atheism

n.

1. Religion-a disbelief in the existence of any deity. Grounds for eternal damnation (according to Christians).

2. Politics-a disbelief in the existence of any deity. Grounds for losing any major election in the United States. '

3. Sex-a disbelief in the existence of any deity. Grounds for limitations on the standard use of given deity's name during intercourse (usually poses no hindrance).

Jon Stewart says it best.



Seven Morons in a Warehouse: The latest terror cell to wage "ground war" in America (Infowars)

I recently had a discussion regarding cheating the other day, and the issue of "cheating without sex" cropped up. (For those of you who scratched your head in wonderment like I did--so shoot me--it's essentially falling in love/lust/limerence with someone while in another relationship, yet failing to physically act on it.)

I'm still not so sure I buy the whole "cheating without sex" thing. After all, it's the act of sex that most people get heated about. If a man were to say to his wife, "I'm just having dinner with a female colleague," despite the fact that he may very well have strong affections for her, the wife is not instinctually going to be preoccupied with that aspect of their meetings. She's going to want to know if he's fucking around on her. So in my mind, and in a lot of other people's minds, the actual act(s) of coitus seems to be the deal-breaker.

As far as I'm concerned, the concept of "non-sexual cheating" is a misnomer. It's probably possible to be in love with two people (though I never have, and I'd arguably say that you can't be in the same type of love with two people unless it's platonic at its basic level), but in most cases we just call that "moving on." If you fall for another person and are in a relationship, this probably means that things between you and the former were kaputsky before you chanced upon the third party. Besides, our society extols non-sexual cheating/"moving on" by immortalizing the notion in countless romantic comedies and dramas, and in some cases the couples do actually cheat sexually--we still cheer it on for the sake of real love.

For example, the closest thing America has to a royal couple, if you followed their unfolding liaison, seems to be the product of such a relationship (i.e., they claim there was no sex before the finality of Mr. Smith's divorce) according to their own word. At the same time, rampant fanatics who label themselves "Team Actress From Friends With Good Hair and Fashion Sense Which Are Offset By Undeniably Ferret-Like Eyes" will foam at the mouth that there was sexual cheating involved (I plead Benefit of the Doubt).

So why is it okay for fictional characters, in whom we vicariously invest our hopes and dreams, to "cheat without sex" (and in the case of The Notebook, quite blatantly with sex), but real-life people are condemned for less? Should we make people suffer socially because their needs change and they just happen to come to this realization by meeting someone who awakens such within them but are respectful enough not to cross the sexual threshold?

In my opinion, one should only feel bad if they were not immediately truthful with their significant other. But chemistry is chemistry, and the transpiration of such between two people is not something planned, and I daresay it shouldn't be beaten down with a sense of propriety that mostly has to do with hurt pride and the failure to acknowledge that it's time to move on.

talk dirty

v.

1. Religion--"All of your generous donations go to the church fund, which will help us further the will of God."

2. Sex--"It feels so much better without condoms, though."

3. Politics--"Read my lips--no new taxes."


BLOGGER'S NOTE: Sometimes talking dirty can be artfully combined to incorporate two or more of the three.
e.g. "Your mother sucks cocks in hell, Karras."

According to reports, President Bush says that he wants to send most of the Guantanamo Bay detainees to their home countries. Te prison currently holds about 460 inmates--most of whom are being held with no charge.

My viscerals tell me that it's way more than mere coincidence that George W. made these comments while attending a summit in Vienna, especially after the Guantanamo suicides earlier this month have been on the world news radar (though conveniently not noticeably reported in our own news--maybe for a day or so).

Is George just paying lip service to the frowning world leaders like he's done in the past? And what's to be done with those he wants to keep at Gitmo, these so-called "cold-blooded killers...who need to be tried in US courts" and "will kill again if they are let out on the street"? Is there something that disallows extradition to their home countries, or does US now have some sort of superior international jurisdiction to try these "killers"? Please enlighten me.


However, I won't be overly skeptical. I'll pretend that George W. really does want to close Gitmo. But what then?

In the spirit of summer vacation, I propose we turn Guantanamo Bay into the newest Spring Break spot. Kids will be doing keg stands in Camp Iguana, while others will pose for souvenir photos--let one (Insert Generic Cheap Beer here) chick lead you on all fours with a leash while a camouflaged member of the Fun Police pretends to sodomize you, and have your frat-tastic buddies high-fiving in the background!

Or better yet, put on your best beer goggles and hook up with the normally-I-wouldn't-lower-my-standards-but-it's-Spring-Break guy/girl on the very same sheets one of the Saudi prisoners used to put themselves out of infidel misery! You can even get kinky and reenact the hanging yourself with a designated staff member.

I smell a winner.

The US 'Wants to End Guantanamo' (BBC News International)

I'm not a staunch proponent of the NRA's ideas about gun control (in fact, I'm not quite sure what I believe yet because I've never been in a situation where I had to use a gun for anything serious), but I understand and support to an extent that a citizen may want a firearm or two for matters of personal security (i.e., on their property).

