VAGINA! There, that was not so bad, was it?

My Heros: Brown and Bynum
(If all sexes are "actors" then all sexes are "heros.)

A woman legislator, Lisa Brown from Michigan, said the following during a debate over a new abortion bill: "And finally, Mr. Speaker, I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but 'no' means 'no.'”
And a representative from Tennesee said: “What she said was offensive," said Rep. Mike Callton, R-Nashville. "It was so offensive; I don't even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company."
“Vagina” is offensive? Personally I find them wonderful. What I find really offensive is how male legislators cram their own personal religious beliefs down every one else’s throats. Here is another quote from Representative Brown who is Jewish: "I have not asked you to adopt and adhere to my religious beliefs. Why are you asking me to adopt yours?" Jewish religious law allows abortions at any time if the mother’s life is in danger.
So I think Rep. Callton is offensive and I think Lisa Brown is great. She was silenced from further debate. Another woman Representative tried to get this amendment added to the abortion bill: "Byrum, D-Onondaga, caused a disturbance on the House floor Wednesday when she wasn't allowed to introduce an amendment to the abortion regulations bill banning men from getting a vasectomy unless the sterilization procedure was necessary to save a man's life,"
Some men are such hypocritical assholes it makes me weep.

Image: http://cmsimg.freep.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C4&Date=20120614&Category=NEWS15&ArtNo=120614049&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&With-video-Two-female-Michigan-lawmakers-silenced-after-vagina-abortion-comments

1. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120614/POLITICS02/206140467#ixzz1xt9SaSZx

What, Exactly, is “Human”?

These look "human" to you?

On NPR this morning, a commentator noted a research publication (1) that indicates cave art in parts of Europe may predate the arrival of the so-called “modern” human, Homo sapiens sapiens by several thousand years. If correct, this means that the decorations were done by our relatives known as Neanderthals. There is some debate about the actual place Neanderthals occupy in the human lineage. There is even debate on the scientific name, traditionally Homo sapiens neanderthalensis . I am not qualified to jump into the taxonomic dog fight.

I really don’t care how the names work out. It matters little to any of us if our ancestors were Homo sapiens sapiens or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis or some combination of the two. Maybe there was a third ancestor somewhere. What I do care about is the arrogance of people who call us and our ancestors “human” and the others just by their common names, implying they were not humans. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the term “human” should only be applied to modern people. Definitions in various dictionaries don’t agree either, but most focus on us.
The essence of the issue is how to define who and what a human being actually is. Art? Neanderthals had it. Religion? Neanderthals had it. Speech? Neanderthals had it. Clothing? Neanderthals had it. Fire? Neanderthals had it. Tools? Neanderthals had them. Forty six chromosomes? Neanderthals had them. The list is probably longer than I have time and energy to research. You get the point? We define ourselves as “human” to create an exclusive club, probably because some bible or other had some cockamamie story of origins. Actual human beings go back a very long way and over much time gradually became us. Don’t fight it, embrace it. And as for the myth that Neanderthals disappeared 30000 years ago? I don’t believe it, and genetics seems to agree with me. Another reason why don’t I believe it? I have had students who were nearly 100% recombined Neanderthals. And then there was Fred, the body man. Tale for another time.
1. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/341443/title/European_cave_art_gets_older
Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6a/GuaTewet_tree_of_life-LHFage.jpg/220px-GuaTewet_tree_of_life-LHFage.jpg

I Bet You Are Erotically Plastic

TItle: Sam with Son

Come on, admit it. You have sometimes considered your own gender with, um, shall we say “interest”. Consider erotic plasticity. A term that conveys the idea that a person’s sexual preferences are available for change or modification along the scale of totally heterosexual to completely homosexual. Somewhere in there is asexual as well. I don’t know if it on the end of the spectrum or somewhere in the middle. Don’t really care either. The point of an article (1) I just read is that women have more of this plasticity than men, and are therefore more likely to move between heterosexual and homosexual behaviors. Men, they say, are not as plastic. To which I say “bollocks”. I think more men have semi-fluid sexual preferences than research would indicate because of the extreme societal pressure to be hetero. I think more men struggle with where they are on the spectrum than one might think.

