I could use this post to discuss the national election results, but I think we all know what my reaction to that is. Instead, one of the most surprising results from last night was Los Angeles County's Measure B. For my friends outside of the LA area, Measure B would require adult film productions to obtain County health permits, be trained in blood-borne pathogens, and use condoms and other safety equipment to prevent the spread of blood-borne pathogens. This seems like it would be beneficial on the surface, but Los Angeles county is going to suffer now that this has passed.
First, porn actors are tested constantly to determine their STI infection status. If this wasn't already a self-imposed policy put on by the studios, then maybe some change would be necessary. There are very few cases of STI's in the porn industry right now, and any infections that are caught are quickly isolated so they don't spread to the other performers.
Not only would this law require the use of condoms, it would require any sexual act to use proper barriers. This means gloves for any manual contact, condoms and dental dams for oral sex, and possibly protective eye wear. In addition, county inspectors would be required on each set in order to ensure that all of these safety measures are followed. These inspectors would have to go through training as well. Where would the funding for this come from? Taxpayers? The porn industry is a $1 billion to $2 billion industry, and brings a lot of money to the LA county economy. They won't stay in LA county if all of this holds up. Instead, they will move to San Bernadino county, and taking all of their business and tax money with them.
It seems like this measure is meant as a way to use pornography as a way to encourage people to use condoms. Is this what we've come to now? Using porn as a way to replace proper sexual health education? We need to stop abstinence-only education and replace it with in-depth sexual education. Maybe then we wouldn't need to rely on something that is meant to be a form of expression and entertainment as an educational tool!
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
For those who aren't aware, Bill Nye (yes, that Bill Nye, the Science Guy) was recently in a video where he said that teaching creationism and not teaching evolution is not good for children. Of course, the Creationist higher ups had to make some kind of rebuttal. Ken Ham, president/CEO of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, was one of the most public responders. He first attacks Bill Nye as a Humanist, saying that he has an agenda. Which is 100% true. He wants the children of the nation to be taught how to think critically, and wants to give all people equal human rights. Ham continues to say that Nye is confusing "historical science" with "observational science." He says that "historical" science cannot be proven by laboratory experiments, like "observational" science. He classifies evolution and natural selection as "historical" science, he says that it has never been proven in a lab setting. Which is false. I personally have seen natural selection and evolution in a lab setting. Sure, we haven't been able to demonstrate it at the scale that led to speciation, but that takes too many generations to accomplish in our lifetime. We have seen small scale natural selection in labs, however.
Ham then goes on to suggest that people who teach evolution only are actually indoctrinating their children. He says that they aren't teaching how to think, but what to think. Which is completely ironic. There is a difference between teaching a concept that is supported by more than a century of scientific research and a concept that is supported by a book translated from Hebrew to Latin to English, written by people who were generations removed from the actual events. If we are going to teach evolution and creationism as equals, why don't we teach all forms of creation? Because, of course, it would show how Christian creation is just one of an infinite number of increasingly improbable ideas for how we got here. Why don't we teach all religions to children? Is it because then children would see how the story of Jesus is really the story of Mithras? Or because all of the Christian holidays are really just Pagan holidays that were stolen in order to convince Pagans to convert (as if they would have chose death instead)? Until you teach the "controversy" when it comes to religion, life science teachers should not have to teach the "controversy" between evolution and creation.
