Subliminal Messages in Internet Advertising

In searching for the right things to write, especially among my own internal reflections and contemplations, I recently decided to work on independent research projects for myself. In essence, I decided that I'd continue my involvement in academia in this way, and accomplish the things that I'd like to accomplish on my own time; and so, your favorite nerd-activist will be submerged in the depths of academic research, purely for leisure, and hopefully reporting any interesting findings to the masses.

In the midst of researching reproductive exploitation during US slavery, I stumbled upon a page about slave breeding. The page was brief and fairly informative, but featured on the left hand panel was an advertisement. I will add that I have no idea how internet advertising actually works (what goes where and when), but I found it ironic, insulting, and powerful to the point. Screenshot below.

It reads: "AfroRomance: Where Love is More Than Skin Deep" and features a white man appearing to lay on top of a Black woman. Not captured in the screenshot is the "search for interracial singles". Interesting to have appeared on the "slave breeding" site.

Take from it what you will. Be righteous.

Take Two: Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtianti

In my far-too-long hiatus from the blog, I've only consistently received a comment here and there on my post about Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtianti, the Iranian mother who was found guilty of adultery and sentenced to death by stoning. The comments that I did receive ranged from insinuating that I was, simply put, an ignorant American girl who had no concept of anything dealing with the Islamic laws to being in support of the revolution that Iran and other Islamic nations are undergoing -- but from a distance.

I'm not "crying" for true justice as some American-citizen girl with no concept of the world. I am, however, advocating that the few people who stumble upon my opinions be awakened to the horrors of the inhumane nature that some people possess as a citizen of the world. As a matter of fact, this fight is hardly about the constantly purported dangers of Islam - but much rather the dangers of a religiously fundamental (or, even based) political body governing the behaviors, thoughts, actions, and opinions of a set of the people.

Is it just that any person be stoned for any crime at all? If you answered yes, then I'd question the depth and completeness of your humanity. And I'd also ask for what crime is death by stoning not cruel and unusual? This woman was originally sentenced to death by stoning for committing the crime of adultery; and for those who are confused on the definition of adultery, it is simply extra-marital sex. The originally referenced post is not about whether or not adultery is morally wrong. Instead, it is about the cruel and unusual nature of the sentence death by stoning.

Ansar739 3 days ago in reply to livication
Please stop crying... why you people cant see the bombardment of USA on innocccent people in the name of terrorism?? is't that cruel?? Please stop crying and stop saying anything against islam. Islam is the only religion in the universe and if she is guilty then this is the right punishment.

Indeed, many religious individuals see their beliefs to be the only set of accurate beliefs, and indeed - I absolutely disagree with this assessment with every ounce of my ability to do so, and have always held the view that if only one religion was accurate, then there would not be more than one religion. This, no doubt, is one of several roots of my own atheism; the practice of religious fundamentalism is quite dangerous. My opinions on extremism and religious supremacy are not Islam-specific - they also are applied to various other religious divisions. While I may not update my blog very often any more, I have been updating my twitter and on that note, I have several tweets(/facebook posts) that are specific to the current anti-Islamic and Islamaphobic sentiment currently being expressed by some across America. And the updates are along the same note: the marriage of politics and religion is most dangerous and impractical to the evolving nature of society and to true freedom. I have vehemently expressed my disappointment and total disagreement on book burnings and the Jim Crow-esque positions on "Ground Zero Mosque".

Lastly, what makes death by stoning even more cruel and unusual is the same sentiment I apply to the death penalty across America, as unintentionally expressed by the above referenced commenter: the "if" factor. When I was in my last year of college, I met a death row exoneree that was brought to the university for a lecture. He was on death row for 18 years; 18 years of his life were spent behind bars when he had never had any conflict with the law, for a crime that he did not commit. The truth of the matter is that there are biases from within the system, and there are mistakes made. And the above commenter stated that "if" she is guilty, then this is proper punishment. I suppose the logic would follow that, if she isn't guilty...then, oh well.

This isn't about my being American and looking down at Islamic nations, because I acknowledged the lack of separation of church-and-state in my previous post regarding this situation. Yet, as a human being, this is about the right of another human being. This is a human issue.

With all the secrecy of the situation, I'd like to just point out that her sentence is suspended and the situation has not come to a complete resolve. Last I read, her son has requested actual proof of the "on hold" status of Sakineh's sentence, and the government has yet to substantiate it in writing.

Be Righteous.

...Speaking of Whoopi

Admittedly, I have to sometimes take breaks from technology and the news in order to keep myself from going crazy. I have an intense (sometimes read: serious) personality a lot of times, and that doesn't make me unhappy. I care about issues to the point of exhaust; and it's because I also act on these issues. I get so mentally involved in issues, and for that reason, a joke - that is parody and not satire - at the interest in any of the issues and injustices that I am so involved in protesting is more damaging, in my opinion, than the humor that may be in it.

At any rate, in an effort to work on my zen and create an ambiance, I'm goofing off on facebook for a bit yesterday - just after reacting to Whoopi Goldberg's "he-has-black-friends-so-he-isnt-racist" defense - and noticed that good friend of mine made an inappropriate joke in reference to the situation. And the joke made it to facebook, twitter, and eventually a variation of it made the blog. Ready?

C'mon Whoopi, sure Mel Gibson isn't racist; you don't have to worry about being raped by a pack of niggers; you look like a man.

Well, okay. I realize that the comment was meant to be taken lightly but my problem with these comments is this: of the many issues with sexual abuse and domestic violence, major issues that many victims deal with are feelings of guilt (like they may have perpetuated the assault) and feelings of low self-worth which could stem from a number of things, including physical appearance. Moreover, the comment speaks to standards of beauty and maintains the myth that rape is about sexual attraction and desire.

I would not be true to my character if I didn't say anything, even to my good friend and mentor (smile). I'm not into blog-wars as I don't have enough readers for that anyway, so I don't want people to get me wrong and believe that that's the point of any of this.

While the joke was at the expense of Whoopi, the words of the joke say something to people who believe that people who "look like a man" (or unattractive people, or people who have been told they are physically worthless and have internalized that abuse) cannot or have not been abused. It appears to support a myth of people who are ill-informed and do not know better - even if it is a joke. Having worked on the side of victims, this is a trend that is seriously furthered by law enforcement, nurses, and anybody who isn't fully aware and sympathetic to the dynamics of rape. Period. (Ironically, this theme is illustrated to perfection in "The Color Purple")

And while I understand that there has to be a silver lining, and there has to be some sort of light in this sick, sad, dark world of ours, I'm not entirely certain that any joke sending that sort of message (about the rape of a woman who "looks like a man", not the pack of niggers) is the something that I can take lightly. This isn't about an individual, but those comments and attitudes have to die. Seriously.

Would it be Whoopi Goldberg-esque of me to point out that this person doesn't hate women, ugly people, or rape victims, but that it was a stupid comment? Shrug. This isn't to defend Whoopi's disillusionment, but one has to wonder how to defend the character of a person who makes stupid comments. I'm not taking it personally, again this isn't about a person, but an idea. A whole set of ideas that need to end.

Be righteous.

It was also kind of a jackass thing to add a faux apology in small print, too..#justsayin.

Way to Go, Whoopi.

I'd like to take the time right now to discuss two separate, but loosely connected issues. As a matter of fact, I will takcle the initial issue in this post and then discuss the separate issue in a post after this one. Ready? Okay!

Whoopi Goldberg. I suppose I should note, for every person incapable of picking up on the subtlety in my sardonic wit, that there is nothing serious in the title of this post.

In 1993, Whoopi Goldberg defended Ted Danson's performing in Blackface. While I don't necessarily remember this event specifically (or caring; I was a kid and this was just before I was tainted by the horrors of the real world), I do remember my catching wind of it when I was a bit more mature and saying "hmm, maybe I shouldn't be supporting someone who thinks that this is okay; whether it's intended to be offensive doesn't really take away from the fact that..it kinda is."

