it was RAPE-rape

thirteen year olds can't see a movie with swear words in it without parental supervision.

when you drug someone in order to get them to have sex with you, it's because they don't consent.

when your, er, partner, is crying, clearly saying "no" and "stop" and asking to go home, they don't want to be having sex with you.

roman polanski is a genius filmmaker. and a rapist. why do some people think the two are mutually exclusive? he pled guilty, for fuck's sake!

likewise, michael jackson? probably was not a "great man." a genius? maybe so, but a good guy? it seems so unlikely.

and the same goes for john phillips (is that his name?). sex with your adult child? rape. whether or not you're a genius. (even if that child is an adult. even. if. incest IS rape.)

sex with ANY child, sex with someone whose drugged, sex with someone who's begging you to stop? RAPE.


edited to add: i have more to say about this.


why is it that most of the high-profile defenders of this scumbag women?? (like debra tate!) is it because they are one of the 4 out of 5 (or is it 5 out of 6?) women who's never been the victim of a sexual assault? because then maybe i have a slightly different perspective. maybe they just don't know the "no" DOES mean "no" and nobody's asking for it.

is it because of some schoolgirl fantasy that some genius artist like polanski or jackson (or, erm, i dunno, johnny depp or picasso) will come sweep their teenage selves off their feet and the very idea that they might have once fantasized about something so reprehensible leads them to the conclusion that it IS okay because THEY WANTED IT. as if the desires of 13 year olds have EVER been realistic!

i mean, really, WHY??

and, while i'm on the subject, et tu whoopi? first vick and now polanski. is there a crime bad enough that famous people shouldn't get away with it?

should there be an "off the record" with the president?

fucking YES.

sometimes presidents hiss obscenities when they slam a drawer on their hands and sometimes they whisper obscenities to starlets and sometimes, maybe, to men. sometimes they doubt god to their pastor or roll their eyes on the way to endless religious events that they have to play along with. sometimes they tell their kids to be quiet for just one minute please and sometimes they ask the first lady if she's awake. sometimes they request a burger and fries instead of whatever was on the menu and sometimes they have a drink or three after a long day.

that's all off the record.

if the traditional approach is to remain off the record until the interview begins, why should it change because of twitter?

and, really, you guys, kanye IS A JACKASS. but i can't imagine anything that would make him happier than the knowledge that the president was talking about him. except maybe if he found out that god was talking about him to michael jackson.

does nestle sponser the ohio supreme court?

the ohio supreme court ruled in favor of totes/isotoner after they fired a woman for taking a break to pump her breastmilk when they failed to allow her time and a clean place to do it (she was told to use the bathroom and took and unscheduled bathroom break when her breasts because painful and leaked).

gender discrimination? says the state supreme court, no, indeed, she CHOSE to nurse her five month old son, she could have formula fed him and then she wouldn't have had to pump at all! lactating isn't a symptom of pregnancy, but a symptom of women's lib!!

it's possible i exaggerated that last bit. but only a little. they blame her lactation on her CHOICE to breastfeed her child, not on the whole pregnancy/childbirth/baby/hormones thing she thinks caused it.


(ps-- nestle killed a bunch of third world babies by telling their mothers, who couldn't afford to formula feed them, that it was healthier for the babies to do so. their mothers, not quite understanding, watered the formula down to stretch it. the babies starved. that shit costs like $25 a can-- not exactly cheap by any standard. and totally NOT objectively the best choice.)

but it's not a THREAT threat

... so, as long as you don't SAY you're going to shoot someone, it's not threatening to carry a loaded semi-automatic weapon to see them??

interesting.

there's more to productivity

there's more to being a productive member of society than physical or mental ability, isn't there?

for instance, how productive is it to be a fear-mongering lunatic?

dear enemies: WE ARE HERE

now would be the best time for bin laden to attack, right? well, how about this: okay, okay, so it was royally moronic to post possibly sensative information on stalkerbook, but, really, daily mail? REALLY?

when we're not who our mothers expect us to be

i have joked, frequently, about wanting to be a real boy. my senior project focused on the idea that actresses get the short end of the stick as a (female) friend and i performed scenes and monologues written for men, as men. but my identity is so wrapped up in being female, i can't even fathom WHY one would want to be a man. (except for the decreased acting competition and the upper arm strength.)

no offense, guys.

what i'm getting around to is that chastity bono is having a sex change. for a deeper, first-person description of the reasons, process and ramifications of gender transitioning, read "she's not there" by jennifer finney boylan. it's a beautiful-- and sometimes heartbreaking-- story that will crack your ass up. just do it.