Ham then goes on to suggest that people who teach evolution only are actually indoctrinating their children. He says that they aren't teaching how to think, but what to think. Which is completely ironic. There is a difference between teaching a concept that is supported by more than a century of scientific research and a concept that is supported by a book translated from Hebrew to Latin to English, written by people who were generations removed from the actual events. If we are going to teach evolution and creationism as equals, why don't we teach all forms of creation? Because, of course, it would show how Christian creation is just one of an infinite number of increasingly improbable ideas for how we got here. Why don't we teach all religions to children? Is it because then children would see how the story of Jesus is really the story of Mithras? Or because all of the Christian holidays are really just Pagan holidays that were stolen in order to convince Pagans to convert (as if they would have chose death instead)? Until you teach the "controversy" when it comes to religion, life science teachers should not have to teach the "controversy" between evolution and creation.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
An Open Letter to Christians
Dear Christians,
If you are truly accepting and are for same-sex marriage, this isn't for you. If you think that everyone has the right to believe anything they want, you aren't being talked about in this letter. If you don't think that the government abstaining from any religious activity is a war on Christians, then read on without worry. I would hope that all of America, or at least all of my friends, would be included in the last section, but sadly I know I am wrong.
I strongly support your right to believe and say (almost) anything you want, but at a certain point, it's just too far. I'm tired of people saying that there is a war on Judeo-Christian beliefs in America. Of the 43 men that have served as US President, 43 have identified as Christian in some way. As of 2008, 76% of adults in America identify as Christian. There obviously is no attack being made on religion. However, there are more people that want to live by the letter of the law, and have true religious freedom. It's hard to do that when one religion is allowed to advertise as much as they want, without equal opposition.
Don't take the push for the legalization of same-sex marriage as the government trying to destroy traditional Christian values. Nobody is forcing you to marry someone of your sex, or to attend any same-sex weddings. All we want is for everyone to be granted the same rights, regardless of sexuality. The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal," so why not treat them equally?
For those of you that think that I am a hypocrite for ridiculing those that boycotted JC Penney's and Oreo, but yet am boycotting Chick-Fil-A need to look at this situation for a different angle. People were boycotting those companies for hiring a high profile lesbian spokesperson, and announcing their support for marriage equality, respectively. I, however, am boycotting Chick-Fil-A because profits are donated to organizations that work to prevent marriage equality. I choose not to give my money to groups that are working to deny a large percentage of the US population equal rights. I am not boycotting them because of their Christian beliefs, I still eat at In-N-Out, despite their Christian beliefs, but they don't donate to those organizations.
Sincerely,
Your friendly neighborhood pansexual atheist.
If you are truly accepting and are for same-sex marriage, this isn't for you. If you think that everyone has the right to believe anything they want, you aren't being talked about in this letter. If you don't think that the government abstaining from any religious activity is a war on Christians, then read on without worry. I would hope that all of America, or at least all of my friends, would be included in the last section, but sadly I know I am wrong.
I strongly support your right to believe and say (almost) anything you want, but at a certain point, it's just too far. I'm tired of people saying that there is a war on Judeo-Christian beliefs in America. Of the 43 men that have served as US President, 43 have identified as Christian in some way. As of 2008, 76% of adults in America identify as Christian. There obviously is no attack being made on religion. However, there are more people that want to live by the letter of the law, and have true religious freedom. It's hard to do that when one religion is allowed to advertise as much as they want, without equal opposition.
Don't take the push for the legalization of same-sex marriage as the government trying to destroy traditional Christian values. Nobody is forcing you to marry someone of your sex, or to attend any same-sex weddings. All we want is for everyone to be granted the same rights, regardless of sexuality. The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal," so why not treat them equally?
For those of you that think that I am a hypocrite for ridiculing those that boycotted JC Penney's and Oreo, but yet am boycotting Chick-Fil-A need to look at this situation for a different angle. People were boycotting those companies for hiring a high profile lesbian spokesperson, and announcing their support for marriage equality, respectively. I, however, am boycotting Chick-Fil-A because profits are donated to organizations that work to prevent marriage equality. I choose not to give my money to groups that are working to deny a large percentage of the US population equal rights. I am not boycotting them because of their Christian beliefs, I still eat at In-N-Out, despite their Christian beliefs, but they don't donate to those organizations.