In 2009, I remember officially decided no longer to support Whoopi, as much as I love her (and as beautiful as I think she is - agree or not, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I've always thought she was physically intriguing. Fuck conventionalism). This was because she decided to discuss on The View how Roman Polanski's sexual encounter with a 13 year old kid, who was also under the influence notthatitmatters, was not rape-rape. I remember being outraged and saying aloud, several times, shame on you, Whoopi. Shame on you.

In 2010, I am even more disgusted with Whoopi, after acting as a free-standing character witness for Mel Gibson after his infamous bigoted, misogynistic tirade days ago. Per Whoopi:

"I know Mel, and I know he's not a racist...I have had a long friendship with Mel. You can say he's being a bonehead, but I can't sit and say that he's a racist having spent time with him in my house with my kids. I don't like what he's done, make no mistake."

Well, that's just great Whoopi. I made this point the other day when I was in a heated discussion with a perfect stranger about making anti-gay, anti-black-anti-woman, bigoted comments; how can you expect these issues to be taken seriously if you attempt to defend a person's (alleged, previous) character? Even the most horrible of people have to maintain a social life. How many times have we heard racists say, "I'm not a racist, I have Black friends!" What about homophobes saying, "I don't hate gay people, I know plenty of them!" Or even the friends and family members of domestic violence abusers saying, "my baby would never do anything like that!"

Exactly. Shame on you, Whoopi.

I can't say that I expected more, but she should stop refrain from commenting on issues regarding her famous friends. She's beginning to sound like a whoopie cushion. Hey, I get one corny joke per day.

Small Victories: Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani

Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani will not be executed by stoning for adultery. She's an Iranian mother of two and was set to face stoning - any day now - after her 2006 conviction of adultery. Yes, folks, adultery. What a relief; all the petitions and global awareness raised by people and organizations to stand against death by stoning. Phew, what a relief! Right?

Wrong! Why is this wrong? Because Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani still faces the death penalty for adultery. And while anything that isn't stoning is a lot more a humane way to go, especially in terms of execution for wrongdoing...the death penalty? For adultery? Really?

I'm not saying that "adultery", in all of its usual heavily religious contexts, is not wrong. That isn't what I'm saying, but my opinion on adultery is not what's important. The two things that strike me as the major issues are: the obvious issue that has been a main stressor internationally is the cruel and unusual nature of stoning. and the other is the fact the law is based on the indoctrition of a specific religious text as a means to make people submit to this system.

For those of you who do not know at stoning consists of (as if the above image is not graphic enough) picture this: a person is buried in sand. If it is a man, they are buried to their waist; if a woman, she is buried to her chest area. And members of the crowd, the societal jury of your peers, pummel stones at you until you are bludgeoned to death. Literally, this is a stoning. This is a cruel and unusual punishment for any crime. Keep in mind, though, that I (and my few readers) are reading from an American perspective where "cruel and unusual" means that the punishment exceeds the severity of the crime. I'm not certain that cruel and unusual exists in Iran (and that is an honest statement; not my normal, everyday sarcasm and wit). However, I can think of few things that would make me think 'hmmm, you should be stoned for that. The fact that this form of punishment is allowed any where makes me sick to my stomach and confirms frustration with the lack of progress humanity has made. Nothing warrants that form of punishment.

The major issue for me, though, is the fact Iran, which is a country that bases it's legal code on sharia - the laws of god as interpreted by Islam - is a really troubling piece of this equation that is being overlooked. When will people learn that the marriage of politics and religion is one of the ultimate stains on any culture's progress? Thank goodness we're in America, where there is separation of church and state, right? Right?(that was my normal, everyday sarcasm.)

In a drive-by discussion on this situation with a friend of mine the other day, and explaining my issues with the situation, less my opinion on adultery, he hit me with the "moral behavior is not religious" bullet, even though he is a religious subscriber himself. But you know, I agree with that and that's the point that I attempt to hit believers with: moral behavior is not religious. However, don't ever say that if you've also decided that you don't "agree" with same sex marriage, a woman's right to choose, or understand that this issue is an issue where there is an intentional relationship between the Iranian judicial system and the religion of the overwhelming majority. And don't hit me with that "proud to be an American" shit when adultery is punishable by criminal law in some US states as well. And while this is not even necessarily as much about the death penalty as it is the imbalance in "crime" and punishment, I'll just say that we also execute people in the US. Your ideas sound progressive enough aloud; the US has separation of church and state on paper. But still, in a lot of social aspects, we do not. #justsayin

Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani's life is ending because she committed adultery with two men while being married. And this is a human being. She is a mother of two. Set to be killed for having two extra marital affairs while her husband was alive; and your thoughts on whether or not adultery is right are meaningless because religious law has already overruled Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani's right to live and her children's right to have a mother. And I truly hope that the advocates against her being stoned, including myself, will continue speaking out about the fact that she is being executed any day now. P l e a s e, do your part and increase awareness at the very least.

Be Righteous.

Mel Gibson's Rant: More Than The N-Word

Apparently, Mel Gibson has been recorded on tape going off on the mother of his infant saying the following:

"You're an embarrassment to me. You look like a fucking pig in heat, and if you get raped by a pack of niggers, it will be your fault."

"How dare you act like such a bitch when I have been so fucking nice."

"I am going to come and burn the fucking house down...but you will blow me first."

Amazing. The blog world has majorly been focusing on the fact that he used the n-word, which is also amazing to me. He went on a tirade and threw the ugliest racially offensive in the mix. I understand the outrage of his usage of the n-word. As a matter of fact, I've oftened joked(?)/wondered if white people say the n-word if they're mad enough. The rant was sickening. Yet, the entire tirade in and of itself is absolutely repulsive.

The hope or insinuation that any person is raped is disgusting; and silently or very loudly and angrily expressing that the fulfillment of another person being raped would be their own fault is plain despicable. And then, threatening violence (in burning the house down) but saying that your significant other will perform oral sex on you before you do such a thing makes you a perpetrator of rape; I'm quite sure that if she was forced into such a situation, she would be able to press rape charges because the act was performed under coercion and threats.

Further, look at this snippet of the initial quote:
..if you get raped by a pack of niggers..
So naturally, as if any part of this is acceptable at all, the grouping of "rape" and the n-word grouped together says much more than is written: it speaks to a historical depiction of Black males in American society. The black beast rapist is an image that was created by white society to maintain both slavery, and then segregation, and it was used to define the racial and gender social structure in America. This is not to say that some Black men do not rape; yet, when I see the association of Black men with (interracial) rape, I immediately get imagery of lynchings in the South and the desparities in convictions and punishment where interracial alleged sex crimes occur.

Black women aren't the only ones with image issues; Black men have been depicted in several different ways, including brutes, rapists, Nats and Toms, as America developed and socially evolved. Unfortunately, just as some Black women feel the need to behave a certain way, feeding into the jezebel stereotype, Black men are feeling their way in terms of the development of social masculinity. Mel Gibson's comments illustrates an uncaring and expectation that Black men are nothing more than predators.

...and you probably thought that Matt and Trey's depiction of Mel was exaggerated!

Be Righteous.

EDIT: also, Mel's usage of the word "pack" as in "pack of niggers" equates Black males to animals. I kinda hinted at that, but did not spell it out, and it's important to the overall context of the post.
EDIT: 7/10/10 below is the actual audio.