Culture has a lot to do with it. Ancient Greeks, Romans, Arabs and others didn’t seem to have trouble switching between boys and girls, or enjoying both at once for that matter. There is some evidence that this is still true today in many places in the world. American men are so hung up on being “real men” that they ignore or deny the role of the sexuality spectrum in their lives or even that it exists.

The question the article raised was “Why are there gay women?” The answer is genetics and erotic plasticity. The answer for men, I believe, is the same. And I think we are all erotically plastic. Men seem to enjoy the “money shot” as much as women.

1. http://news.yahoo.com/why-gay-women-160211175.html

Image: http://64.13.224.56/calendar/LA/upload/9954_Sam-with-Songweb.jpg

Ice-T, and not the Long Island Kind.

There are times when you just Know you are getting old. Well, older at least. This morning I had one of those moments. I listened to Ice-T this morning and he actually made sense. He was being interviewed by an NPR reporter about his documentary movie about Rap. Mentioned in passing that Rap had probably saved him from a life, short life probably, of crime. Sounded familiar so I listened more. Angry speech, he said, is the result of freeing people to express themselves. I agree. Maybe not the only effect of freedom but certainly one of them. Rap is poetry produced by poets freed from the constraints of convention. I get that. Rap was and maybe still is angry, lashing out at the world the Rappers inhabit. I get that too.

I don't like to listen to the music (?) called Rap, but Ice-T sure made sense. Back to getting old. This guy started 20 years ago. Twenty!!! I remember hearing his early gangsta stuff and thinking something like "man, this is dangerous and angry stuff!" It was. And now he is making films, acting in a major TV series and being interviewed on NPR, not as a criminal but as a spokesperson for Rap. How fast those 20 years went.

Image: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZaRc8v8bwL43UCIvsEha5oDxJF3ttGMZMEmdL9FVplxQ7Dv0fi7gNJgEMU4P5XXfLkd0YXOrrIuwptbFaZdRdaGKLMQC53p5WQrOw6U1s5tAsWLWwzybVZjNVhQ5b6gxA5bNvcXduYiBS/s400/Ice+-+A+Memoir+Of+Gangster+Life+%2526+Redemption+From+South+Central+To+Hollywood.jpg

I Just Don’t Get It, or, Cherry Picking Christians

Before I start, let me say to the few who site “free will” as an answer to all the conundrums: Either you follow the Word of your Lord (your God) or you don’t.

So, to continue this puzzle I look to my Christian friends and ask about their teachings. I often hear “It says in the Bible” or “God said it” or “my preacher says that it the Lord said” and on and on. They maintain that abortion is an abomination because it says so in the Bible. Ditto with gay life style. Ditto with divorce. Ditto with what-ever-the-hell-you-want to support. They throw WWJD around like a soap commercial jingle. Too bad Jesus didn’t have the Bible (new) to guide him into hatred.

This brings me to Leviticus. Lots of good stuff here for everybody, and it is unquestionably the Bible. Take 21: 16 -20. What utter crap. Take 21:5 and then take a look at all the bible-quoting skin heads and so-called Christians like Rick Scott. Which brings me to Leviticus 18:22 where it specifically forbids the tattooing of the body.

Which brings me to this question: if you follow the Bible and want to stone gays to death, why do you have a tattoo? Because you CHERRY PICK THE BIBLE, that’s why. Or you really don’t know what the Bible actually says. And don’t go to the free will argument. I agree you have the free will to do what you want because there are no natural or sacred rules to follow. I do not agree that you can quote one section of a sacred text to support your ignorant opinions and then ignore others because you have “free will”. If you have the free will to get a tattoo, then any woman should have the free will to have an abortion and any couple should have the free will to get married.

Anything short of that reeks of hypocrisy in the name of Religion.
Image: http://i.qkme.me/BVJ.jpg