In which school makes me want to bang my head against a wall.

I’ve been a terrible blogger lately, and by terrible, I mean “completely absent”. As it turns out, being in grade 12 and being a slow worker is not condusive to blogging 2-3 times a week. I’ll try and get back into the swing of things, though, if anybody still bothers to read this.

But, no, lack of blogging time is not what makes me want to bang my head against the wall.

Last week, in my English class, we were having a discussion about many things. One of those nice tangential ones where a lot of ideas get tossed around. Specifically, it related to the movie Water, which is actually a really good movie. So, my English teacher asks us this question:

“Is there really such a thing as a willing prostitute?”

I knew where this was going. I chimed in with something along the lines of “Uh, you guys, I know willing prostitutes.”

My teacher (who is actually a complete sweetheart, but kind of dead wrong on this one), procceeded to explain the correlation between child abuse and prostitution, and how she read a book about Vancouver’s downtown East Side and all these people live such horrible lives, and therefore, no prostitute would actually, you know, want to do that stuff.

Talk about jumping wildly to conclusions.

Then she said something like “We can’t judge these people, they’ve all had really hard lives.”

Isn’t assuming someone to be a victim a judgement in itself?

Also, in my World Issues class, in our unit on women’s issues, there is a lesson entitled “Prostitution and Slavery.” Same lesson.

I do realize people have varying opinions about sex work. But, wilfully ignoring the voices of sex workers just because it doesn’t fit the script? That’s just ignorant.

Guess who’s back, back again…

Alright, I’ve been gone for an ungodly amount of time, for which I apologize. I was on bloggy hiatus for a while for a myriad of reasons, but I’m back and will now attempt to post with some kind of regularity. Sorry for abandoning you. (If you’re still reading).

Anyways, this thread over at Amber’s got me thinking. Well, in a tangential way, really.

I was talking to a friend once, and I honestly forget what this conversation was about. Anyways, I said something along the lines of “Well, there’s nothing wrong with having a lot of sex, as long as you’re safe and smart about it.”

She replied “Yeah, but I think there’s an element of low self-esteem that goes into that.”

She might be right, at least some of the time. Yes, some people do have sex because they need validation. However, why is having sex always the thing people like to analyze to death? Especially women having sex? Especially teenage girls having sex.

“Sexually active teenage girl”, at least if you watch TV, has become some kind of synonym for delinquent. I was looking through the “Be on the Show” section of the Dr. Phil website, just out of boredom. (No, you will not be seeing Miss Nomered coming to a TV station near you.) Anyways, an upcoming show is based on this:

“Teen daughter sexually active?”

Groan.

Granted, 13-year-olds having sex is often somewhat concerning, as most 13-year-olds don’t have the maturity level to deal with that. But, what about the 16, 17, and 18 year olds? Older teens have been having sex forever, why is it considered so horrible in the eyes of parents and the media? Especially if the one having sex is a girl?

Oh, the hypocrisy.

Kyle Payne (thanks to Ren and Belledame for posting this) is just your average anti-pornography activist. You know, is one of those feminist male “allies” who, clearly, just cares about the women.

Except, maybe not.

You see, Kyle was arrested for breaking into the room of a female university student, and assaulting her while she was unconscious. He then admitted, “with an intent to arouse my sexual desire, I photographed and filmed Jane Doe and her breast without her consent.”

Um, what? Mr. anti-porn, who is against people consensually performing in porn (but apparently it can’t ever be consensual, according to Gail Dines et al, because no woman in her right mind would ever do that), took a kind of porny picture of a woman without her consent. That, and he had child pornography on his computer. That’s right, folks, not even good old 2257-compliant, consensually made adult porn, but child porn.

Wow. The hypocrisy here is just overwhelming. To echo what Trinity said, I always figured one of these anti-porn types would be caught with some garden-variety Jenna Jameson DVDs. Or have a few too many one night and end up having a “thing” with a porn star. Not, you know, be found with child pornography and/or be arrested for sexual assault.