Bamboozled! Chris Brown and aficionados

You know, I was really fighting the feeling; I was not interested in supplementing the blog world and mainstream media's recent explosion of reporting on Chris Brown and the BET awards. As a matter of fact, I was certain that my computer, itself, would literally explode because the internet must be exhausted with the everyone having an opinion on Chris's "breakdown" at the award show. I refused to have anything to do with the BET Awards early on; I was on twitter and threatened to unfollow the bulk of my friends for tweeting about the awards. And I got sucked in -- it began with my flipping back and forth and somehow, forth stopped on the awards on a network that I am sure the Black community should not be in support of. Back in the day, Black Embarrasmentntertainment Television actually had some positive aspects to it and one day, poof! No more. It's sole output has been degrading and exploitative and for that reason, I try my best to avoid anything related to the network. Personally, this upsets me because I believe in supporting Black business because we cannot expect the success of our own if we lack faith and support; yet, it directly conflicts with my own personal beliefs about the worth and strengths of the Black community to do so in this particular instance. But, alas, I was sucked in. I'll admit to you this: I'm disappointed in myself for giving in.

It was nothing more than I expected it to be: a bad car accident that you just could not look away from. Right up to Chris Brown's tribute to Michael Jackson. Sure, the award show had its high points, relative to the rest of the show. But, oh..Chris Brown.

If, by chance, you've been living under a rock without access to the television or internet, here's what happened in my home (and during Chris Brown's performance):
I'm stretched out across the couch, glued to the tube. I have my blackberry in hand and when Chris Brown began dancing, I was messaging my best friend about what a skilled dancer he is. I was not surprised that BET permitted him to perform since he was disallowed at many events last year. I got a little bored with the transition of his performing, looked down at all of the tweets and it sounded like my audio was screwed up on the tv. Confused, I look up, to see Chris Brown doubled over, "crying".

Now, I'm sure that my readers (and even non-readers) can guess my reaction: staged, phony, publicity stunt to win his way back into the hearts and minds of those who had decided not to support him. Now, I'll tell you this: the rational individuals who have chosen not to support the brother any more are probably the ones who did not support his music initially because I know several teenage girls that have rallied behind him immediately after his assault on Rihanna, his court trial and conviction, his internet "apologies", his colorist and degrading comments toward blogger Sandra Rose, the creation of #teambreezy on twitter (which, further invited the public into the ugly battle between he and Rihanna, causing a similar twitter trend on her behalf), the ranting on twitter about certain stores not marketing his music, and most recently the UK taking a stand and not allowing him into the country to tour. And from the very beginning, there was the victim blaming: "she gave him an STD", "she hit him first", "you're a hater", et al. And you know what? He was convicted, he served his sentence, and my issue with Chris Brown is not solely an issue with Chris Brown.

Having direct experiences with victims and perpetrators of relationship violence and also having done the bulk of my research on issues of sexual/relationship violence within the Black community, there are issues with domestic violence. One major issue that does not get as much attention as it should is the social consequences as they relate to the abuser. In fact, I'm sure that some of you may have released a mental gasp at my referring to Chris as an "abuser"; I've had grown women and men ask me to not refer to him as such because, in their own rationale, "abuse" dictates something long term and ongoing. This is silly because I'll tell you this - domestic violence agencies and reserachers refer to the perpetrator of violence, whether it happened once or several times, as abusers.

This is a prime example of a major problem. Why is Chris Brown - the celebrity that you do not know - an exception to what is common and logical in examining relationship violence? Chris Brown does not know me personally, and as such, he does not owe me a personal apology. He does not owe his fans a personal apology, because they have been excusing his behavior from the beginning of his socially perceived fall from grace. I also am not aware of whether or not he is continuing counseling. Chris Brown as a person and individual is not the entire problem with Chris Brown.

As a celebrity, he has been placed on a pedastol and, as a result, demands that his fans continually support him - despite acknowledging his wrong doing. The fans and the celebrity feed into one another; you fans, you've told Chris Brown who and what he should be and, like a minstrel show, he has given you everything that you've craved and applauded, both before and after his assault on Rihanna. This is about maintaining an image. Yet, what are the reasons that his behavior has been excused besides the above hater-isms?
Besides hearing "he didn't hit you/she asked for it", a major reason that, within the Black community, relationship violence is so far underreported and overlooked is because of a perceived necessity for racial solidarity above all else. This is also a major reason that women's rights within the Black community is taken as a sour flavor - because we shouldn't be focused on the disparities of hurt and injustice that come from within because we are a family. As a matter of fact, the day after the award show, I turned the radio off because I heard someone on the radio saying, "we can't just let one of our own..."; seriously. The next day, 106 and Park dedicated the show to Chris Brown, saying he's back. The blogworld has referred to his performance as a redemption song. For crying out loud, the kid won an award that very night. Just like that...all is forgiven in social media's world.

It is unreasonable that as a community of people, we turn our backs and leave a celebrity or non-celebrity perpetrator of relationship violence to fend for him/herself. Yet to continually support their career without blinking an eye and acknowledging, as fans, that their behavior is completely unacceptable in any form of society, is also not a reasonable answer. This isn't about anyone giving their lives to whatever-higher-power you may or may not believe to be true. Instead of spending so much time defending, rationalizing, and supporting their actions, though, we should be encouraging them toward a healthy lifestyle as examples to our young children. If you want the Black community to remain unified, why not move it along in a healthy and reasonable light?

What I don't want is for people to say "he/she is one of our own and therefore, we cannot do ______". That's silly to me. Chris Brown (and others) is a human being that fans and supportors of his entertainment have made into an image, and if you choose to support him (or others), do so at the best interest of the community and not in the best interest of the image that you want for him. The entire Chris Brown-Rihanna situation was higher profile than other relationship violence because of their celebridom and as such, was the perfect opportunity to engage in dialogue, as a community, about relationship violence and unhealthy behaviors. Yet instead, every main social networking outlet that I find young Black people on (mediatakeout, twitter, facebook) are filled with children and adolescents ignoring the abuse and excusing relationship abuse.

The fact of the matter is this: women are physically and sexually abused by their partners every single day. And many cases do not even make it to court because, as a result of "real life" apologists and defenders of abuse, women stay in these relationships. The same can be said for women abusing men (though there is not as much research to prove), and homosexual relationships. I've encountered people who think twice at celebrity relationship violence but are black and white about "real life" violence, and there are also the same types of people, besides the victim, that defend the actions of the abuser and blame the abused. The violence will not stop if the community is unwilling to, not only acknowledge wrongdoing and abusive relationships of celebrities as such but also, apply our standards of thinking in a universal manner and teach young children and adults what is acceptable and what is not.

I'll admit that I feel repetitive in that this post is nearly identical to my other Chris Brown-Rihanna/relationship violence post. I am not of the opinion that abusive relationships are private matters; if we are unwilling to speak out, then we can never expect any improvement. Teach the youth - including Chris Brown and other celebrities - that violent relationships are never acceptable, instead of creating images of what they should be based on your salivating as fans or supporters.

Be Righteous. And watch Bamboozled..those themes don't just apply to racial identity and entertainment.

Vagina Dentata (nom nom nom)

In fairness, I'll warn you that this post is a bit graphic and sensitive. There may be triggers or even a major level of discomfort provided in this post. It isn't exactly pretty, and I'd warn you to proceed with caution.

When I was in college (just a couple years ago), my best guy friend was a film major. Some people may express that I haven't seen many films (but I haaaave), but I do love flicks. One night, my good friend and I were hanging out and we ordered a pizza and decided to watch a movie called "Teeth" - an indy horror flick crossed with a little black comedy. While he spent much of the film utterly terrified, I just loved it. Roll tape!

Scared yet? This poor young girl was involved in some church cult group and her boyfriend, also a member of the abstinence only squad, took her to a cave in whatever bum cluck town they were in and tried to rape her. And her vagina bit his penis off. And throughout the movie, various males attempt taking advantage of her and suffer the same fate, and the poor girl - a virgin at that - cannot figure out what's wrong with her. Hey, we were all a little confused our first times, right?

