Modern Screen 1950

I just found a February, 1950 Modern Screen magazine at a local thrift store today. Wow, is it packed with goodies! I'll probably spend a couple of posts delving into all of the stuff in here. For example, did you know that the ladies of the early 1950's :

• were obsessed with douche
• sometimes still used regular soap in their hair
• thought the men in their lives would leave them for things like bad breath
• were dismayed that Hollywood stars got divorced
• measured their desirablity by how smooth their hands were
• apparently didn't have dress sizes below 10
• all looked like they were 35-40 years old

Hmmm. Some things have changed so much; others are just the same today as they were then. I know I'll have fun looking at all of this, and I'll try to provide lots of good scans, so that you can enjoy my little find, too!

Hmm- Are All Women A little Bit "Bi"?

This is the question asked in a Salon.com article about women's sexuality. http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/06/12/bisexuality/index.html?source=refresh The answer they seem to come up with is "yes". I think they were asking the wrong question, personally. I think the better question is, Are all people a little bit bi?"

Yes, they are, and is that really breaking news? I mean, how long has the whole "continuum" model of sexuality been around? Oh, yeah, that's right- since Kinsey in the 1940's. Silly me- that's just too recent for most people to have heard of, especially sex researchers, right?

Apparently, that's the case, because according to the article, researchers are still doing experiments designed to test whether or not "straight identified" people will respond to same-sex stimuli sexually. Why would this be, you ask? Here is my humble opinion.

First, let's back up to what the article says.

"Why are women so turned on by watching other women?" asks a doctor in a story on women and bisexuality in the New York Times. The
story, pegged to the screening of a new documentary called "Bi the Way,"
explores the idea that women's sexuality is more fluid than men's -- something
that most of us understand anecdotally, whether from pop-culture reports of
dalliances between Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson or from simply logging a
little time in college dorms.

Now, maybe I've been living under the same rock as the behind-the-times sex researchers I just took a swipe at, but I've never seen anything that would make me believe that "women's sexuality is more fluid than men's" except maybe for the proliferation of porn that purports to show lesbian sex, but that obviously is created by men for men, so that doesn't really count. Actually, from where I sit, lesbians are about the most invisible segment of our population, sexually. Quick quiz- when I say "homosexual", do you think two men, or two women? If you answered "men", you are probably in the majority. Lesbians make nice fodder for men's sexual fantasies (I think that's what fuels the old "women's dorm" trope above- I've never seen tons of hot lesbian action in dorms, and I've lived in/ been around several of 'em), but when it comes to, you know, actual lesbians having actual sex, society pretty much closes their eyes and turns the other way. And bisexual people in general are given short shrift, so I'm sorry to report that both in my personal experience, and in the larger media, I just don't see much out there about bisexual women.

The article goes on to say:

What's key to cranking hetero females' dials is sensuality -- images of
masturbation, of couples having sex, regardless of their gender. And yet, when
one researcher asked subjects to rate their arousal to watching certain videos,
both gay and straight women rated videos of other women highest. One doctor
suggests that there "may greater potential for bisexuality in women than in
men."

What I think is different is the fact that women are willing to talk more openly about sex/sexuality. Women are allowed to sit around and talk about what turns them on with their friends. Women are encouraged to scrutinize their own bodies and other women's bodies, and to see them as sexual objects. Women are encouraged to have tight bonds with other women- we even call it having "girlfriends"- bonds that may cross the border into the sexual, or may at least appear to do so. We also trivialize lesbian sexuality, making it less of a "deal" if a woman admits to sexual experimentation with other women, because lesbian sex is often seen as not "counting", especially if it is not penetrative.

Society, for the most part, allows men very little wiggle room on sex. They are supposed to want it all the time! They are supposed to be totally, 100% het! And aside from "conquest stories" or dirty jokes or talk on a sex chat line, men aren't supposed to talk about sex, and they especially can't seem to be too interested in it from an emotional standpoint. Wham, bam, thank you ma'm is the order of the day. So, if men are straight-identifying, but experimenting with homosexuality, they aren't likely to talk about it. If men find other men attractive, they aren't likely to bring that up in a conversation with their friends. I doubt they would even respond honestly in situations like the research cited above. And since men are encouraged to have "buddies", not "boyfriends", even things that could be taken as homosuggestive- naked locker room bulshit sessions, sports with lots of physical contact- all get framed in very masculine terms that leave little room to interpret these relationships as sexual. I bet that makes it seem a whole lot like men are less "fluid" in their sexuality.