The fail abounds. And, yes, I know I say that a lot, but this is the biggest pile of fail I’ve seen in a while.

Who wants to take bets on how long it’s going to be before he blames the whole thing on the Evil Porn Culture?

In all seriousness, my heart goes out to the victim. I’m trying not to mock the situation inappropriately, because, honestly, it’s terrible.

Here are other bloggers spreading the truth about Kyle Payne:

• Renegade Evolution
• Ginmar
• Nine Deuce
• Pisaquari
• Eleanors Trousers
• Fetch Me My Axe
• Uncool
• A Secret Chord
• Don’t Ask Me, I’m Just a Girl
• The Mind of Genevieve
• Galling Galla
• The Strangest Alchemy
• Outis
• Blog of the Moderate Left
• Shakesville
• The F Word
• Littoral Mermaid
• Jezebella
• I Shame the Matriarchy

Not this shit again.

This. And this.

I’m getting such an 80’s/90’s Judas Priest/Marilyn Manson vibe from this story, it’s not funny.

It’s all bullshit, of course. And yes, I realize I am a couple months late on this, but I had to say something.

I’m not emo. Not at all. I wear bright colors; I shop at H&M and Forever 21, I enjoy things like listening to folk music and actually having political views. I’m definitely not a My Chemical Romance fan, so, rest assured, I have no ulterior motives about writing this.

IT’S NOT ABOUT THE EMO.

Hannah Bond was a troubled kid, no doubt. And her suicide is a huge tragedy. But do people seriously believe that My Chemical Romance/the so called emo “cult” led her to do it? Wow. People are so eager to blame bad shit on dumb teenage trends that it’s actually unbelievable. I remember Crazy Bones (you know, those little plastic things) being banned at my elementary school because some kid threw one at another kid’s head, but that’s a story for another time.

Wow. This media sensationalism is out of control.

About the self-harming: of course people who self-harm and are confronted about it are going to make something up! Granted, the “emo initiation” story is a bit more inventive than what people usually use (the cat scratched me, etc.), but didn’t it occur to anyone that she might have been lying? That’s what addicts do. And yes, self-harm can be an addiction.

Oh yeah, and no red flags were set off by the fact that the girl said that she wanted to kill herself? Do people really think that was all part of the “emo” fad?

The stupid abounds.

(By the way, I had a lovely Pride. Nothing that needed its own post, though. Just fun times.)

You know, sometimes I feel like being an evil libertarian.

This is not to say that I support libertarian economic policy. But I think libertarians have it right on some things. I really do.

There was a mildly cringe-worthy thread over at Feministe a while ago about whether certain (consensual) sex acts can be considered properly feminist or not.

In these kind of “debates”, there are a few terms which keep popping up. You know, you have to “examine” or “analyze” or question why you happen to be doing this or that. And usually, this or that is some kind of sexual activity other people happen to not like. Usually, it’s BDSM or other powerplay or whatever isn’t considered properly “feminist”.

This is pretty insulting on a bunch of levels. As Ren pointed out a while ago, these cries of “But you have to examine!” assume that people who are into certain kinds of sex haven’t done their analysis already.

But, here’s my main point.

There is a time when you need to stop analyzing and just let people live their damn lives. No, not everyone has pristine feminist thoughts in their head while they’re fucking. As long as what they’re doing is safe, sane and consensual (and no, just because you wouldn’t do it doesn’t make it insane), I think it’s time to back off. Really. It’s none of your business. It’s probably a lot less un-feminist than you think. I know of a lot of kinky folk who are feminists, and a lot of vanilla folks who are misogynist assholes. Contrary to popular belief, what people do in the bedroom (or bathroom, or kitchen, or living room, or local bathouse) tends to stay there. At least that’s what I think.

As a feminist, I’m sick of hearing that “XYZ is a tool of the patriarchy”. You know what else is a tool of the patriarchy? Telling people how to fuck!

Dear clueless white liberals,

Stop it with the goddamned oppression olympics.

Yes, I know, homophobia and sexism are still considered socially acceptable. So is racism. All are equally shitty.