A little later in real life, there were talks of developing a condom that would simulate vagina dentata to a less than lethal extent, but the idea floated and then disappeared. Until 2010: the year of Rape-aXe - a female condom type device that is inserted in the vagina and bites grasps on the rapists penis in a painful, but again non-lethal, way.

I know what you're thinking: with all the pro-woman propaganda I share on my blog and in real life, I'm bound to be pro-anything-to-take-the-dicks-off-of-men, right? Well, surprise surprise! I find this device and its concept to be problematic; yes, seriously! Blind-sided you, eh?

While I understand all those cute little preventative techniques they teach young college girls that's supposed to prevent them from being raped, we know that the majority of rapes are acquaintance rapes. If women (and men, even) felt it necessary to protect themselves around the people that they are familiar with, there would be a lot fewer acquaintance rapes. And, on that same note, if women (because there is only a female version of this device available) are preparing themselves to be nervous and on pins and needles at every turn awaiting a blitz by a total stranger, the chances of that happening are slim which makes the necessity for the device illogical in that regard.

As I understand from the illustrations, the device is identified as a "condom" but it works a bit more solidly, like, say, a diaphragm. So this condom-diaphragm hybrid sits in a lady's vagina as she awaits a sexual act against her. Does anybody not see anything wrong with the fear factor? And beyond that, who tested this? What if it doesn't work correctly and hurts the woman, or doesn't work against the perpetrator?

This part could get graphic; consider the previous statement your warning!
So, a woman is being raped by a man. He goes in and out, but in the "out" action, this device chomps down on his man parts, right? This is painful. Is this just painful enough to stun the perpetrator into whatthefuckjusthappenedIgottagetouttahere? Or is it more like holyshitthathurtandIcan'tMOVE? If it's the latter, how is a potential victim to call the police or get to a safe place with a rapist laying on top of her?

Also, I'm very worried about the potential misuse and abuse of the device; what's to say that there is not a woman who is attempting to teach her cheating boyfriend a lesson? Yes, I'm sure it would be assault. I'm also sure, though, that it creates another dynamic to victimization of sorts. I'm not saying that majority of women would do something like this; I'm not attempting to turn my back on rape victims or the act. I am saying, though, that there are quite a few screwed up individuals in the world, unfortunately, and I could see immature-but-sexually active girls and women majorly misusing the device.

While I could drone on and on about my qualms with this device, the most important of them all is this: the problem with rape isn't women, it's R A P E. The condom is another way to scare women into feeling perpetually vulnerable and it isn't solving the problem of rape, but rather compounding, complicating, and completely avoiding it. I understand the good intentions behind this advice, but instead of working on illogically calculated preventative tactics to "avoiding" rape, why not focus on educating young girls and boys about appropriate sexual behavior and why any forms of forced sexual acts are wrong? I know that there are women (and children!) who do everything "right" and still wind up in situations where they are abused or assaulted. And you know why that is? It's because they only have control over their own behavior. By introducing a device that supposedly shifts the focus to the victim, it disallows for sympathy in a situation where their control was temporarily taken from them. A single person can only control themselves; the actions that another person forces upon them - no matter what the circumstance - was not a choice made by them, but by the other person. Thsi device is attempting to put the "power" in the victims hands, but it discounts the psychological and emotional aspects of rape/sexual assault and only focuses on the physical. I'm of the opinion that with all the guilt and shame that comes after being victimized, a victim might be effected negatively by the thought that they may have hurt another individual and are at fault in some way or another.

Just think about it.

Be Righteous.

Hey, kiddies! School's Out - Time to Dumpster Dive!

I probably would not have caught wind of this post if not for my good friend's utter amusement at conservative talk radio. Check out his blog!

Good old Rush Limbaugh. Good old Rush Limbaugh and his anti-poverty (or, better stated - anti-impoverished) warped sense of being. Good old elitist Rush Limbaugh who grew up in a family filled with lawyers (and money), who has no experience relying on school lunches or even the slightest concept of what it is like to be impoverished. I wonder if he has ever met a poor person in his life? Yes, good old Rush.

We know he has a problem with social groups that are not like him: upper-mid to wealthy, well-fed, white, conservative, Parkinson-free, men. You see, folks, in 1993, Rush Limbaugh did a little commentary about homeless people and an organization called Project Dignity, a homeless advocacy group that serves the homeless population in several ways - including teaching them the safest way to pick food from a dumpster. Limbaugh has an issue with this because, instead of seeing it as a reality and necessity for the impoverished, he thinks that it perpetuates and maintains homelessness. And boy did he show his true colors then:

Here we are, only 17 years later, and he's extended his reach to cover the impoverished children who rely on reduced lunches. With talks of increasing food stamp benefits for the unemployed through the summer - because their children rely on free or reduced lunches - Rush Limbaugh got his panties in a bunch and expects that these children dumpster dive for survival. Because who gives a what-what about poor, hungry children not eating? Why should he care when there are soooooooooo many ways to eat?

It just kills me that the conservative right-wingers can begin to say that liberal progressives are the problem with America when it's clear that we are focused on advancing social programs for the advancement of populations that are traditionally (and currently, obviously) not given equal treatment or assistance in moving forward and succeeding. It angers me to hear the complete disregard for the youth of the poor; and it's upsetting that people like Rush Limbaugh aren't affected by seeing their fellow Americans in the slums of the country, hurting and starving.

It isn't hard to believe that this guy, one of a few quacks, argued against sending aid to Haiti after the earthquakes; I wouldn't mind seeing him become completely irrelevant. Just disappear already!

On another note, if the benefits aren't enough for children to eat, or you know children that are in need of meals, there are several organizations that give free meals to children over the summer. I'm not sure who may be out there reading, but my hope is that if you know (or don't know personally) a person in need, you'll be inspired to help.

Be Righteous.

For the full recent commentary on "dumpster diving" sans Ed Schultz, click here.

Juneteenth, 2010.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Tupac Shakur

I had a talk about Womanism last night, and the intersection of race and gender that every Black woman has to deal with. I don't have an agenda against men or Black men; I don't, however, feel as though not speaking the truth or an opinion that is generally overlooked to maintain any person's (man/woman/entertainer/whatever) legacy is cool. I don't think Black men (/any men) are the scourge of society. I love men. No, really, I looooove men.

I don't hate Tupac Shakur. I think he has a lasting legacy that speaks to multiple sides in him; from Tupac the poet to Tupac "Thug Life" Shakur. I awakened this morning and among "Happy Birthday Tupac" tweets were tweets about Tupac's real, genuine love for Black women as evidenced by his lyrics:

And since we all came from a woman
Got our name from a woman and our game from a woman
I wonder why we take from our women
Why we rape our women, do we hate our women?
I think it's time to kill for our women
Time to heal our women, be real to our women
And if we don't we'll have a race of babies
That will hate the ladies, that make the babies
And since a man can't make one
He has no right to tell a woman when and where to create one
So will the real men get up
I know you're fed up ladies, but keep your head up

Now, I love this song because it is uplifting and I can appreciate the struggles being acknowledged. I love some of Tupac's music and can appreciate the aspects of his life and personality; in some regards, he was poetic. I realize that music is entertainment and entertainment is not real life, which is why I decided to offer a counter opinion in stating that Tupac was also convicted of rape and has demeaned women to a certain point; regardless of if you want to distinguish the difference between "women" and "bitches":

I did point out in my conversations about the brotha that, true enough, he has inspired many people. Many of the people my age when I was coming up were caught up in the "Thug Life" message, though. A lot of people are able to point out the positive messages in his music as well but I pointed out that praising a man as a hero and ignoring his wrongdoing is sending a poor message to young men and women coming up.

