Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Regular Coke

I admire people who drink regular Coke, (as opposed to Diet).


One of my boyfriend's favorite posters at a recent anti-war demonstration:

"Someone give Bush a bj so we can impeach him"

Contact Elected Officials

I just want to post some basic numbers for a few elected officials, and urge everyone to call and leave any comments you may have. I suppose it may seem ridiculous, but I work for an elected official, and comments are tallied...and at the end of the day, the number of calls we get are impactful, (or maybe I am an optimist).

Senator Feinstein: 310/914-7300
Senator Boxer: 213/894-5000
Schwarzenegger: 213/897-0322
White House: 202/456-1111

You can also google any official for fax, mail, or email information. Also, congressional members have multiple offices.

Box in a Box

Need a quick laugh?

Did you think Justin Timberlake's SNL spoof "Dick in a Box" was stupid?

Well...the spoof of the spoof is actually humorous--and catchy. "My Box in a Box" is creating quite a stir.

Monday, January 29, 2007


the anti-trend is a trend.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Athiests have better chance of getting into Heaven

If I believed in Heaven, and if I were the arbiter of who could enter,

I would go for the person who behaved "ethically" because that person chose to, over the person who did it out of need, fear, to show praise, or for eternal bliss.

(Note: this is not to say that all atheists are upstanding citizens...or that all those with particular religious inclinations only act out of indoctrination)

I like the idea of actions in a vacuum...(although that can never exist...because culture/socialization will pick up whatever religion couldn't get...but at least in that instance, eternal punishment is out of the equation)

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Boxer and Rice

In response to criticism of Senator Barbara Boxer...

This is the actual quote made by Boxer:

"Now, the issue is who pays the price, who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, within immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families, and I just want to bring us back to that fact."

If you think that Boxer was disrespecting Rice, then you must recognize that she was equally disrespecting herself. Boxer admits that she, Barbara Boxer, is not paying a price because her children are too old, and her grandchildren are too young to serve. She parallels her lack-of-loss to Rice. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO BOXER, NEITHER ONE IS PAYING A PRICE...

Boxer is highlighting the fact that troops are treated merely as a number--and the ones who suffer to are immediate family, to whom troops are real people.

Additionally, Boxer never refers to Rice's [lack of] children. "Immediate family" can refer to a sibling for god sake.

This entire situation has been at least misunderstood...but I would take a step further and say completely blown out of proportion.

Boxer authored the Freedom of Choice Act of 2004...she clearly believes that women have choices when it comes to motherhood.

The point is, only military families fully understand a military loss. Neither Boxer nor Rice has a military family. Boxer was not "dissing" Rice.

State of the Union

I have officially decided that the state of the union (is that a proper pronoun?) is a bunch of horse-shit.

Based on the 62 interruptions of applause, it seemed that old dubya is actually respectable and doing a good job. By George, it sounded as if people like him!

Because a record of multiple state of the unions has bared zero fruit, what makes anyone think the labor of his loins is anything short of a joke this time around?

In fact, I found the entire experience quite bothersome, because the ceremonial affair actually seemed to humanize the president. Allowing a war-criminal/profiteer to stand in esteem and ramble on like a sweet monkey-looking Texan grandpa, talking about democracy and freedom and effective policy (that will never happen) conjures imagery of him as not-so-bad. In fact, his repetition of fancy notions and progress and the right thing (no pun intended there), and the way he pointed out wonderful Americans in the audience, depicts an inaccurate scenario of who our president really is...

and everyone sits (and even stands) to clap. Where is the message in that? How does that convey at all the people's outrage, or the fact that we have a leader who could give a shit less about surveys, polls, or public opinion at large? Because people ARE outraged, and George DOESN'T give a shit. I'm sorry, let's not humor someone who exploits and privatizes war and excuses death for his and the sake of his cronies, with "respect"--because its bullshit.

Honestly, that was the biggest jerk-off session I have ever seen.

Is this the job of an aware political officer: to be outraged on the one hand, and then cup your balls/labia and dignify someone of our presidents standing at some "formal" affair?

(steam blowing out of ears)

However, I found the Democratic response tastefully-delivered.