Really, if racism is so verboten in this day and age, then why was someone allowed to tell me, when I posted a message board thread about white privilege, “Looks like someone just won herself some new black friends”?

There are ways to point out sexism and homophobia without being a racist asshole. However, making race-baiting comments only makes you look ignorant. And, in case you haven’t noticed, women of color and queer/trans people of color do exist.

And no, there is no such thing as “reverse racism”. You are not being discriminated against for being white just because someone hurt your feelings. Shut the fuck up.

I swear, this goes on much longer, I’m going to start playing bingo.

Yours truly,

Miss Nomered, Jewish anti-racist white girl.

“Choice” was so ten years ago.

Something has been bothering me for a while about certain sections of the feminist movement.

Remember “choice”? You know, what we were fighting for a bunch of years ago? Well, it seems to have gone out of style.

Sure, anyone will still valiantly defend your right to choose certain things related to reproductive health; namely, birth control and abortion. Unless we’re talking about “pro-life feminists” (shudder). But, especially lately, a lot of choices aren’t seen as nearly as valid. Specifically, choosing to do things certain feminists don’t approve of.

You know what I mean. Choose to have an abortion, or become an engineer? Good on ya! Choose to wear something revealing, be tied up, or be a stripper or porn star? Suddenly, you lose your ability to choose that. You know, because it’s all a product of brainwashing by the patriarchy.

I’ll definitely admit that sexism does influence our choices sometimes. So does racism, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism, and whatever other internalized prejudices one might have. But those aren’t always the only reasons someone might choose to do something (especially something you don’t particularly like or approve of). And, really, when it comes to women in porn or sex work or whatever, do people who call themselves “feminists” really think women are that weak and unintelligent? That they’re so brainwashed by the patriarchy that they couldn’t possibly make a choice of their own?

And as for choices that aren’t frowned upon? Well, I’ll be the first to admit that people don’t always have the most pristine of motives for, say, having abortions. Like, you know, wealthy families who don’t want a kid with Down Syndrome because they’ll never graduate from Princeton. Is it a choice I would make? Probably not. Is it influenced by a lot of ableism? Probably. Am I going to badger them constantly, and tell them how wrong and brainwashed they are? Hell no. It’s not my place to judge, let alone harass them over it. Which is why I distanced myself from a lot of the pro-lifers at Aspies for Freedom – but that is another rant for another time.

You know, it’s hugely ironic when certain feminists go on about “choice”. Then, when someone chooses something they don’t like, that person’s ability to choose suddenly vaporizes.

At some point, regardless of the motives they might have, we have to step back and let other people make their own decisions. Especially when those people are telling you to back off.

When I say I’m pro-choice, I mean it. And it’s not just about abortion.

Teenager Shows Back; World Explodes

There are few things the mainstream media does better than feigning outrage. And the outrage-of-the-week now? 15-year-old Miley Cyrus posed for some supposedly “salacious” photos where she shows her back. And her bare shoulders.

Cue moral panic. The mainstream media (not to mention the not-so-mainstream media) has gone into a frenzy about how the pictures are “kiddie porn”,  and how it’s an example of how we’re “sexualizing” the young’uns.

The latter can sometimes can be a legitiamte complaint, although it’s horribly infanitlizing at times. I mean, people tend to forget that I am only a year or two older than Miss Hannah Montana herself. And implying older teenagers can only be “sexualized”, instead of occasionally expressing their own sexuality is a little insulting. Because we all know teenagers, especially teenage girls, aren’t supposed to have any semblance of sexuality that they actually express themselves. Lest, you know, one of us ends up pregnant. Or having (gasp) a male attracted to us. It’s all so horribly heteronormative, not to mention sexist.

Have you ever noticed how often females, between the ages of, say, 15-25 are referred to as children? You know, referring to a 19-year-old as a “teenage girl”, and how everyone seems to call people of my gender and age range “child”, “little girl”, “baby” (as in “You’d be a baby having a baby!”), but almost never as a “young woman”? And how males of the same age are almost invariably referred to as “young men”? Most people wouldn’t dream of calling a 17-year-old male a “little boy” or “child”.

