Your Own Daughter!?

I’ve been asked before, “Would you want your daughter to grow up to be a prostitute? ”

I think it’s worth answering considering I’ve stated in other channels that I’m in favor of legalization.

Right now, the answer to that question is a resounding “NO.” That may sound hypocritical, but here’s why I say that:

The key word here is “want.”
I wouldn’t want my daughter to be in ANY situation that presents a significant danger to her health, happiness, or well being.
I wouldn’t want to be the one to constantly worry about her well-being.
Assuming she’s not being forced against her will, or drugged…
The working conditions for people in that line of work are atrocious, and society offers very little protection for them. She’s likely to be beaten and taken advantage of physically and financially. Not to mention the emotional toll, most of society looks down on them as either evil or dupes, and will not approve.
And/or imprisoned… for example I’m all for weed legalization too, but I don’t want any kids of mine going to prison for it. That’s a whole new batch of worriment.
Obviously I wouldn’t WANT that for any kid of mine.

Of course I’d feel the same way if my kid grew up to work in a sweatshop, became a political prisoner, got involved in a relationship with someone emotionally unstable, if my son became an altar boy, or if my daughter joined the military. This is the reality right now.

At the same time I’d like to make strides away from this reality, but it will be this way for some time. None of those things HAVE to be the reality for people in these situation, but they are. I think things should be better for people who do these things, but they aren’t. I’d like to be in place where I didn’t have to worry about these things. This is NOT that place…

…but it could be.

Just a Male Power Fantasy…

(This was written in response to a piece about male privilege in the comic book world.)

Keep in mind the entire superhero genre sprung from the unfulfilled romantic yearnings/self defeating masochism of young men.

Clark Kent (Superman) was the first superhero and carried a torch for Lois Lane.
Lois Lane was inspired by “Lois Amster.”
When asked half a century later, she indicated Jerry Siegel was a strange guy who had no friendship or conversation with who occasionally stared at her.

I thought: “the bastard never worked up the courage to approach her at ALL!”

In 1983, Siegel said, “Clark Kent grew not only out of my private life, but also out of Joe Shuster’s. As a high school student, I thought that someday I might become a reporter, and I had crushes on several attractive girls who either didn’t know I existed or didn’t care I existed. So it occured to me: What if I was really terrific? What if I had something special going for me, like jumping over buildings or throwing cars around or something like that? ”

My point is driven home by what Lois said to Clark in the original Action Comics #1…
Lois has to defend herself from a thug while Clark does nothing (to hide the fact that he’s Superman), but tells him: “You asked me earlier in the evening why I avoid you. I’ll tell you why now: Because you’re a spineless, unbearable coward!”

Talking to himself, much?

There’s a happy ending, though!

Siegel eventually married the original model for Lois Lane, who’s beauty, intelligence, and determination also inspired Lois’s personality.

After her husband’s death, and for most of her remaining life she continued to hound DC comics for to ensure her family got every penny that was rightfully theirs.

Following her death, Siegel’s lawyer noted, “All her life she carried the torch for Jerry and Joe — and other artists. There was a lot of Lois Lane in Joanne Siegel.”

How does this translate to how the comic book industry should operate?
…Idk … I lost my train of thought.

Sexualization

So let me get this straight:
When men measure their own self-worth by their sexual competence, then women are reduced to sexual capitol… okay, sure.

And when they measure a woman’s worth by her sexual competence, then she’s being reduced to a sex objection… sure, whatever.

if THIS is wrong… then let me ask:
What objective basis do we have for determining the right or wrong way to measure human worth?

What is the RIGHT way, then?

Money? Athletic prowess? Contribution to society? Job title? Level of education? Their ability to make you laugh? How well they adhere to your concept of morality?
Whatever you decide you run into a similar and different set of problems.

Wouldn’t we be better off scrapping the concept of esteem altogether?

Sex, Biology, and Orientation

Only very recently have a fully accepted the “theory” of evolution as fact. (A little slow, I know.) Since then, just about everything we can observe around us in regard to life can be contextualized as a part of that. Still, though, don’t take this to mean I’ve adopted some sort of individualist, survivalist, reductionist, or Freudian standpoint to gender, and everything else. Actually, beginning with evolution leaves the door open for endless expansion and possibilities, not reduction.