A person that I was engaged with completely doubted the fact that the victim was sexually assaulted because of a retraction of statement, though, after he was convicted of a crime is, to me, a form of victim blaming/precipitation in that a young woman (who still contends in articles and online to this day that she was raped) is being disbelieved because of a man's own celebrity. I wasn't there, but let's look from a socio-cultural and legal/historical standpoint:

Yes, "convicted" of does not always mean guilty, especially in terms of Black men and the American justice (or "just-us") system. However, rape/sexual assault has a low conviction rate because of the he-say/she-say nature of a trial. Fact. Also fact is this: Black man on white woman sexual assault (or alleged sexual assault) is typically punished far more than rape that allegedly occurs within the same race. Fact. More factually, though, is the historical idea that crimes WITHIN the Black comunity the Black community alone have been isolated by the American justice system, forcing them to become Black issues - which is one of the reasons that sexual assault is reported far less from within the Black community.

I'm not saying that there has never been a woman that has alleged that a rape happened that did not occur. I am, however, saying that the dynamics from within the Black community tend to speak to our history from inside America and regardless of conviction or not, rape allegations should be taken seriously. Imagine being raised to believe that you have to protect your brotha and look out for the best of the community, by any means necessary. Do you turn your brotha in for sexually assaulting you? Do you deal with the harassment of his friends, family or fans for a lie? Do you listen to and allow your name to become everybody's description of a whore to get back at someone in criminal court (which translates to jail-time, not money)? Why would you lie?

Regardless, my point in acknowledging his convictions - not a supposed opinion of him - is this: how do you explain to your sister, daughter, little cousin, or niece that he held this incredibly deep love for his sistas, as evidenced by his music, but is caught up in illegal activities, has been locked up, and yes - has been convicted of sexual abuse? And that he should be praised and celebrated?

Unfortunately, the things that we see are not all of man. I have no interest in demonizing Tupac Shakur as a man because his music is left behind and has some positive messages in it for the community. I do, however, want to bring an issue of conflicting persona to everyone's attentions. People can be profound. People are human, and that does not excuse any wrongdoing whatsoever. People, however, should be interested in explaining the complexities and roundness of the people that they choose to "praise" instead of ignoring the bad for the sake of what you perceived their character to be?

EDIT: I'd like to point that one of my major beliefs is separating "entertainment" from reality. While I note that one feeds the other in terms of the ideas perpetuated as "truths", entertainment is valid but does not take away from the reality of any situation. For instance, I do realize that I've quoted Biggie in a post, and that doesn't take away from his upbringings and the realities - even when he continuously rapped about the selling of drugs and has also said disrespectful things about and regarding women. My point is this: ignoring the human side of an individual where they have publicly illustrated their own wrongdoing to sustain a positive image and/or legacy of them is wrong. For the sake of our youth, just tell the entire truth.

It's All Effie's Fault..?!

First of all, I'd like to apologize for my absence in the last several days. Though this post will be brief, I will be back in full force eventually. You see, I've been living my life like a string of parabolas and the down part of the spiral included a trip-turned-unpaid-vacation down the highway to home(though not incredibly pleasurable). Experiencing a loss is something every person has to grow to experience and accept, and I had to turn on my ability to nurture in order to soothe my family's hurt. A huge pet peeve of mine, though, is people constantly questioning whether or not I'm okay; so dear readers, if any one is out there, I guarantee you that I am absolutely fine and I appreciate your thoughts of encouragement in advance.

I left the city to head home last Saturday morning after punching out at work in the morning, and I was hardly tired. As a matter of fact, I ended up staying at work an extra few (okaaaay, thirty) minutes to finish "The Banality of Heterosexism" before getting on the road. Unfortunately for me, my trek was filled with far too many stops (maybe I was tired, maybe I was bored), traffic, and a phone conversation with a former friend.

Somehow, throughout the conversation, the question of my current love life came to light. I'm not the type of person that delves into my personal life with too many people as it relates to my relationships and decision making, and sometimes less is more. Besides elaborating on my being single and content, I also spilled the beans on a rat guy I was seeing, and actually liking, who actually had a hundred couple other "girlfriends", all complete with the same nickname, other than me. I wasn't incredibly heartbroken, as I dumped him weeks before even realizing that he was just awful. That's right, even with the broken dates and bullshit excuses, there was still some inkling of what I thought was a combination of good person/shitty boyfriend left, and it was the most peaceful "I'm just gonna walk away" thing I had ever done.
...until it wasn't.

Yet, the ugly details aren't included and since they don't really matter, I only shared that the person that I very much liked at one point, and even more quickly bounced back from, turned out to be the very deserving object of my disgust.

The friend on the phone, a Black man himself, allowed me into the world of "how Black men think"; as he began to postulate, I rolled my eyes all the way down ninety five and even caught myself almost kicking my feet up on the dash and munching on popcorn.

The gospel according to him was as follows: since I am a plus sized lady, Black men think that I am easily controlled as a result of a lack of self esteem. Therefore, if I don't want to be treated like shit, I need to be a size two. Easy enough formula, right? As he expanded upon his theory, I did not find myself upset at his preachy "I know Black men as a Black man"-itudes; I giggled because I thought it to be one of the sillier things I had heard. His explanation for this was the "fact" that the only Black men I am to ever attract (by my own fault, no doubt) are looking for a woman that they can impose their views on; as a matter of fact, he even threw this little diddy in the mix: when a Black man dates a Black woman, she's the most shapely, finest goddess that he can find -- but when they go after white women (again, to impose upon), they're always "nasty looking". Yes, folks: it was all Effie's fault that Curtis dogged her

...word? Well, on top of this conversation being utterly random and disgustingly stitched together, I find a few faults with this logic:

1. That some Black men take offense to this idea that any Black man is or could ever be controlling (ergo, abusive) in one context, but will justify it in another.
2. That this one Black man speaks for the lot of Black men.
3. That I'll never have/have never had a "successful" relationship because of my appearance and not my other attributes.
4. That plus-sized = ugly, lowered self-esteem having wenches who are chosen by these men.
5. That aforementioned wenches never have a say in with whom they choose to enter relationships.
6. That skinny women do not have self esteem issues or relationship problems.
7. That non-"nasty looking" white women are not interested in or dating Black men.
8. That plus-sized women are of less value than average-to-skinny women.
9. That any one person is to blame for another party's actions.
10. That there are not men (or for argument's sake, women) who enjoy a little more..erm..fluff.

...and that is just to name a few. Now, I didn't take this as a personal attack because obviously, I think this is utter foolishness. Could I stand to drop a few lbs? Sure, but when I do, it isn't because I'm attempting to draw attention from another person. I don't think that I should even seem combative in saying that I date; I've documented a few dates on here on the blog and the people that I encounter are interesting enough. I don't think I should even have to harp on the fact that I'm satisfied with the person that I am/am becoming, and that my singlehood is by my own volition. Sure, we would all very much enjoy companionship, but having no anchor to anything right now (and being the personable anti-social that I tend to be), I can up and move away as I am currently contemplating any time the mood strikes. And honestly, I believe I'm always "fly" (actually a nickname given to me by an former boyfriend) and of all the attributes that might keep me single - Black power fueled with feminism, opinionated nature, inability to produce a successful joke, Billy-Bad-Assedness, heavy flow (read: straight-up-inappropriateness when I'm trying to tell a joke, ha!) - my appearance is the least of my concerns. Lastly, I don't think that I should have to elaborate on the fact that the way I am online - forward, opinionated, sometimes-bitchy (and even sometimes offending) - is exactly the way I am when I click "sign out" - which pretty much rules the no-confidence-and-lowered-self-esteem malarkey instantly. More than anything, this was all very amusing before I opted to hit him with the shrug-and-"I'mma let you finish"-move; I hung up and continued rolling down 95 as pleasantly as I began my journey.