This is not me trying to grow up too fast. This is me trying to get people to have some basic respect for my intelligence and maturity. And I really do wish people would acknowledge, without panicking, that teenagers do think about sex and sexuality, and no, it’s not always a bad thing!

As anyone who knows me can attest to, I wear t-shirts and jeans most of the time. I rarely wear makeup, except for a bit of lipstick once in a while. But I also own a miniskirt or two, a couple low-cut tops, and some other miscellaneous clothing that could be termed “revealing”. It does not make me feel good to know that if I choose to wear something strapless or backless, I’ll be held up as an example of media brainwashing, or the moral decay of society.

And no, it is not about me having low self esteem or wanting to pick up guys. You know, because gays couldn’t actually, like, exist or anything! I rarely “dress to impress”, when I do, it’s usually because I want a cute dyke to notice me. But I rarely do that. But you know what? There’s nothing actually wrong with wanting to feel “sexy” once in a while. I hardly think my looks are all I am.

Dressing a certain way does not make someone vacuous or stupid. In fact, if you think wearing something slightly revealing means someone is being reduced to a “sex object”, I think you may be the one with the sexist attitude.

Am I the only feminist…

…who is sick of the constant hand-wringing over the kind of consensual sex other folks are having?

I know I said it in a comment on Feministing. And I’ll say it again.

How messed up are our priorities?

Really. We think when some woman (or man) who wants to be a human naked sushi table or wear a sexy “French maid” outfit or (gasp) perform in porn it’s the end of the world? That it’s so awful?

Does the term “consent” mean anything to some people? How about “Have a nice big cup of mind your own business“?

It’s seriously disheartening to see “feminists” acting a hell of a lot like the religious right: you know, deciding to hate people for the kind of sex they’re having. And yes, I’m aware the two philosophies, obviously, come from different places. But the result is often the same.

As feminists, to paraphrase my friend Chanelle Gallant, don’t we have bigger fish to fry than porn, BDSM, and what people are friggin’ wearing? Like how about rape? Reproductive justice? Sweatshops? Unequal pay? Racism? Queer-bashing?

The focus on people having the “wrong” kind of sex is kind of silly, when you look at it. In fact, it’s a distraction. A huge distraction from the issues we face which are, for some, a matter of life and death.

Sorry, your religious beliefs don’t give you licence to be an asshole.

So the National Post (Canadian conservative mouthpiece newspaper, for those of you not in the know), published this lovely article today, about the fine, upstanding moral Catholic pharmacists and doctors (notice the blatant sarcasm), who won’t give people birth control or emergency contraceptives, and violate several codes of ethics in doing such.

Gag me with a spoon.

Yes, you are entitled to your beliefs. No, as a medical professional, you are not entitled to impose them on people who need their fricking medication.

And don’t even get me started on the so-called “moral values” of saving sex for marriage. Please don’t. My personal moral philosophy is simply “Harm none”. Why is that so hard for others to grasp? In short: please, right-wingers, get the fuck out of my sex life. (Or lack therof at this point). And everyone else’s, for that matter.

Not prescribing birth control or emergency contraceptives because of your proclaimed beliefs in the “sanctity of life” or “morality” is just absurd. How is it protecting anyone if a teenager in a rural area is denied birth control, and later gets pregnant? I have a friend who, at the time, lived in a rural area, when she thought she may have done something that could potentially have gotten her pregnant. She had to get her mother to drive her to a pharmacy, which was quite a ways away, to get the EC pill. But, she did, and continued with her life as usual.

What if she had one of these “moral” citizens as her pharmacist? What would she have done? And where, possibly, would she be now?

Jesus Christ. (No pun intended). Not everyone is taking birth control for “impure” reasons (although, to quote Seinfeld, not that there’s anything wrong with that). I take it for acne and awful cramps. If I lived in a remote area, deny me my prescription and I’m doubled over in pain, breaking out in pimples, and I probably won’t like you very much.

So much for pretending to care about people, huh?