Monday, January 22, 2007

The Sexual Manifesto

Current sexual vocabulary and categorization of sexuality rely on cultural notions of sexuality in and of itself. The way in which the western world looks at sexuality is socially relevant and culturally constructed—and therefore biased and unsophisticated. Additionally, categorizations of sexuality, namely homo-, hetero-, and bi-sexual, are limiting, and more importantly, fail to communicate the complexity of sexuality and object choice. What is more, current usage of the labels “homosexual” and “bisexual” are loaded, carry a history of judgment, and promote notions of deviation and therefore abnormality. Consequently, the use of faulty language is counter-productive to healthy sexual understandings and should be seriously revised, or not used at all.

In her work, Thinking Sex, Gayle Rubin uses the imagery of “the charmed circle” to demonstrate what type of sex is socially acceptable in the western world. The charmed circle contains good, normal and natural sexuality, and includes the following characteristics: heterosexual, married, monogamous, procreative, non-commercial, in pairs, in a relationship, same generation, in private, no pornography and bodies only. The “outer limits” of the circle depict bad, abnormal, unnatural and damned sexuality. Such characteristics include: homosexual, unmarried, promiscuous, non-procreative, commercial, alone or in groups, casual, cross-generational, in public, pornographic, or with manufactured objects (p 13). Therefore, it remains clear that sex is not simply sex—and depending on how and with whom, such practices are acceptable or condoned. Acceptable sex necessitates the inclusion of one male and one female, and this understanding has infiltrated not only culture, but the medical community as well. Sexology, or the study of sex, focuses on frequency of coitus, orgasm, masturbation, age at first sexual intercourse, number of sexual partners and beyond through heterosexual experience, (Nagel p 49). Information available about sexuality is consequently discriminatory and largely inconclusive because it fails to utilize a wide enough vantage point, and is based on cultural and religious assumptions of what is natural.

Western acceptance of sexuality relies on understandings the biological. However, history has shown that such arguments often operate backwards—science is used to “prove” an already existing hypothesis. As skull size was natural proof of female and African inferiority, what is “natural sex” is also considered after-the-fact. Gayle Rubin articulates that, while hunger is biological, what constitutes food is culturally determined and obtained. Likewise, while reproductive urges are biological, what is considered sex is culturally determined and obtained. Following this analogy, in no way does the basic human need of food account for the complexity of cuisine, diet, and taste—nor does it account for the fact that, across peoples and environments, these choices change dramatically. Additionally, the biological need to consume for energy does not explain fantasies of chocolate cake or buttered popcorn. Likewise, reproduction in no way explains the complexity of sexuality and the differences among peoples across time and spaces, (Rubin, p 10). The available terminology does not account for this complexity either; rather, it promotes misunderstanding of sexuality through over-simplification.

Similar to the analogy of sexuality to hunger, both "natural," David Halperin, in his work One-Hundred Years of Homosexuality, comments, "It never occurred to pre-modern cultures to ascribe a person's sexual tastes to some positive, structural, or constitutive feature of his or her personality...human beings are not individuated at the level of dietary preference... [but] share the same fundamental set of alimentary appetites, and hence the same dieticity," (p 27). Halperin points out the way that our cultural perspective on sexuality creates assumptions (and unfortunately judgments) of those we view. Additionally, his analytical approach calls to question the ways in which categorization creates essential differences in circumstances regardless of similarity. What is more, these differences in categorization impede the ability to understand sex construction and (lack of) categorization in other cultures.

Sexual labels are particularly problematic because they connote more than genital preference. “Individuals do not have the choice not to have a sexual orientation and identity. One is presumed to be “gay” or “straight,” if not in deed, then surely in identity,” (Nagel, p 50). The term “homosexuality” was introduced into the English language in 1892 by Charles Gilbert Chaddock. Previously, “sexual inversion” existed to describe same-sex relations. A far different concept, inversion referred to a process wherein individuals “inverted their proper sex roles by adopting masculine or feminine style at variance with what was deemed natural and appropriate to their anatomical sex.” In essence, through the logic of inversion, a male trapped in a female body could account for lesbianism. The transition from sexual inversion to homosexuality marks the impermanence of sexual perspectives in a given culture. Homosexuality, on the other hand, considers desired partners independently of gender performance, based solely on who has had sex with whom, and indifferent to cultural and environmental factors. (Halperin, p 15-17).