Frankly, I think people don't really want to rock the male hetronormative sexuality boat, so they spend a whole lot of time looking at female fluidity of sexuality , and not much time looking at male fluidity of sexuality . It's a lot more fun to prop up popular stereotypes that are safe and fun, but seem to be a little transgressive, then to push at the monolith of male sexual privelege. I doubt lots of straight-identifying females are going to freak out after reading this article, or seeing the mentioned documentary, and attack the person(s) responsible just to prove once and for all that they "ain't no fag". A documnetary about all men secretly being a little bi? Oh, yeah. I could see all sorts of bad things befalling the person brave enough to put something like that out.

Besides, I bet the guys who watch the documentary on female bisexuality will get all hot watching scenes of "lesbo" action!

Isn't that the point?

It's Been A While, But I'm Back!

A big shout-out to the three people who read my blog! I've been pretty busy over the past few months, but I'll try to start posting again over the summer, as I have more time. What's on my mind right now:

Macho men and their macho cars. Yep. The penis car isn't dead yet, according to this mind-numbingly stupid and stereotypical article featured by my favorite source for grade-F schlock, Yahoo. http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/105031/Macho-Movers-Top-10-Cars-Driven-by-MenIt seems that most of the outlandishly expensive status cars are owned by men. It couldn't have anything to do with the income gap between men and women, or the constant barrage of socialization men receive to "like" cars from day one, or anything:

Nah. That can't be it.

Politics. I can't really get too excited about the current crop of candidates. Sure, the Dems had a historic primary, with a woman battling an African-American for the nod, and that was cool, except for the fact that neither candidate was/is at all inspiring from a policy standpoint. Clinton, who became my sentimental favorite in the primary due to her having the same sex chromosomes as myself is the definition of the Establishment candidate policy-wise. Obama? What exactly does Obama stand for? After reading his slick website http://www.barackobama.com/issues I feel like I have a better idea of what he wants to do, but not the how. As ambitious as his calls for "change" are, that makes me nervous. He feels a lot like Kennedy in '60, who unfortunately translated into a lot of feel-good talk, and not much real action. McCain? Well, he's just... Yikes. I mean, all of his unscripted rancour is good for a laugh, but as a president? Hell, Nooes! He's horrible on women's issues, his support of the Iraqi invasion is scary, and his pandering to the Family Values nutbags, despite his own checkered past is dissapointing. Bob Barr for the Libertarians? No thanks. The Greens are still up in the air- Cynthia McKinney looks like their best hope at the moment, but we'll have to wait until after the convention in July to know for sure what they will do. Frankly, they need to get a lot more energetic in their bid for ballot access if they want to have even a symbolic impact. So, for the moment, I guess I'm for Obama, but with reservations. I just get all itchy when someone seems to be too good to be true, because he probably is.


"The Pill Kills" Day. Last Saturday was coined "The Pill Kills Day" by the American Life League. I'm interested in seeing if anyone actually buys that crap. Seriously. WorldNet has an article from the ever-nutty Jill Stanek chastizing "pro-abort" forces for keeping the "truth" that the Pill "kills babies" from women.http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66215 She says they do so because they get so much money from the sale of the Pill. Really? Who is it who makes big bucks off of the Pill? Oh yeah. Pharmacutical companies, those dastardly "pro-abort" monsters! Who else could she be talking about? None of the advocacy groups like NARAL make money off of the Pill, Planned Parenthood sure isn't rolling in the dough from providing the pill for free or at reduced rates, so I guess that just leaves the drug companies. I wonder if Jill and Co. would really like to go on record saying drug companies are the "pro-abort" profiteers she hates so much. I bet not- it probably wouldn't do good things for her stock portfolio.