I don't have control over another person's actions; that mickey-fickey decided for himself to cheat and go in the direction that he would - and he has total ownership of that. Other people's problems are...well, they're their problems.

Know that. Smile. Be Righteous.

Article: Washington Post - 5/30/10

I did not write this but I really enjoyed reading it! Here's a snippet and there is a link to the full article in the title.

The fake feminism of Sarah Palin

By Jessica Valenti
Sunday, May 30, 2010

Sarah Palin sure is dropping the f-bomb a lot lately.
In a widely noted speech this month to the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion-rights group, Palin invoked the words "feminism" and "feminist" no less than a dozen times. She called for a "pro-woman sisterhood" and addressed the "sisters" in the audience. If it weren't for the regular references to gun rights, you might have thought you were listening to Gloria Steinem.

If this rhetoric seems uncharacteristic of the former governor of Alaska, that's because it is. When running for vice president in 2008, Palin flip-flopped on the feminist question, telling CBS's Katie Couric that she is one, but later telling NBC's Brian Williams, "I'm not going to label myself anything."

Today, however, Palin is happily adopting the feminist label. She's throwing support behind "mama grizzly" candidates, describing the large number of women in the "tea party" as evidence of a "mom awakening" and preaching girl power on her Facebook page.

It's not a realization of the importance of women's rights that's inspired the change. It's strategy. Palin's sisterly speechifying is part of a larger conservative move to woo women by appropriating feminist language. Just as consumer culture tries to sell "Girls Gone Wild"-style sexism as "empowerment," conservatives are trying to sell anti-women policies shrouded in pro-women rhetoric.

Check it out!

The Banality of Heterosexism

Heterosexism, or the presumption that man-woman relationships are the norm, is a dangerous spirit that haunts the eventual future burial ground of gender-based discrimination. You know how they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions? Well, see…I don’t know about that heaven and hell thing in the literal sense, but there is definitely a metaphorical context that makes the saying true. Think about it: the crazy people that think whatever they do about whatever they do are so moved by their own personal truth, however sick and demented it may sometimes be, that they disregard the fact that their "truth" is, not only largely offensive, but also not believed by the people that they choose to judge using their belief system as the standard.

Does that sound right? Or preachy? It’s definitely far too early on Saturday morning (as I write this) to get preachy. I just know this much: people have to open up and accept the fact that the driving force behind who we are is our own free will. That isn’t specifically to go against any particular set of religious beliefs, though we know my feelings on the matter; but chew on this for a minute: how do we grow into whoever we are without will?

Get this, dear readers – I am on Facebook days ago and I see a status up by a friend of mine that had very apparent heterosexist ideas in it. Now, I’m not one for internet beef (or real life beef, I don’t eat the stuff). I think that shit is so 8th-grade and passé bullshit really isn’t my thing. Though, if I am to have an intelligent and healthy debate, as I do with aforementioned friend regularly, we tend to keep Facebook out of the picture because, to me, it’s so much more personal than a forum, a blog, even twitter. And it got out of hand.

Featured below, m’loves, are screen shots of all the action. The last two comments were not captured before the entire exchange was deleted. My self-diagnosed OCD kicked in and I actually color coded the conversation for your convenience – I am featured in the yellow-gold color. The intention of this post is not to ruin any relationships that I have with any of the people directly or indirectly involved (which is why I even colored out the avatar images). Note: you may have to click the images for a better view of the conversation.

p>

Now, much like the work of Hannah Arendt, I feel that the banality of an individual’s ideas and actions of any sort are lost in the dominating force that is group think. Unfortunately, people think they are enlightened; they think that they believe these things to be true and they have some sort of social advantage (without basis, mind you) over other groups – whether directly or indirectly – because of the overwhelming support they have from other people who believe the same thing. It takes a considerable amount of courage (and, hell, sometimes even insanity) to move away from the wrong ideas you’ve been spoon-fed for lifetimes.

This conversation spilled over to twitter. After it spilled over to twitter, it spilled over to a telephone conversation of my dear talented, passionate(but misguided on this particular topic) friend pleading with me that he is a good person, not a homophobe, that wants to encourage "men" to be "men" - whatever that means and however that should happen. And my entire problem with that is this: far, far too many individuals allow their beautiful individual selves to die within someone else’s definition of who and how they should be. Aside, what makes a man a man? Do you not see the skewed origin of this thought pattern? I have friends, many great people, caught up and torn in the ideas of what the mainstream deems “normal” – and the scariest part is the fervor and depth of their rationalities.

And though some (and not all) people’s ideas of normality – especially in dealing with the banality of heterosexism” or the ignorance of passing, albeit rationalized-to-them, hate speech – is backed by “good intentions, it’s still just another way for a member of the social status quo to further impose their belief system on other people. So, uhh…how else do you approach individuals with good intentions? I mean, besides the inter-technological beating of a dead horse to a pure pulp? You do what I did – email several different educational resources about gender versus biological sex, so-called “gender roles”, heterosexism/homophobia, hate speech and the idea that all people are actually people!

...being a decent human being does not excuse any of this. It doesn't make it less wrong, and it doesn't make my volume against the issue less audible. As I told my friend, if he were anybody - and I do mean anybody - else saying the things that were said, I'd have been just as riled up and vocal about it all.

Be Righteous.

Is "Draw Muhammed Day" Supposed to Be...Cool?

Just briefly, I'd like to explain why I am not interested in taking any part in "Draw Muhammed Day":

While I understand the point being driven by some non-Muslims to be that fear should not dictate what the rest of us do with such simple liberties as doodling and the like, I think that it is calling for the deliberate pidgeonholing of a single group of people bound by one religious belief. I'm all for free speech and, frankly, I tend to care very little about offending people in my thoughts, speech and opinions. However, I think that calling for people all over the globe to do something deliberately disrespectful toward a single group of people is petty, pointless, and a silly group-think tactic to "other" a category of people.

And when I see the groups of people that are traditionally "othered" doing it (you know, the classes of people I belong to: Black, female, atheists, et al), it only makes me think that there's to be no progress for humanity because you're doing the same thing that they do to us. It is amusing to me that a common gripe that a group of people can have about the way they are treated can be turned around with the snap of a finger when they're not on defense.

While I am sure that someone will bring up my affinity for all things inappropriate - cartoons included - and the idea that I draw random lines wherever I see fit, I'd like to say that there's a difference between satire in my own sardonic wit, and the real-world discriminatory thinking of the circumstantial status quo.

I'd rather not waste time drawing some entity (that I personally feel to be imaginary) for the sole purpose of pissing people off; instead, I'll use my powers for good.

Be Righteous.

...but, is it right?

As an all around human rights activist, I often become torn between human rights and cultural/religious values (and/or freedom of expression of such from a more legal nature). Most recently, I've been connecting online with fellow nontheists (even Black ones - and that really helps my not feeling erm, well...alone in thought). Unfortunately, between my work schedule and my not even knowing where and how to get out and meet people, the majority of these acquiantances have been made on twitter and the like while lurking in the wee hours of the morning. I'm beginning to make time for people, but it's a little aggravating to seem to only attract sexual deviants or losers of varying other degrees. I've gained a few other friends and am slowly but surely making progress, though I miss my best friends from home incredibly.

Yet, recently stumbling upon more people with similar not-so-religious world views has become encouraging to me in more ways than one. Most of all, though, it's good to be able to engage in religious debate without being seen as combative or some fisherperson looking for a fight (because, contrary to popular belief, we don't all believe the exact same thing). I was engaged in a conversation with a nontheist friend of mine from college weeks ago, and we shared the same gripe that more and more, atheism/non-religion is becoming organized and behaving religious-like in congregation, even though in our own minds, it's about "unbelief". I truly take pride in contemplating carefully the words choose to use as descriptors, and like another good friend of mine, I loathe labels. I yam what I yam!