Historical accounts of sexuality underscore the notion that perceptions of sex-relations are socially and often times religiously specific. Through the works of Plato, readers are exposed to a Grecian perspective of sex four-hundred years before the Common Era. In The Symposium, same-sex relations are acceptable and accounted for in the mythology of human beings, soul mates, and sex. At a dinner party, Aristophanes begins his story:

Long ago, our nature was not the same as it is now but quite different. For one thing, there were three human genders, not just the present two, male and female. There was also a third one, a combination of these two…Then “androgynous” was a distinct gender as well as a name…now nothing is left but the name, which is used as an insult (p 26).

Right in his introduction, Aristophanes describes to his audience how gender performance is a human-construct, varying through time, and based on custom instead of nature. He explains that the parent of the male gender was from the sun, that of the female gender the earth, that of the androgynous from the moon. He goes on to describe how human beings also did not look the same then—they were round bodies, with a face on either side, and four hands and four legs, with two sets of genitals. One day, the humans tried to climb up to heaven and attack the gods. As punishment, Zeus split them in half. However, devastated from the separation, the halves threw their arms around each other, and died of hunger, as they would not separate regardless of the cost. Zeus had sympathy toward the humans, so he moved their genitals to the front of their bodies, and the site of sexual reproduction was changed from on the earth onto their bodies.

The aim of this was that, if a man met with a woman and entwined himself with her, they would reproduce and the human race would be continued. Also, if two males came together, they would at least have the satisfaction of sexual intercourse, and then relax, turn to their work, and think about the other things in their life…Those men who are cut from the combined gender (the androgynous, as it was called then) are attracted to women…those women who are cut from the female gender are not at all interested in men, but are drawn much more towards women (p 29-30).

In the eyes of Aristophanes, humans originally coupled, not for the purpose of reproduction, but to achieve an original state of wholeness. Understandings of intercourse and reproduction resulted in Zeus’ intervention, and even then, sex was an avenue to alleviate the anxiety of separation. The myth of Aristophanes showcases a perspective of sexuality that does not position one preference against the other, and consequently, “we all share the same ‘sexuality’—which is to say that, despite differences in our personal preferences or tastes, we are not individuated at the level of our sexual being,” (Halperin, p 20). Additionally, sexuality was not a marker of individual character; sexual access to men was considered an indicator of high-status. Men of power had access to slaves, women and men. Partners were considered “active” or “passive” as opposed to distinction based on genitals. (Halperin, p 35-37)

Unlike ancient Greece, the history of homosexuality within the United States since its introduction into the English language has been grim. Those engaging in different orientations have been historically ostracized, discriminated against, and considered pathological. In the 1950’s, a period of sex panic filtered anxieties about sexuality through images of the “homosexual menace” and the “sex offender.” Although “sex offender” was used to describe rapists and molesters, it came to include homosexuality as well. “In its bureaucratic, medical, and popular versions, the sex offender discourse tended to blur distinctions between violent sexual assault and illegal but consensual acts such as sodomy,” (Rubin, p 5). From the 1940’s until the 1960’s, homosexuals and communists were subjected to intense investigation and persecution. Senator Joseph McCarthy was fixated on eliminating communists, and developed an interest in homosexuals because their lifestyle made them “vulnerable to blackmail” and their “moral character made them susceptible to communist influence,” (Nagel, p 164). Non-heterosexual orientations, homosexuality in particular, have been historically oppressed and marginalized in the United States, and despite progressive movement, the Land of the Free largely maintains institutionalized homophobia. By use of terminology that has served a long-standing pejorative and punitive function, specific mindsets of homosexuality are allowed to continue. Vocabulary that serves to recognize the “deviant” and the “abnormal” continuously infer and underscore what is “normal” and “biological”

Despite oppressive and binary views of natural orientation, this century has seen public uproar in response to new views and ways of thinking. Freud was brilliant in that he forced a more critical eye on the development and state of sexuality, regardless of the sexism in his work, (specifically penis envy). He asserted that all actions are, in some facet, part of a sexual energy—more or less making sex everywhere. Additionally, Freud's asserts that infants attempt to replicate their first pleasure (breastfeeding) for the rest of their lives—and that parents and siblings actually teach sexuality to a growing mind and body. He also cites direct correlation between pleasure, pain and sexuality. Like any other theory, Freudian thought certainly has flaws—but is also has critical observations and perceptions of sex unfitting to the time period in which he lived—and rooted in a deeper thinking of sexuality. Freud unveiled a revolution in psychology and child development because he exposed the fact that sex was not as easy or explicable as heterosexual penetration—and certainly, there is more to it than hetero-, homo-, and bi-. According to Freud, we are all polymorphously perverse, but “mental dams against sexual excesses—shame, disgust and morality—” shape the hetero-normative socialization process.