Sincerely,
Your friendly neighborhood pansexual atheist.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Sex revisited
It amazes me how men are still considered to be more sexual than women. There is one book that is responsible for 20% of all fiction sales currently in this country: Fifty Shades of Grey. A book that is almost exclusively about sex must be targeted at men, right? Well unless you have been living under a rock, you'll know that it's marketed to housewives. This book basically amounts to "literary" porn, and that would be using the word "literary" very liberally. I've heard excerpts from the book, and it is very poorly written. That's only one way one could tell that it isn't being read for it's literary value. Another is the spike in sales of grey ties and other sex toys that are used in the books. There's even a movie in the works, which I'm pretty sure can already be seen on a variety of porn sites.
Speaking of movies, Magic Mike is further proof that women are more sexual than they like to let on. From what I've heard, the theaters are full of women watching this movie with their friends, not same-sex attracted men. Obviously women want to go see naked men, or else Chippendale's and Thunder from Down Under wouldn't exist. However, men are ridiculed for going to strip clubs.
Finally, sex toys are designed more for women than they are for men. Most sex toys are designed for female bodies. There are very few that are designed for male bodies, and those all have a very negative stigma attached to them. However, that applies to all aspects of sex: it's okay for women to do it, but when men do it, it's just plain creepy!
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with women being sexual, by all means have fun! All I'm saying is that they need to admit to it, and not just calling men creepy.
Speaking of movies, Magic Mike is further proof that women are more sexual than they like to let on. From what I've heard, the theaters are full of women watching this movie with their friends, not same-sex attracted men. Obviously women want to go see naked men, or else Chippendale's and Thunder from Down Under wouldn't exist. However, men are ridiculed for going to strip clubs.
Finally, sex toys are designed more for women than they are for men. Most sex toys are designed for female bodies. There are very few that are designed for male bodies, and those all have a very negative stigma attached to them. However, that applies to all aspects of sex: it's okay for women to do it, but when men do it, it's just plain creepy!
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with women being sexual, by all means have fun! All I'm saying is that they need to admit to it, and not just calling men creepy.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Body Image Vs. Health
I am amazed at the weird relationship America has with body image and health. The rest of the world (rightly so) views America as fat and unhealthy. We use such unhealthy ingredients in our food like trans fat, corn syrup, etc., and are the only ones that do so! On the other hand, we are also obsessed with "healthy" options in our food. Maybe if we used real ingredients in our food, we wouldn't need these "alternatives." Italians eat tons of food that have natural fats, but are nowhere near as obese as we are on average.
Unfortunately, this has affected everyone, regardless of their weight and health. We wrongly associate how thin somebody is with their health. Many times, extremely thin people are just as unhealthy, or more, as someone who is obese. We try to come up with fad diets to lose as much weight as possible in the shortest amount of time. The reason these work is because they force us to starve ourselves and cause us to lose water weight. The weight (and more) is lost as soon as the diet is over. Why don't we just completely overhaul the way we eat in general so we don't have to worry about these fad diets at all?
We take advice about health from people that have absolutely no scientific credibility, and are surprised when it doesn't work. We need to listen to doctors and scientists who have studied the science of our body and what we need to survive. Don't give people with "miracle drugs" and "miracle diets" equal time as a scientist and doctor who has a solution that is proven by science and evidence. Treat them like they are, con men. Instead, let's turn our attention to changing our health care system where everyone can get equal chance at health care.
Unfortunately, this has affected everyone, regardless of their weight and health. We wrongly associate how thin somebody is with their health. Many times, extremely thin people are just as unhealthy, or more, as someone who is obese. We try to come up with fad diets to lose as much weight as possible in the shortest amount of time. The reason these work is because they force us to starve ourselves and cause us to lose water weight. The weight (and more) is lost as soon as the diet is over. Why don't we just completely overhaul the way we eat in general so we don't have to worry about these fad diets at all?