But why does anyone need an assault rifle? If you're only using a gun for protection (i.e., not planning to assault anyone), isn't it overkill to have such a powerful weapon? I understand that some people may be firearm collectors, but I personally don't see the fascination in hoarding deadly weapons.

I ask this because a Certain Trigger-Happy Someone recently acquired a weapon that terrifies me. He has a couple other handguns that I don't mind so much because he keeps them for protection, but I'll be a baby and say I don't like this one because it's big and scary. I have no right to tell him he can't own the firearm, especially when he has his ideological rationale for owning it that I will never be able to unfix from his mind (unless, perhaps, he accidentally shoots me). In addition, he likes to point said weapon at various objects in the house, including Felines One and Two. Although he says that he's being safe, the behavior is unsettling--he seems to be treating it like an everyday toy. I take pointing a loaded firearm at anything very seriously (especially my beloved felines), despite whether or not the safety is on. I think I have a right as a person to not have to feign tolerance (which I can't any longer), just as Trigger Happy has his right to possess the weapon.

So I wrote this entry in Non-Cheeky Mode, in hopes that if Trigger Happy chances to read this he will decide to humor me. Otherwise, the tension will remain.

If you don't want government gun control, learn to keep your guns under your own control.

Monotheist

n.

1. Religion--a person who upholds the doctrine or belief that there is only one supreme being.

2. Politics--a person, esp. Christian, who ignores separation of church and state principles, instead opting to disguise their agenda of promoting monotheistic beliefs into the tenets of neoconservatism.

3. Sex--a person who only calls upon the name of one deity during intercourse. May be "Jesus Christ," "God," or the preferred name of one's lover. The latter is often accompanied with affirmations of said lover's deification (e.g. "Dr. McDreamy, you are a god!")

Without birdshot. (Boing Boing)

Ogling and objectification by males is perfectly acceptable--men of any sexual orientation have no qualms about surveying a man or woman from heel to crown and back again (not even plenty of guys in relationships, although certain ones I know are in denial). It's chalked up to the natural sexual inclination of the male species. (And yes, I've read semiotic readings about traditional male-upon-female objectification until I was blue in the face, so no structuralist lectures).

But us women? We get branded as "oversexed," "campy," "hormonal," or "girlish" when we dare to blatantly look at anyone in a strictly sexual fashion, let alone playfully (or drunkenly) catcall people who float our boats or openly discuss our sexual approval of men/women we find attractive (kat von d). Back in the day, unless I was strictly in the company of my female friends, I was reduced to sneaking subtle peeks at guys I found attractive--I was cheated out of drinking in the whole picture because my nana or my mother or my male friends would think of me as one of those four qualifiers.

We're humans who have natural desires, and monogamy dictates (depending on the couple's personal agreement) that we respect whatever physical agreement we make with the other by default (i.e., because of the emotional bond). But that doesn't dictate that our intrinsic physical attraction (doctor mcdreamy). should be squelched and focused on one other person. Sure, during those moments of limerence it seems like we can only make goo-goo eyes at one person (scarlett), but I've respect the fact that a significant other might sneak a peek at someone they find attractive as long as they're not assholes. Furthermore, they will likely get hit on while I'm not around by women they may find attractive; I won't freak out. Jane Doe may love her hubby to death, but it doesn't mean that she won't be fascinated by the blinding aura of David Beckham's thighs.

So I say that if males don't want to listen to the cries of "wrongful objectification," then toss the double standards out the window. Don't brand us as nymphos because we happen to enjoy the aesthetic value (freddie ljungberg) of well-kept men (or women).

With that, I've interspersed some of my favorite guys and gals throughout this blog. And don't be afraid to ogle.


*Ten points if you know without Google.

So yesterday I made a happy visit to the friendly neighborhood gynecologist. I experienced the general discomfort associated with poking and prodding. Nothing too serious.

For a few months, I've been thinking about re-committing myself to oral contraceptives. I figured now was as good a time as any to talk to my doctor about new options, since it's been a while.

I explained to my doctor my reasons for giving up birth control--my main purpose was in curbing cramps and regulating my period (endometriosis runs in my family), but neither of those seemed to be gravely affected by the hormones. I told her I was interested in narrowing down the number of periods I had a year, and she had the perfect solution--a pill that, when your body adjusts, only gives you four periods a year. Score. I happily accepted the prescription.

Normally, my insurance pays about 85-90% of my birth control because my use of it is classified under "hormone therapy"-- I never had a problem forking out no more than $15 a month for my pills. But what I didn't realize is that this particular package of contraceptives is not covered by any insurance company in the United States--it's classified as a "luxury birth control." So I ended up forking over more money than I care to think about because my doctor says the benefits would be worth the trouble. I learned that if I just wanted to be on the Pill so as not to get pregnant, then I'd have to pay about 80% of the total myself on any birth control I was prescribed.

I find it funny that insurance companies consider the use of oral contraceptives as their intended purpose, i.e., to prevent pregnancy, a "luxury behavior." For many women, the Pill is just as important in this respect as condoms are for a lot of males; granted, condoms prevent transmission of STDs, but the Pill allows an intimacy between two hetero, fairly monogamous partners (i.e. glove-free) that they have a right to without having to worry about the notion of potential procreation every time they have sex.