Freud also positions heterosexuality equally as restrictive as homosexuality. Picking up where Freud left off, Alfred Kinsey develops the Kinsey scale to depict what lies in between. In fact, what Kinsey has to offer is more diverse than “same,” “different,” or “both.” Rated zero through six, zero signifies exclusively heterosexual, and six signifies exclusively homosexual. One is noted as predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual; two as predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual; three as equally heterosexual and homosexual; four as predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual, and five as predominantly homosexual and only incidentally heterosexual. Kinsey’s work offended the public propriety of his day, revealing a singular and rigid scope of sex.

Through exploring different cultures, epochs and approaches toward sexuality, there is no easy way to say that heterosexual penetration is the only acceptable form, simply because it is necessary for reproduction, and simply because our society says so. Contraception and abortion alone showcase that sex is recreational and not just reproductive—but above that, the fact that post-menopausal women and elderly persons maintain a sex drive highlights the idea that the sexual psyche is not easily understood. Let's get real—infants fondle themselves and children masturbate long before the onset of puberty, and long before ejaculation is possible. What is more, pornography and role-play showcase the function of fantasy in sexuality, which is not necessary for plain old put-it-in-the-hole copulation and reproduction. Social stigma of sexuality, coupled with over-simplified and loaded terminology, exacerbate issues of sexual stratification, judgment and oppression. Positing cultural understandings as natural fact is both ignorant and egocentric. Although terminology such as pansexuality (attraction not based on gender), sapiosexuality (attracted to the mind as much as the body) and fluid sexuality (changing over time), have expanded available vocabulary, these terms are not widely used or recognized, still carry judgment, and therefore cannot pose a strong enough challenge to current social stigma and the under-simplification of sex. Until more profound language and perspectives are readily available, I move that we label ourselves simply "sexual."

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Diary of a Shaven Head

I want to talk about how I feel right now in terms of my hair. But, in order to make this more genuine, I am pasting old entries to capture how I felt in the past, specifically after I just shaved my head, and then the re-growing process. Actually, these are from my personal journal--so this is rather revealing, (but don't get too excited, I still edited).

January 19, 2006

Diary of Shaven Head

I have taken for granted the sensations in my head without ever realizing it. What it is to feel the wind, to feel water, to feel touch…is so powerful. I have never felt these things, except I suppose as an infant. To suddenly have that ability back is overpowering.

A recovering cancer patient stopped me. She asked me why I buzzed my head, revealing she did it herself before chemotherapy took its toll. I was a bit uncomfortable at first—unsure why she would share this with me. But then she said, ‘and I joked to my kids, it was the first time I felt raindrops.” I don’t know why she would share that as a joke, because it is something so profound. Either way, in that moment, I connected with her.

I almost feel cheesy to say that I feel liberated now, here, like this. But the truth is, I feel more attractive now than I ever have. That is not to say there are not certain moments where I feel naked without my hair. I surprise myself when I feel that way. I understand why I would. My hair is some sort of safety net, some sort of social tool, some way to belong and have a place. But I don’t like that place, so I’m glad it’s gone, and I’m glad my hair is gone. And fuck the message, it just looks awesome. I feel empowered.

It also feels more intimate. I love when Seth touches my head.

October 24, 2006

I have not admitted this to anyone—but my short hair makes me feel invisible. When my head was shaved, I felt exquisite. But this awkward in-between length, socially associated so strongly with non-feminine, butch, unattractive--I feel it.

January 21, 2007

Like I said, the shaved head--loved it. Never felt better. The regrowth--let's just say I learned what it feels like to be the female-outcast, the awkward butch. What's interesting is that I don't even buy into that junk. I love and respect gender benders incredibly, and I do not even believe in compulsory heterosexuality. But I still felt what it means to not look the way you are "supposed" to. This is not to say that people stopped speaking to me, but it is this feeling I cannot explain. Really makes you feel for people who are marginalized for being or looking differently.

Anyway, that is in the past as well. My hair has left the incredibly-awkward phase, and is on the way back to girly town. Although I loved my bare head, I miss having my long, wavy hair with snarls and baby dreads and bed head. So here I am, trying to get my long hair back.

But the thing is, now that I have long-enough hair again, I feel the same (as every one else).

I suppose that is the same as being invisible, in a different form. And it's really bothering me.