We take advice about health from people that have absolutely no scientific credibility, and are surprised when it doesn't work. We need to listen to doctors and scientists who have studied the science of our body and what we need to survive. Don't give people with "miracle drugs" and "miracle diets" equal time as a scientist and doctor who has a solution that is proven by science and evidence. Treat them like they are, con men. Instead, let's turn our attention to changing our health care system where everyone can get equal chance at health care.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Politics
The reason I tend to not read the news or pay attention to politics as much as I probably should is the stupidity in most of politics. Things like Tucson Unified School District banning Mexican-American Studies from being taught in schools because they are afraid that it will inspire Latinos from forming a revolution against the white population. Why would we want to do something like that? Maybe because of things like this. The best part, though, is that African-American Studies are perfectly fine. What would cause a culture to hate Anglo-Americans than learning that your ancestors were enslaved by them; being considered 3/5 of a person (although that is a generous number, as they were treated like less); and once freed, being completely separated from the rest of the population, and having to use sub-par facilities.
What group is being attacked more by the government currently than women? Last time I checked, I wasn't a woman, but unlike other people who only care about demographic groups of which they are a part, I am concerned about some politicians' attempts to deny women their basic rights. Why do we need to revisit Roe v. Wade when there are bigger problems facing our country than some women wanting to have an abortion for whatever reason? Overpopulation is going to be a major problem soon (and it already is), so if a woman makes a choice to undergo an abortion (which I'm sure they wouldn't want to unless they absolutely had to), let her. Maybe we should look even earlier into a woman's life to see what the problem is. First, many people are still taught that abstinence is the only answer to sex. We all know that teens are going to have sex (just look at shows like 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom), so we need to stop acting like teaching them to not have sex will work. We are exposed to sex on so many fronts that this is a terrible tactic. Instead, we should teach teens that they should only have sex when they are ready, and if they decide to have sex, that they should protect themselves in some way.
I thought this was the worst of the attacks on 50% of our population, but sadly Wisconsin has proved me wrong. Almost all 50 states have some kind of law enacted that allows women (or any person) who feels they have been discriminated against in the work place to sue their employer. However, Wisconsin has decided to appeal their version of this law. I usually have problems determining the thought process of politicians, but no matter how long I think, I can't understand why anyone would sign off on this bill. Especially the FOUR WOMEN that voted in favor of this repeal.
Of course, most of this misogynistic attitude is kept under the rug for the most part. However, so many of the people in this country display an open dislike, distrust, and even hatred for another group: atheists. Of course, I could go on forever quoting Fox News viewers on their desire to kill all atheists, but that would be too easy. This is more brought on by the Gallup poll that says that only 49% of Americans would vote for an atheist. To this, the daughter of Billy Graham has said that wisdom comes from the belief and fear of a higher power. This doesn't factor in that almost all major scientists do not believe in some higher power. Who has more wisdom than a person that does not allow a religious institution to interfere with their morals and logic. In reality, these people are just afraid of an atheist becoming president and preaching (for lack of a better word) true equality.
What group is being attacked more by the government currently than women? Last time I checked, I wasn't a woman, but unlike other people who only care about demographic groups of which they are a part, I am concerned about some politicians' attempts to deny women their basic rights. Why do we need to revisit Roe v. Wade when there are bigger problems facing our country than some women wanting to have an abortion for whatever reason? Overpopulation is going to be a major problem soon (and it already is), so if a woman makes a choice to undergo an abortion (which I'm sure they wouldn't want to unless they absolutely had to), let her. Maybe we should look even earlier into a woman's life to see what the problem is. First, many people are still taught that abstinence is the only answer to sex. We all know that teens are going to have sex (just look at shows like 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom), so we need to stop acting like teaching them to not have sex will work. We are exposed to sex on so many fronts that this is a terrible tactic. Instead, we should teach teens that they should only have sex when they are ready, and if they decide to have sex, that they should protect themselves in some way.
I thought this was the worst of the attacks on 50% of our population, but sadly Wisconsin has proved me wrong. Almost all 50 states have some kind of law enacted that allows women (or any person) who feels they have been discriminated against in the work place to sue their employer. However, Wisconsin has decided to appeal their version of this law. I usually have problems determining the thought process of politicians, but no matter how long I think, I can't understand why anyone would sign off on this bill. Especially the FOUR WOMEN that voted in favor of this repeal.