The following is the content of miniature “rant” on facebook in my attempt to put an end to the chicken and the egg question:
What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Neither. The process of laying eggs evolved from cellular asexual reproduction. 

 

Anywho… lets apply my conclusion about “The Chicken and the Egg” to the “The Culture and the People.”

What came first, the culture or the person?

At once, people behaved in a way that was most advantageous for a certain circumstance, that “method” self-replicated when the group expanded, and remained and developed independently of the external circumstance.

Ideas, concepts, and systems, and processes are platonic, symbiotic life forms that use people to replicate.

When a species of “culture” evolves, it will condition the people within its sphere of influence for its own self-replication and expansion, but a culture can be killed, a culture can die…

 

…And most importantly, a culture can be an evolutionary dead end that will relentlessly drag the people into extinction with it.

 

That’s why the truth, rationality, communication, and education are so important to our survival…

Elsewhere, I joked that bacteria “masturbated to give birth to clones.”

And I put these labels on this process from a standpoint where all these concepts are divided. A-sexual presupposed a sex-centered worldview. Even puts brackets on the definition of sex.  Until now, I’ve defined “sex” as “interpersonal genital stimulation.” Now, I’m not so sure…

If life forms originally had no gender, and circumstances led to the aberration of sexual divergence, and subsequently gender. Then everything else makes sense… PERFECT sense.

I’m going to make a huge leap from asexual reproduction and homosexuality. My apologies. Whenever I speak on this matter, I always remember the identical twins that were of differing sexual orientations. IF orientation is biological, but not exclusively genetic, then this leads me to the conclusion that it may be hormonal, within the womb. Of course… I now contextualize sexuality to “biological predisposition to preferring…”

Think of it this way, if we’re biologically predisposed to reacting favorably to certain foods in terms of taste. Then similarly can be said for certain aesthetic tastes, then following its logical conclusion to sexual taste. However, over the course of out lives, we “learn” and “acquire” certain other tastes over time. Fundamentalists might site certain prison behaviors as an example that “homosexuality is a choice.” The action may be, but it doesn’t negate what they’re biologically predisposed to liking more.

Rape is a Horrible Crime, And…

Every time I listen to/ read the stories of rape survivors, it’s usually their cultural, sociological, legal, or religious setting that MAKES it more emotionally devastating, and as such, is considered the worst crime in the world.

But upon realizing this… it occurred to me that’s it’s really each of US that makes it into what is is.

Just about every other crime where an attack/violation/exploitation/threat of violence/coercion occurs… doesn’t have this much bullsh*t attached.

Do you SEE what I’m getting at here? It’s OUR faults.

WE turn it into the worst thing in the world, and in doing so, inflict the worst thing in the world to the victims of this crime!

Then in making the perpetrators guilty of the worst crime in the world, nobody can objectively or compassionately examine why it happens, thereby leaving the reasons unexamined by anyone doesn’t think of them as not quite human, or by someone who is not out for blood. And letting it go on, and on, and on… unabated.

Don’t you get it!?

We’re WORSE than rapists!

Feminism: Why the terminology?

The main argument I hear for why “feminism” shouldn’t switch to a more gender-neutral name is “it doesn’t emphasize what women (reformers/suffragists) have went through. Historically.

My question: Why should it?

What obligation does a movement for gender-equality have to emphasize the work/suffering of ONE gender over the other? And what qualitative basis do they have for deciding?

• • 
    Where the movement originated?
    The were quite a few “Pre-Feminist” men, you know.
    Those women didn’t draw their ideology from thin air.The seeds were sown in ancient Greece (Plato) in speculation of a perfect society.
    You know… old guys with white beards talking to each other.

    Abolitionists didn’t name their movement after black people or Africans, they named it after their ideology.IF feminism does NOT begin and and with women. Then it should change its name.You did good, but your goal has expanded.
  • Same goes for masculinists.
  • Or… masculists. Whatever the Hell they call themselves.