I have decided that I do need my shaved head again. It is only a matter of when. Honestly, I want to get my long hair back just out of curiosity. I want to know if it will feel the same as it did before.

If I had time, I would talk about how hair is a social tool of conformity, both racist and gendered. But I have so much work to do...

Friday, January 19, 2007

Pornography and "Raunch Culture"

I find a very large problem in reading about female sexuality. How is there a singular female sexuality open for analysis, or one sort of pornography, for that matter, that enables an author to claim grandiose and over-generalized assertions of dangers posed to "women"--inferring all women? I also find it very difficult to read about female objectification via sex, because although this may be true to varying degrees in varying contexts, I think it reduces female sexuality in the first place. To say that females are objects implies that all women want or feel nothing—they don’t want the sex, they are just participating as objects.

In terms of porn, I think the better question is why does porn tend to revolve around male fantasy? I think the answer is that women are socially and historically not allowed the same sexual freedom as men, so a parallel porn industry targeting women as consumers has not had the cultural space to develop. And if porn existed both ways—would that make it better? Then, would "men" and "women" both be objectified? Along those lines, in terms of women participating in raunch culture, although I won’t deny pressure to participate, etc etc—I think that is also denies female sexuality to a certain extent in the first place. Maybe raunch culture is forced or over-prevalent, but it is also the only dominant form of sexuality available. So if a woman wants to be part of a sexual culture, that is the most accessible option. These arguments do not address whether a public sexual culture is problematic, but only present a basic analysis that women are objectified. What, then, is a safe sexual culture--what would it look like for and women participating--and can it be achieved? Or are all public sexual cultures oppressive? I find the conclusion that "raunch culture and pornography are demeaning" not very profound.

Catherine MacKinnon, a feminist author and staunch anti-porn activist, more or less claims that all heterosexual sex is rape for females. I find this claim counter-productive to feminism, and misrepresentative of the end goal--equality for men and women. I find it irresponsible for a scholar to throw female sexuality into a singular experience; yes, rape occurs in relationships and marriage, but this is not a sweeping generalization by any means. Similarly, pornography exists in a variety of ways: multiple women, men and women, role-play, flat women, large women, men only, multiple men, people and animals, young people, old people--yet only one conclusion is made: bad for women. Why is a particular type of pornography more dominant? Now that is a far more interesting question. Can we look at pornography from an analytical and non-judgemental perspective? There are authors that do, and I appreciate that. In a later post I will explore that more. But these authors remain largely unheard, and feminist anti-porn sentiments rage loudest, although there are pro-porn feminists.

I guess I am just saying that over-generalized and surface-level arguments about women as one group and sexuality seem to say women are not sexual or would not want to culturally participate in sexual fantasy—when maybe they do, and there are no real avenues available—which is a different issue than being forced because of gender stratification.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

"Blended Gender"

In closing her analysis of the medical community and its mal-treatment of intersexed infants, Suzanne Kessler presents an alternative: “taking genitals less seriously.” Such a maneuver, she asserts, will create a world of “blended gender,” and “eventually, blended gender is no gender.” However, this solution fails to consider personal preference and self-expression in terms of gender identity; through its very endeavor to eliminate the shackles of dichotomous gender, this alternative is binding in that it forces sameness. A more effective solution would be a world wherein biological organs, sex, gender and sexuality do not have a culturally idealized relationship to one another—a world where an individual is not anatomically or socially confined to a particular station on a spectrum of social identity, but can choose a position freely. Whereas “blended gender” would constitute a position in the middle of the spectrum, making available the entire continuum free of stigma and judgment, would allow stronger individuality and trueness to oneself. In line with Kessler’s plea, genitals should be taken less seriously—not to eradicate identification, but to provide equal opportunity and presentation to all.

In redefining what it means to be sexual and what it looks like, it is clear that humans are unique. Freedom lies not in taking away choice, but in expanding. Rather than relegating the heterosexual phallus to the masculine side of the gender continuum, and the heterosexual vagina to the feminine side, individuals should choose their own placement, or comfortably move up and down as desired. There is nothing wrong with self-expression through cultural performance; there is only a problem when anatomy throws you into one of two options.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007


To loosely quote Larry David,

Only two kinds of people wear sunglasses indoors: blind people and assholes

Tuesday, January 16, 2007


As I was invalid from terrible cramps, I was trying to reason with myself: why do I have to have such pain? And I remembered, oh wait, the future of human civilization as we know it depends on the monthly shedding of my (and every other females') ovarian walls and the continuous renewel of my reproductive capacity--cramps and all.