Ghost In The Shell, Stand Alone Complex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell#Television_series Good stuff! I can't say I liked it better than the original movies, but I think it gives more substance to the franchise, and explains the techno-angst it portrays a little more completely. I like that the Major is a strong female character- she runs the show when she is on a mission, and no one can match her. I'm now working my way through Second Gig.

Dawkins' Deluded Detractors

I finally got around to reading the God Delusion last week. Though I am in agreement with 99% of Dawkins' views on the subject of God, I do have to say that the book was a little weak in some areas. As a person who spent most of her life around academic debate, I just couldn't help wondering why Dawkins would jump straight into the "does God exist" fray without doing a better job of defining the terms of the proposition. "Existence" and "God" are never well-defined, and as a result, he never really scores a knockout punch on ol' SkyDaddy. On the other hand, I love "The Mother Of All Burkas" at the end, where he vividly describes how very little of the world we actually see. I'm not sure this really extends his argument, but it sure is a great wakeup call nonetheless.

As much as I think Dawkins could have done better, his critics have resorted to the most shoddy counter-arguments I have seen outside of a high school novice debate round.

From Depak Chopra, at Beliefnet.com:
1. Science is the only valid way to gain knowledge. Nothing about God is needed to explain the world. Eventually science will uncover all mysteries. Those that it can't explain don't exist.

This is the bedrock of Dawkins' argument, as it is of most skeptics and scientific atheists.
Only it's not. Not by a mile. Dawkins NEVER says things science can't explain don't exist. Ever. This is not the last time Chopra comes off looking like he didn't even read the book. He goes on about how the sainted Einstein believed in God (he didn't, and Dawkins went to some effort to point that out), he continually said that Dawkins said the universe was created by random chance (wrong again), and even referred to one of the analogies Dawkins debunked (the 747 put together by a hurricane) to support his arguments about the non-random nature of the universe. Sheesh. This guy calls himself a doctor? He also obviously woefully misunderstands quantum physics, and mistakes Dawkins for some sort of 19th century objective materialist who subscribes only to the narrowest interpretations of Newtonian physics. Of course, this is all crazily off-base. And his coup de grace? His way of knowing there is a God? Because consciousness transcends matter. We can think thoughts with our mind, which has to be more than just the chemicals it's made of. Well doesn't it? He even petulantly asks, "Do you think you are conscious and intelligent, or are you being fooled by random chemical reactions inside your skull?"

I think Chopra's chemicals must be pretty random for this to seem like an argument to him. Here's a crazy idea- consciousness and intelligence are byproducts of certian chemical reactions. The two things aren't mutually exclusive. Oh, did someone say neuroscience? Chopra must have been too busy listening to his "greater consciousness" to hear about that little fringe field of study.

While Dawkins makes a better argument for skeptical agnosticism and a general mistrust of organized religion than atheism, he sure does a better job than those who wish to disagree with him.

Next: the man who tortures logic in the service of God

Even Catgirls Get The Blues

Yeah, I know. It's been forever since I posted, and I've all ready written about the whole "women don't like sex" cultural stereotype thing. However, I feel like I need to say it one more time.

Women like sex. We really do. And, believe it or not, we ARE visually stimulated. When I see a hot guy, I react. I think most women do. The whole "men are just more visual" evo psych drivel is just that. As a matter of fact, I have my own modest little counter interpretation of the sexual proclivities of women.

Women, on average, have a HIGHER capacity for visual stimulation than men. The fact that women can still get off, even when they don't have blatant, in-your-face sexual imagery like mainstream porn would suggest that to be true. I go one further still, and say that many women are so sexual, they don't even need visual stimulation at all. A racy story, a smooth voice singing a song, and many women are ready to go. Why else would romance novels be such a hit with many women? Boy bands? Or fanfic? Read any of that stuff lately? If women can get off thinking about cartoon characters or characters from a novel, I'd say that is indicative of a high degree of sexuality.

Well, there I go. My theories are just as plausible as anyone else's. I get SO tired of the MSM telling me that I'm really not supposed to be that in to sex...

I Heart Olympia Snowe!