At any rate, recently being engaged in another stimulating conversation with a new acquaintance while at work, we were discussing human rights and religious tolerance. And upon reading this re-post on Richard Dawkins' blog, I felt it important to write about. The general gist of the post is the fact that the Saudi Arabian police and fire department "actively hindered" 15 young girls from the escape of their burning school. Why would they do that? Why would the people who maintain an occupation where they ideally would want to help other people participate in trapping young girls in a burning school turned-graveyard? Well, because in fleeing for their lives, they were attempting to escape the school without their head-coverings. Now, as for the recent post on Dawkins' website, there was recently a legislation passed by the religious police to allow male emergency response workers to enter girls-only schools in the event of an emergency (and sorry, the only link that was attached was Dutch, but there is a translation on the other blog). Of course this raises church and state issues, the same issues that seem to cause most social issues in seemingly every society, and that is an issue?

What about Afghanistan's epidemic of child rape? Or in South Africa? Or the women in the Congo? Or the abuse of nuns (that is largely ignored by the mainstream media!) and children's sexual abuse by the Catholic church as an establishment?

He asked if I thought this practice, mainly speaking to Afghan child-rape, to be right and while I naturally said no and elaborated on why - even when abusers claimed the young girls participate in these actions - children cannot consent, why there's no circumstance where an adult should even feel justified in having sex with a child, why it's wrong, becauseweallknowhowlongwindedIcanbe.
And he said, "Okay, I understand what you're saying...but, is it right?"
Well no, hell no it's not right. As a matter of fact, under no circumstances is rape acceptable -- let alone child rape. Not in Islam, not in Catholicism, not in less religious society, not in any form of human interaction is this at all "right".
"...then, why aren't we doing anything?"
Well, now..when you say we? When you say we, are you meaning we, the US? We, the non-religious? We, Black people?
"We, every other person on the planet that behaves under the assumption that this behavior is abusive. Why aren't we doing anything?"
And while I could think of so many reasons that people use to justify why we don't get involved, I couldn't honestly think of one rational reason as to why we don't get involved and stop it.

Now, this isn't about my opinions on religions. This isn't even about my own personal "religious tolerance" - though I hate the term tolerance because it insinuates uncaring acknowledgment versus acceptance of other people. This is about human rights over the right to practice what you believe, however radical and warped a version of whichever concept you believe. Who cares what religious/social/cultural/political/whatever-al label you identify with if you are using that label to justify sexual and physical (and, psychological, as a result) harm toward another person, child or otherwise?

I'm not on a crusade against any ideological group in particular because I am completely fine with who I am; does that mean I don't voice my opinion tactfully with religious people willing to engage in an open discussion about their beliefs? Not at all. I don't go around instigating such situations. I don't passively allow people to discuss religion, prayer or the like as a means to "other" people who may hold the same belief, either. However, upon reflection, is passive non-theism just as allowing of such crimes as the passively religious? -- you know, the people who say "well, see, the way I interpret it..", etc. Is religious tolerance more important than intervening - as people from all over, not governments - where we can without waging war and further upsetting the balance of human and environmental rights worldwide? Should we be doing something more?

Then why aren't we?

Be Righteous.

Sexual Deviants Need Not Apply

Sula: I'm speechless. Like...
Me: Yeah, I know.
Sula: I mean...
Me: ..I know. So, uhm...yeah.
Sula: I really...I mean...
Me:...that's when I knew.
Sula: I didn't see that coming at all...

As old Sophia Petrillo says, picture it:
A few weeks ago, I met a guy who actually seemed pretty cool. After deciding that I just wanted to meet people without any expectations of anything more serious happening, I was really excited that I met someone who seemed to have a very fun and lively personality. We exchanged numbers and began communicating from there; admittedly, he got extra points for being so cool about hearing my trash-talk during our first conversation, and he's so animated and funny to maintain a conversation with.

We went out recently, but it was a really rough day for me. I figured, though, that I would definitely give him another shot at hanging out because he knew the things that unexpectedly ruined my day and he seemed really sincere about offering support in any way.

We had lunch the first day, and it went incredibly well. We parted ways and after a while, he began texting me. I think that he must have been feeling extra flirtatious and wanted to test his boundaries, and that's fine because I have no problem correcting certain behaviors in awkward or inappropriate situations. He began telling me how gorgeous I looked, and even made a joke(?) that the waitress at the restaurant was checking me out. I tried to keep the conversation tame, but somehow he decided to be bold and it went left.

...and that is when he revealed to me that he enjoys watching bestiality porn.

He said he wasn't into acting it out or actually seeing anyone he knows act it out, but that he enjoys watching it has much as he enjoys watching lesbian porn.

Now, in the time I've ever discussed pornography with anybody (including with such issues as ethnically insensitive acts and the objectification of women) I have nevereverevereverevereverEVER had anyone come out of the closet as a deviant saying, "yeah, I love the type of porn where people are fxcking animals." Ever. Naturally, I deflected and just ignored his messages.

What the hell does one even say to that? Before we even had this conversation, I had an idea that our hanging out would not really be on a boyfriend-girlfriend level and I was fine with it, but do I really want to spend any amount of time with someone that...likes bestiality? Like, I don't even know what to say to that...(confused face)

Now, let's discuss bestiality for a minute. I think that many people are anti-anything a lot of times without the ability to articulate why they feel a certain way about a taboo. This is how, in my opinion, morons so easily equate consensual non-heterosexual relationships with things like zoophilia; they just know that they wouldn't do it without understanding why not. In my opinion, the defenseless need protecton and I have very strong views on sexual assault, including engaging in sexual activities with those who don't truly have a say-so in the matter. Animals aren't equipped with the mental capacity to be able to say "I don't really think this is right" or the ability to give verbal/non-verbal cues as to their level of discomfort with the situation. Further, engaging in sexual behavior with animals is similar to sexually abusing children, the elderly, the physically/mentally-disabled, or any other group that is unable to protect themselves. As such, someone coming out of the closet to me about enjoying Tijuana horse shows is along the same lines as someone saying "I only like kiddy porn; I don't actually have sex with children!"

No, but seriously.

So what do you even say to that? Is it okay to just spend time with someone..like that if you're for sure about it never progressing to a certain point? Further, what is it about me that attracts this type of person? (confused face, again)

I..don't..really..get it.

Edit: Thanks to @dredpiraterob for much of the conversation that inspired my writing this post. I'm not sure that I'd have fleshed out these ideas a bit more without discussing the above incident with him.

The Dating Game Revisited

I work nights. Not just nights, but nights on the weekend. And I'm okay with that, because my priority is making money and becoming (more) established on my journey. I've been meeting a few losers folks here and there, but I still don't find myself going out much. At any rate, a couple of months ago I met a guy from the islands at a restaurant and we got into a political discussion about Black conservatives. We exchanged numbers and began communication; there was no instant attraction on my part, and I was seeing a 30-year-old-kid someone, but it's nice to know someone in the area. I'm all about meeting people - especially people who are able to actually vocalize an opinion on anything political.

While at work Saturday night, and totally out of the blue, this guy sends some texts asking me to come over after I got off at 8am Sunday morning. I didn't think much of it, though we actually never hung out beyond the conversation at the restaurant. It didn't take much, but I acquiesced. I mean, what else do I have to do on a Sunday after work? He lives five minutes away from my house, too, so it wasn't like I was inconveniently making my way though traffic to spend thirty minutes with him. So, I went, expecting coffee and breakfast. It wasn't a date but my naivete thought that perhaps we'd be kickin' it and discussing Climate Legislation over fresh fruit. Right?