It suddenly hit me: you know, for all that I and millions of other women have to endure to keep humanity rolling, what do we get back? Stereotypes, judgements, complaints, myths and shame about menstruation.

Instead of feeling social gratitude for the week out of the month we bleed out of our vaginas and experience physical pain and discomfort in a variety of ways--we got jokes and comments about being bitchy, assessments that we cannot handle specific job positions because our moods fluctuate, and the shame of the whole unspeakable thing--menstruation, this disgusting monster that we can't even talk about. Why should it be embarassing to buy tampons? You rarely, if ever, even hear a crack about it on a sitcom.

This is what I get back for giving so much?

And don't think women are so innocent. In reality, at most, 1/3 of women experience mood fluctuations on their periods. (Note: mood is different than pain and physical sensations). ONLY ONE THIRD. What does that mean? Instead of saying, something in my life is unfullfilling, I am unhappy with this or that, women at large blame moods or feelings on their period to avoid dealing with actual issues at hand--and perpetuate the already unfounded cultural understandings of the whole thing to begin with.

Next time someone has cramps, don't say ew...have a little gratitude.

And unless you are in the minority of women, don't use your period as a scapegoat for your other shit, its annoying and it effects all other women.

Eating Disorders--Not Really About Food

Considering the umbrella term, it is hard to understand how “eating disorders” are not really about food. With a single Google-search, an individual is bombarded by information relating eating disorders to a “culture of thinness” and “fear of fat”—although these are certainly factors, societal misperceptions of bulimia nervosa, anorexia, and binge eating disorder both marginalize and stigmatize victims.

The over-abundance of information related to eating disorders contributes to the cultural misunderstandings of the disease; while access to information is key to recovery, not all sources are good sources. A lack of reliable and well-circulated information has hidden the fact that an eating disorder is really a relationship disorder—relationships with oneself, and with others.
An individual suffering with an eating disorder uses weight, food, and fat as a manifestation of other deep-seated issues, and utilizes this “superficial” problem to cope with the trauma of underlying factors. Thus, feelings of sadness, anxiety, anger, depression, shame or guilt are not dealt with, but redirected through the funnel of food. While familial dysfunction or traumatic experiences such as rape or abuse may be hard to overcome, weight/food obsession provides a problem that is "treatable", and results that are attainable—at the expense of one’s body, mind, and life.

In this mind-frame, food becomes an avenue to punish oneself. A victim may feel that she or he does not deserve to eat, and thus the disorder becomes a masochistic avenue of self-discipline. One recovering anorexic shared that by starving herself to the point where she could only think about food, she did not have to deal with the recent and painful death of her father.

As eating disorders continue to be pushed to the sidelines as “vain,” “silly” or “superficial,” both victims and survivors are silenced by shame and criticism. This gross misunderstanding and unwarrented stigma cultivates an environment where it is difficult to find relief, difficult for friends and family to help, and difficult for survivors to vocalize personal experiences and mentor others. As one recovering bulimic shared, “There is nothing vain about throwing up into a public toilet.”

To understand the nature of eating disorders, one must take a deeper look—there is more to the story than a snap-shot perspective. The shame associated with anorexia, bulimia, and binge-eating only exacerbates the problem; eating disorders are heard of predominately through Hollywood and the entertainment industry. In order to create an environment of healing, we must first create an environment of understanding.

Friday, January 12, 2007

Front Page

Why did Beckham and Posh Spice make the front-page of the Los Angeles Times because Bend-It is playing American soccer?

Isn't that sports section material?

Or at least People material?

I guess being hot and rich is everything.

But I will say, Beckham is pioneering a wider scope of "legitimate" social manhood through his celebrity. Under what other circumstances would a binary gender culture celebrate nail polish and headbands on a man?

Even so, the cease-fire in Darfur was on around the 4th page of the Times yesterday. So much for "news"paper

Troop Surge

The timing of this entry is particularly humorous, seeing as I just posted my frustration with lack-of-bipartisan-unity being a larger issue than uncertainty (to say the least) in Iraq. However, with Bush’s declaration of a new troop-surge, it looks like I may be singing a different tune in time to come.