Who says liberals can't like Republicans? If I lived in Maine, I'd be proud to vote for Olympia Snowe as my Senator. Whenever I hear of some bill I really like in the senate, I almost always hear Olympia Snowe's name attached to it. Net neutrality? Yep. Olympia's on the case. Repealing the global gag rule? Snowe is there. She became a personal hero of mine when I heard she supported the historic McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Sure, she has her missteps, like voting for the Patriot Act, but all-in-all, she is the kind of senator a progressive independent can really get behind. And as a bonus, she has a really kickass name.

Go, Olympia! Keep showing those conservo-fascist fundie turdballs that they don't own all of the Grand Old Party just yet.

LAF-ing at the Ladies

Oh, yeah. This is the good stuff. On Feministe, they posted about a site called "Visionary Daughters". Of course, it really should be called "Retrograde Daughters", as it deals with all of the Biblical Submissive woman stuff we know and love. They do a pretty good job of picking that particular site apart, so I'll spend my time commenting about an interesting site the "visionaries" would have us link to. It's called...get ready for it... "Ladies Against Feminism", or LAF for short.

The motto of the site is "promoting beautiful womanhood". The site is rife with Victorian clipart depicting such "beautiful ladies", and as I commented on Feministe, it leaves me wondering if they are laboring under the illusion that the Bible was written in 1880, or if perhaps they have it confused with a Harlequin romance novel. I actually find it pretty disheartening that the "submission" crowd has appropriated the Victorian Lady as the symbol for the movement, as it makes me look at my collection of period illustrations (I'm a history buff)in a much less favorable light. Looking at these pictures and reading that motto are really as far as one needs to go in order to understand the point of the site- women are meant to be pretty objects for men to control. I've all ready addressed how the Christian Discipline movement is really S&M dressed up in Bible-ese, and you can cross-apply everything I said there to the whole "submission" movement in general. This website is actually a great how-to manual for master/slave relationships.

They do go to great lengths to point out that they don't endorse abuse or cruelty, or see women as less than human, but of course all of this is firmly negated by the actual content of the site. Here are some of the "useful" tidbits I picked up from my reading:

1. Dating is really wasting time on relationships that go nowhere. If you don't plan on marrying him, what's the point? Oh, you say you enjoy dating? Silly girl- relationships aren't about enjoyment, that are about finding a good "head" to boss you around. Oh,and have baybees with. Happiness can only be found as a function of adhering slavishly to what the Bible may have/may have not said about the role of women. THE END.

2.A woman's role is as a "helpmeet". A helpmeet's (is that even a word?!)job is to help her husband. Period. Women with ambition need not apply. It's empowering to be this kind of woman, don't you know? You need to pray for the inspiration to be the best slave... er... helpmeet you can be. And if something happens to your husband, and he no longer wants your help, or if he dies? Well, I guess you can pray for God to take you away real soon, too, because women are obviously just not cut out to lead.

3. Modesty is FUN! Yeah! Evil "feminists" want you to shed your clothes, but the real cool kids are daring to keep it all on! It's so fun to try to meet the moving target of "modesty", which is "so much more than denim jumpers". Although, if it is your Godly husband who is telling you to put on the saucy little jumper that reveals all that ankle, is it really immodesty, or just wifely duty?

4.Women who are TOO involved with the church risk "feminizing" it! Oh Noes! Men aren't as religious as women, studies show. Obviously, this is the women's fault. If men don't take back their role as head of everything, women are going to take over, declare themselves competent to lead, and you know what that means... The gays are sure to follow!

So what have we learned today? Women are property. You don't shop around for your owner, your owner shops around for you. If you get lucky, you'll get a good Christian owner who leads with compassion. If not, well, that's God's plan, too.(Women's)Bodies are bad, because other people may look at them with "impure" thoughts,and should be covered, unless, of course, your "head" says otherwise. Femininity is a virtue, and obviously leads to increased devotion to religion, but it isn't good for the church (!?), and should be avoided there at all costs. War is peace, love is hate, lies are truth... Oh, wait. That's Nineteen Eighty-Four again. Silly me. I always get Big Brother/Patriarchal God mixed up.

That feminism stuff, you know, the idea that women are people too, really IS bad, isn't it ladies. Thanks for the heads up.

http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/