I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, but this smells like a ploy to discourage my right to decide how my body works and what benefits I want from sexuality.

"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together."--Pat Robertson

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."--Randall Terry

I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."--George H.W. Bush

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."--Pat Robertson

"Satan uses homosexuals as pawns. They're in, as you know, key positions in the media, they're in the White House, they're in everything, they're in Hollywood now. Then, unfortunately, after he uses them, he infects them with AIDS and then they die." --Anthony Falzarano

"[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers."--Pat Robertson

SOURCES via Alarming Religious Right quotes and Quotes from the Religious Right

I can only imagine that God was in a conference on this one.


A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said on Monday.

"The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.

"A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."

The incident, Sunday evening when the zoo was packed with visitors, was the first of its kind at the attraction. Lions and tigers are kept in an "animal island" protected by thick concrete blocks.

Point: atheists.


Lioness in zoo kills man who invokes God (Reuters)

...then don't say anything at all.
So I won't say anything about Ann Coulter's interview with Matt Lauer. But I think she could do well to follow this advice. While the arguments she presents may be valid (not gonna lie, I have agreed with her in the past), Ann Coulter's methods of promotion have gone beyond resembling anything that can be called legitimate.

Take a gander at this video.



Decide for yourself whether she's right about 9/11 widows--I don't dictate your politics. Whatever your decision, though, you can't deny the fact that she looks like a rabid horse waiting to be put out to pasture. Now that's a doctrine of infallibility. Oops, there I go saying mean things...fuck it. Ann Coulter is psycho.

An organization dedicated to exposing the truth about the former drag queen known as Ann Coulter (Strap-On Veterans for Truth via Hoolinet)

Dan Savage is one of my favorite sex columnists. He doesn't pretend to know everything about sex; instead, he just calls it like he sees it with a sensibility that appeals to all without abandoning his own sexuality.

I've been following Savage Love for awhile, and I just wanted to direct attention to Savage's thoughts on Straight Rights (scroll down to the updates when you click the links):

"STRAIGHT RIGHTS UPDATE: I've been running around with my hair on fire trying to convince my straight readers that religious conservatives don't just hate homos. Their attacks on gay people, relationships, parents, and sex get all the press, but the American Taliban has an anti-straight-rights agenda too...."(read more)

"STRAIGHT-RIGHTS UPDATE: After tossing nearly half of last week's column away on a straight-rights update, it was my intention to give it a rest. In fact, every time I write one of these, I think, "This is the last one. Banning abortion, evicting unmarried straight couples and their children, moving to ban birth control—things can't get any worse, can they?

"Oh, but they can....": (read more)

Dan Savage brings up excellent points no matter what you think of his opinions. Many people feel unconcerned with the current administration's efforts to thwart gay rights, but it's only a matter of time before they start controlling hetero rights, too.

We all want to be equal. And it looks like if everyone's rights are deprived, we will be.

Oh, and take a gander at Dan's whole column. It's awesome. (Savage Love)

So: inviting people to your orgy. Easier said than done. Sometimes you'll find that people you figure to be down for an orgy freak out on you when you suggest the idea, while the lady who lurks in Archives secretly has swinger parties at her apartment every week.

Try to figure out how the personalities of the invited guests will mesh, but don't try to think too much about the relationships between the people you're asking--Don't the bookworm and the Satanist both like the pink-haired pixie girl?--you are the host, not the love doctor. People will work these complications out on their own, and if they don't it's not your fault; after all, you're not forcing them to become entangled in a mass of sweaty bodies. Just make a list of people you know would get along in a non-threatening situation--after all, it's assumed that the orgy is not being thrown for the purpose of creating true love connections.

Alcohol and jokes: these can be mutually exclusive to your strategy, but they can also create a wonderful mix for finding out who's (as my favorite sex columnist Dan Savage calls it) GGG--"Good, Giving and Game."

Sometimes your true interest can be disguised as a caustic quip or a playful insult, which is less awkward then asking, "So, I'd like you to join my orgy." But sometimes the direct approach is best, especially if done in a sincerely flirtatious (is that an oxymoron?) manner. Liquid courage helps; just be sure that you're not overly courageous to the point of slurring. A little buzz does wonders for my flapping gums, and it can work for yours (i.e., if you're one of those people, like me, who becomes exponentially talkative to the point of revealing dangerous info). No immediate embarrassment on your part, and if the embarrasment catches up with your sober persona, you can play up just how inebriated you were and blame it on the Beefeater.

Of course, my personal favorite is sending out cute invitations. People will find it a funny joke, but trust me--everyone who gets an invite will secretly wonder if you're not kidding. You can then pretend it's a joke, but segue into how you would really have an orgy if everyone was GGG. And this, my friends, is the hook.

Next: How to set up your digs so no one pokes out an eye.

terrorism

n.

1. Politics--according to the FBI, "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

2. Religion--liturgies on hellfire.

3. Sex--see DONKEY PUNCH; HOUDINI