Last time I checked being white didn't mean we agreed, honky

Yesterday I went to the gym with a buddy of mine. After a while we wanted to get on the chest fly machine. So we go over there and there's an African-American fellow wiping down the machine. He told us we could have the machine when he was done wiping it down (which is good etiquette). When he finishes and walks off some white guy comes up and starts to wipe down the machine. "Oh were you working out with the other guy?" my friend asks, "'cause he cleaned the machine already."
Whitey tells us no and just states tat he thought it should be cleaned again because "guys like that leave residue."
Needless to say my buddy and I, who are both white, were shocked. Which leads me to the question, my fellow white males: why the fuck do you think you can go up to any other white guy, say something terrible, and expect them to agree? This isn't 1945. What you think isn't right. What you feel isn't right. And sharing it with others doesn't make you any more right. If you're counting on other white boys to justify your grandpa's ass backwards ideas, you're a dying breed. A lot of us are getting fed up with it. So keep it to your damn self.

Spontaneously Gay

A Brazilian Cardinal in the Catholic Church thinks that Brazilian teenagers are becoming "spontaneously gay" in response to a corrupt society that is driving them away from a sexuality that is "human and suitable". Other members of the Church in the article claim that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to exception pedophilia (I'll make the joke in your head for you: so what's the Church's problem then?).

The idea that non-hetero expressions of sexuality is still considered a side effect of society or some sort of mental disorder is getting a little old these days. The desire of religious and social institutions to force their definitions of what is moral and immoral down peoples throats is also getting a little old. So I have to ask a question myself: why do people cling to churches that want nothing to do with them? I understand that faith is a personal experience and some people don't want to give up God all together, but why stick with a church that defines you as a sinner for something that does not hurt anybody? Why surround oneself with those who will make one feel guilty? The idea that non-heterosexuality is the cause of some damage is sickening me. Gay catholics unite and let the institutions your helping to support know how wrong they are.

A Much Better Blog

So I pilfered this image from http://thesisterproject.com/smith, which is a much better blog than mine. The image itself if from an old series of books informing women of the do's and don'ts of dating. The advice is awfully reminiscent of the drinking advice given to Lil' Bit by her mother in Paula Vogel's play "How I learned to Drive". Check out the blog and the play for lots of entertainment.

Safe Sex Advertisement

The ol' Link.

As the article says this is a Portuguese advertisement that is encouraging safe sex. In the article Megan Carpentier is quoted as equating the image with the sexualization of rape but the articles author does a good job of refuting these claims. Of course, that image can be drawn but what the image is elucidating is that practicing unsafe sex is violence against women.

By illustrating, in a somewhat exaggerated fashion, how dangerous it is to have unprotected sex and illustrate how much responsibility women carry towards themselves to make sure their partners use protection the image creates a sense of real unease. It is disturbing to look at. The image is not meant to glorify coercion in the least.

As the author of the article says, this advertisement is not meant to make one feel safe. Rather, it is meant to disrupt how one feels about unprotected sex and I think the ad makes a fair point of illustrating how dangerous it is. It is meant to remind women of their responsibilities to themselves and bodies and to make sure they are always in control of their health. As the article says: "women must be responsible for their own safety when it comes to sex and not rely on the man to do it for them." As I said, unsafe sex is a form of violence, but it is a preventable one in consensual relationships. So no matter who you are, man or women, never leave it up to your partner to decide and protect yourself.

It's all in the lips, apparently

Mood Lipstick. Yup. According to this article the nearly twenty dollar lipstick works with a woman's body chemistry to illustrate how aroused she is by turning colors. Problems: 1) if you need to spend 20 bucks on color change lipstick to illustrate to partners or potential partners that you are aroused there is likely something wrong with the way one of you communicates with other people. Maybe both of you. 2) Who wants to bust out a color wheel to find out how someone feels? 3) Are you kidding me?

The dating expert cited in the article claims that this is the best "ice breaker". So the intended purpose is to let a date know you are physically interested, because this is obviously the most important way for people to get along. Which raises the question: are women who wear this going to hand the color wheel to their dates at the start or wait for the end? It's just silly.

I don't think I'd be going out on a limb here by saying that the primary demographic for this garbage are heterosexual women (and so in a way it is really aimed at heterosexual men). So what does this say about the perceptions of the heterosexual populace? That men are either way too dumb, lazy or both to understand what a partner may want from them and that women are so passive that they cannot initiate any kind of sexual relations with men but have to spend $20 on something that will do it for them. Because women aren't supposed to be aggressive, right, and men are supposed to be that ignorant.

It is bad enough the amount of money both men and women alike spend on cosmetics to appeal to prevailing ideals of our times: hair gels, sprays, waxes, foundations, tans and all this crap just to feel comfortable when someone happens to look in one's direction but going so far as to wear color changing make up to tell someone you are horny seems a little ridiculous and a little desperate. Next thing you know we'll have men's pants that light up when the wearer has an erection. Of course, if this lipstick gets popular I'm going to regret not patenting that idea.

What are we searching for?

I was sitting in the computer lab wondering where to begin with this blog and my friend directed me to an interesting website called www.autocompleteme.com. After perusing the website for a few minutes (okay, so maybe a half hour or so, it is hilarious at times: "I ate all your bees" and what not) I found this image. Apparently the things google's users want to know about women are for the most part sexist, irrelevant or idiotic. I'll give the combat question and the egg question reasonable passes as they seem to be satisfying intellectual curiosities.

I find the popularity of the question "are women human?" to be the most distressing of these. It was likely meant as a joke but has become such a pervasive question that google recommends it as a logical finish to the phrase "are women". But for these questions to be so popular on google it is obvious that a lot of them are serious queries people have or at least stereotypes that people are looking for ways to actively reinforce. Besides the combat and biological question all of these seem to be grounded in prejudices towards both men and women and it is ridiculous and insulting that these are the common things we are asking about each other. I have not checked but it is reasonable to assume that "are men", "are black people," "are Asian people", "are gay/lesbian/queer people" or any other permutation of race, color, class, gender, sex, etc. would yield results that are just as offensive. So people are searching for these things either for a cheap laugh or to validate something they believe I suppose. I guess that is more important than "are women more likely to get osteoporosis?" or millions of more relevant questions. So search for some of these searches and let me see what you find. I'd like to see just how bad these questions get and see what y'all think.