An additional 21,500 troops planned to join 132,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq is, above and beyond upsetting, a doubtful stabilizing force for the millions of people in the region. But amidst the tragedy of presidential failure, a more politically-diverse opposition has been mobilized:

“I’ve gone along with the president on this, and I’ve bought into his dream, and at this stage of the game I just don’t think it’s going to happen”—Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio)

It is sad that throwing thousands more soldiers into a tumultuous region is necessary to rally a wider and more audible range of public/congressional outcry—but this situation must meet resolve somehow. Or, perhaps it’s worse that some extra moments of profiteering are worth (yet another) tragedy in American history.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007


"It is not the consciousness of [wo/]men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness"--Karl Marx

Tuesday, January 9, 2007

God versus G-d

In Judaism, the spelling of "g-d" is widely practiced because God/god (however you want to refer to it) is sacred and should not be used in vain, erased, or defaced. Also, it is disrespectful to throw something away that has God/god written on it, so in order to avoid that, the word is not written in its entirety…and papers containing “god” must be disposed of or handled in a particular way that I am not completely clear on.

Here's my thing: words are meaningless. Words have absolutely no value--they are socially constructed representations...what has value is the concept or notion ascribed to the word in question. That said, writing g-d or god or God is all the same because each image, each chunk, each pattern, each strand, all represents the same idea, the same concept. My mind goes back to geometry and the transitive property of equality: g-d=God=god=any spelling in any other language.

Even if you believe god created life, god certainly did not create our alphabet or our language. The difference between an "o" and an "-" is nothing, because the alphabet is a relative and varying function. It is grammatically, culturally and linguistically relevant, but universally pointless.

Also, “God” is not a name—it is a title. The actual name of god (that I believe was revealed to Moses in the book of Exodus) is four consonants. Since ancient Hebrew lacks vowels, the pronunciation is unknown. Therefore, the name “Jehovah”, (as in Jehovah’s Witnesses) is not scripturally or historically accurate, (unless by sheer luck Charles Taze Russell hit the target, but we’ll never know). I have stumbled off-topic, but since God/god is a title, and not a name, you are not defaming the Lord’s name. So even though “god” is a culturally invented term, the “genuine” name as delivered by god himself to Moses is unknown, and cannot be tarnished in and of itself. But it can be tarnished through a representation of the thing itself--different method, same end result.

What's my point? If you are concerned about disrespecting god, the title, or actual being itself, or using references in vain, then it is equally abused by using a “-“or an "o."
Therefore, if you believe that writing "God" is not okay, then "G-d" is not a sound alternative.

I suppose there could be some room for argument whether or not you capitalize the "g", because that would indicate a proper noun, or just a regular noun, so that can be construed as respect...but it is still semantics.

Pictorally, symbollicaly, in Swedish or Japanese, Times New Roman or Wing Dings, each variation represents and equals the same entity (I mean within a particular viewpoint), so a variance in physical presentation doesn't mean shit. If it really is an issue of disrespect, don't write god/God/G-d/g-d at all—they all represent the same thing. Am I repeating myself?

P.S. I failed to mention in my intro that I am interested in religion. Although it would make for wonderful gender-related conversation why God is refered to as male via pronouns such as "he, him, his" both in scripture, historically, and presently. Why is the heavenly creator, the divine and all-powerful who is not of this world, considered male--a body of this world? But I suppose if you believe in the Virgin Mary, God must have a physical or spiritual dong...

Dear readers...

I shan't lead you astray--the purpose of The Colonic is to cleanse, to get your shit out. Also fitting, The Colonic has a "No Bull-Shit" policy: one must be frank and analytical. I mean this both in terms of my posts, but also in terms of responses. For all of my readers, I would like internal irrigation for you all as well, and the comfort to be honest (but not hostile).

Although I ultimately hope to be a "well-rounded" individual, my posts and personality do have certain core themes. Of all my socio-political interests (because the personal is political), matters of gender tend to captivate me most. In fact, Freud-to-sex might not be entirely different from Vanessa-to-gender. I am fascinated with popular culture and current Western influence; however, we as a national and global collective only navigate to the present through the past, and therefore, history is of interest as well.

To make it clear, I do not believe in categorical binaries in terms of gender, or in terms of political parties--people do not fit in boxes. However, I am a social radicalist and you will find many "liberal" ideas here. Even so, the only ideology I subscribe to is Vanessaism, and hopefully, with a little reader-involvement, we can all learn a little Youism as well.