Of course, most of this misogynistic attitude is kept under the rug for the most part. However, so many of the people in this country display an open dislike, distrust, and even hatred for another group: atheists. Of course, I could go on forever quoting Fox News viewers on their desire to kill all atheists, but that would be too easy. This is more brought on by the Gallup poll that says that only 49% of Americans would vote for an atheist. To this, the daughter of Billy Graham has said that wisdom comes from the belief and fear of a higher power. This doesn't factor in that almost all major scientists do not believe in some higher power. Who has more wisdom than a person that does not allow a religious institution to interfere with their morals and logic. In reality, these people are just afraid of an atheist becoming president and preaching (for lack of a better word) true equality.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Privacy
Normally my feeling is that if you share something on the internet, that you can't get mad when someone else finds it. However, this only applies when those people find it themselves. I just had a friend tell me that someone came up to him and asked if he knew who I was. When he said yes, this person then asked if he knew that I was bisexual. First, this statement in itself is wrong, as I now identify myself as pansexual, but when I first came out I identified as bi, so I'll excuse that. However, just because I am out, does not give you liberty to start outing me to everyone that knows who I am. This friend did not know, but it wasn't because I didn't want him to know, it's just that I haven't told every one of my friends individually. If this had been someone that I wasn't coming out to for fear of some kind of violence or bullying, this would be a completely different story. Because of this, I am not actively seeking this person out, but if I do happen to find out who it was, my relationship with this person will not be the same. I know that this person most likely won't read this, but if you do, try to understand the position that I am in. I'm sure there are certain things that you wouldn't like me telling random people about you, even though they are semi-factual.
I know that I am probably doing exactly what this person wants in having some sort of negative reaction, but I don't care. One of my biggest pet peeves is people who talk about others behind their back in a negative manner. And apparently this person thinks that my non-hetero sexual orientation is a negative thing. Assuming that they read my previous post or my original coming out post, they misunderstood my feelings toward my sexuality. I'm not hurt by my sexuality, I'm more hurt by the fact that someone who I formerly considered a friend thought it was okay to betray my privacy like this. I guess that's what our society has come to, however. Trying to hurt people by spreading gossip behind their back, regardless of their veracity. We now live in a culture where tabloids, which were previously regarded as utter nonsense, now have their own TV show, a la TMZ. Sure sometimes they actually spout some real news, but why is it important? Can't we all live our lives in a manner that we don't care about other people's personal lives? Why should we care who is taking what drugs or who is attracted to whom? If somebody wants to share this information, by all means let them. Don't take it upon yourself to report it to everyone else though. Let them do the work and take the personal approach to make sure that whatever information is spread is correct. Not only are you potentially hurting the person, but in the process you are making yourself look bad.
I know that I am probably doing exactly what this person wants in having some sort of negative reaction, but I don't care. One of my biggest pet peeves is people who talk about others behind their back in a negative manner. And apparently this person thinks that my non-hetero sexual orientation is a negative thing. Assuming that they read my previous post or my original coming out post, they misunderstood my feelings toward my sexuality. I'm not hurt by my sexuality, I'm more hurt by the fact that someone who I formerly considered a friend thought it was okay to betray my privacy like this. I guess that's what our society has come to, however. Trying to hurt people by spreading gossip behind their back, regardless of their veracity. We now live in a culture where tabloids, which were previously regarded as utter nonsense, now have their own TV show, a la TMZ. Sure sometimes they actually spout some real news, but why is it important? Can't we all live our lives in a manner that we don't care about other people's personal lives? Why should we care who is taking what drugs or who is attracted to whom? If somebody wants to share this information, by all means let them. Don't take it upon yourself to report it to everyone else though. Let them do the work and take the personal approach to make sure that whatever information is spread is correct. Not only are you potentially hurting the person, but in the process you are making yourself look bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)