Well, I walk up the stairs to the apartment. We talked about life, caught up a little bit and all. His apartment looks as though he just moved in - he has an airbed in the living room and a huge plasma tv there as well, but the only chairs are at the bar. And then..he asked for a hug and grabbed my butt! Of course I corrected his behavior and walked to the other side of the room for my bottled water. And...I spied with my little eye a huge Lord and Taylor bag (with dresses hanging out), an Arden B. bag, and a bottle of Japanese Cherry Blossom lotion (and I know my Bath and Body Works!).

Now, I wasn't as naive to think "well, maybe he has a roommate" since he smelled like the lotion. I excused myself to the restroom, disgusted, and turned the sink on so that I could snoop around brainstorm. I'm a cop's kid; I have quirky antics and move into CSI-mode when I'm trying to find out info about people. As a matter of fact, I've researched guys that have been interested in my best friend before she decided whether or not she wanted to go out with them; it isn't an obsession and I'm not a female Hitch and I'm not big on prejudgments -- I just think that knowing certain things about people before involving yourself with them could save a stress headache and a lot of time. Further, even guys like my ex-boyfriend that present as "normal", well balanced and successful individuals can turn out to be total toads. Ask me how I know?

I don't have trust issues until I've been faced with evidence that I shouldn't trust someone. In a flash, I pulled back the shower curtain - only one towel, no women's body wash. I looked under the sink and still nothing. But then, I noticed shed hair on the bathroom floor and the sink. Having been a sister with relaxed hair at one point in my life, I know how disgustingly non-natural hair sheds once you brush it. My 58-second bathroom sweep was good enough for me, and I flushed and walked out. I passed a room with a door closed and walked back to the living room area, to find this Negro stretched out on the airbed; he was fully clothed. I wasn't interested in sitting, just because I kinda knew where it was headed. And then my detective eye spotted something else - two hairpins on the opposite side of the bed.

I expressed that I was getting tired from working all night and that I was going to go. He hugged me and there it was: I got poked, and saw in that instant a condom was on the airbed where he was laying. Huh? Negro, PLEASE! Who cares if you live a magnum lifestyle? You're a jerk. And I am leaving. The more I recite this story, the sicker I get with myself for even thinking that breakfast was a rational option at 9am on Sunday morning.

I suppose this story is the foundation for a larger question that is not as long winded; my question to you is...SERIOUSLY??

Rape Victims: Who Cares?

As an advocate and activist, I find myself constantly reminding people that people choose not to report rape/sexual assaults (and may even change their mind down the road) for a number of reasons. While crime dramas can sometimes do a great job portraying how things maybemightsometimes go down, there are a lot of situations that aren't necessarily as "ideal" as TV makes them to be. I'm not going to jump on my "the police aren't your friends" soapbox because I have a confused relationship with the law: I've disclosed being a Detective's kid, and I've also butt heads with several police officers (that know him!). I've read about tensions between Black people and the police, and I've even seen police in my current city go overboard (leave it to me to relocate to South Central, lol). I mean, even my Detective father instructed me on dealing with the local police upon moving because of their heavy-handed reputation. With that said, I have also found myself having to remind all people of this fact: the images that you see on television are for entertainment - they are not real. In other words, the smart, witty, passionate, hardworking detectives you see on Law and Order: SVU are not real people; not every police officer you encounter will have the same caring-"we're-gonna-get-the-bad-guy"-attitude. I am not completely of the opinion that, as a member of the Black community, the support of the police is always lesser. Yet, the Black community minimizes contact with police on a number of issues and a main issue is sexual assault. Sexual Assault Awareness Month fact: 60% of rapes go unreported. With the knowledge that Black women are compounded with the tension of race and the police, can you imagine the statistic for Black women who are sexually assault?

I've had the pleasure of collaborating with the police in combating sexual assault and advocating for victims. I've met SVU detectives that I felt should be in a different line of work. On one occasion, I was advocating for an 18 year old Black lady that had been sexually assault by a way older family friend. She told me that the investigating detective, a white woman, told her that it was her fault she was raped. Ideally, the police would work together with advocates and, maybe sometimes, they do; yet, it is difficult to bridge the gap when there are few Black women advocating (because of the inherited silence on the matter) and when young Black women are being told by the police that there would be no investigation on their attack - proof or not - because of something they did to perpetuate the attack.

I browsed this article on Alternet a couple of days ago, and my attention was redirected to it last night by my good friend Rippa (check out his blog: The Intersection of Madness and Reality). The story is, unfortunately in my experience, not uncommon: young woman drugged and date raped, goes to police, is given the run around, and ultimately, not believed by the authorities. Further, the authorities try convincing her that she was drunk (when she was drugged!). This happened to a student of an HBCU, so if you assumed she was a young white girl by default, figure race into the equation. Now, read on, The Story of the Night Hannah Was Not "Officially" Raped:

April 17, 2010

On Saturday, Dec. 9, 2006, Hannah* woke up in her Howard University dorm room with a piece of her life missing. Hannah, a 19-year-old sophomore, had unexplained pain in her rectum and hip. Her panty liner, which she had worn the night before, was missing. Vomit dotted her gloves and coat. Her friend Kerston lay beside her in the skinny dorm room bed. Kerston told Hannah not to shower -- they had to go back to the hospital to secure a rape kit. That weekend, Hannah claims that she was provided the following excuses for why she could not receive a sexual assault medical forensic examination: She was drunk; she ate a sandwich; she was a liar; she didn't know her attacker's last name; the police had to authorize the exam; she was outside the hospital's jurisdiction; she wasn't reporting a real crime; she was blacked out; she changed her story; her case was already closed.

The article continues:

"We think she's been raped," Kerston and Sade informed an orderly as they dragged her into the hospital. Hospital officials handed Sade some paperwork to fill out on Hannah's behalf. In the box indicating the reason for the ER visit, Sade testifies that she wrote, "raped, possibly drugged." A nurse sat Hannah down and took her blood pressure. Hannah threw up on the floor. Kerston and Sade helped to clean it up off of the ground. The nurse put a vomit bag in Hannah's hands. She was incoherent and barely conscious. She threw up into the bag. According to the girls' testimony, when a doctor finally saw Hannah, she determined that she was too incoherent to consent to receive a rape kit, because she couldn't verbally confirm that she had been raped. According to the girls, the doctor told them to take Hannah home, let her sleep it off, make sure she didn't shower, and then return to Howard University Hospital for a rape kit the next day. When the girls begged the doctor to treat Hannah's symptoms of sexual assault and drugging, the girls claim that the doctor told them to leave the ER. (The doctor testified that she informed Hannah's friends that they would have to wait six to eight hours before Hannah was treated, and that the girls chose to leave the hospital without treatment). When Kerston and Sade took Hannah back to her dorm, she threw up again.

This incident is also in my new location, and I have to catch myself from saying what should have happened since I am a newbie to the area. However, where I used to live, this is what, ideally, would have happened: immediately taken to triage based on the symptoms, an advocate from the local sexual assault agency called, and then, if the victim indicates, the police will be called. It should happen in that order (if the victim is over 18 years old) because of (new) blind reporting legislation that allows the victim, as long as there are no sustained injuries, to decide whether or not she would like to press charges. The advocate should arrive before a rape kit is done to ensure procedure is followed, the support the victim, and to serve as a liaison between the hospital and the victim. I am of the opinion that if any of these links are missed, if any part of the protocol is skipped, then it falls apart at the interest of the victim.

There are so many organizations in this area that advocate for victims and, from what I've heard, they do a wonderful job. What happened to "Hannah" this night was a complete disaster on so many fronts beyond the physical and mental trauma associated with being sexually assaulted; "Hannah" faced every rape victims fear: not being believed or treated fairly and, ultimately, being punished for her victimization.

Be Righteous.