush administration endorsed Abstinence Only sexual education, which takes the don't-ask don't-tell approach to sexual curiosity; which as other studies have shown, only increases the teenage birth rate in areas using this type of sex-ed, reversing a 14 year DECLINE in teen birth rates. Enough with the hyphens.
No matter what you do, kids are going to want to fool around, especially if you make it even more taboo than it already is for teenagers. At least if you let them arm themselves, you wont have a grandchild to take care of while your daughter goes to night school to finish her GED while the supposed father left town months ago, hoping any possible paternity tests vindicate him. And for god's sake, let the poor kids masturbate! It's our only hope.