Don't They Ever Get Tired of Saying "Pregnant Woman" In the Jessie Davis Case?

In case you haven't heard, a 26 year old woman named Jessie Davis was murdered in Ohio. Apparently, she was abducted from her home, and the only witness was her terrified two-year-old son. Predictably, her boyfriend is the main suspect, and has been arrested.

Oh, yeah. Ms. Davis was pregnant at the time of her slaying.

Now, the very fact that this woman was abducted from her home in the middle of the night, after a struggle, in front of a terrified child, makes this a fairly shocking story for me. Apparently, to the people who write news headlines, the only relevant fact was her pregnancy. "Autopsy Reveals Body Is Missing Mom", "New Arrest In Death Of Pregnant Woman", "Pregnant Woman Missing"- you get the picture. All of the headlines seem to point to the only relevant fact in the case being the fact that Ms. Davis was 8 months pregnant. Yes, that she was pregnant is a relevant fact, worthy of note in the article(s) about her dissapearance and murder. But, wouldn't this be newsworthy without that fact, too? The headlines seem to suggest otherwise.

Women are walking uteri, and only the contents of that organ are of any consequence. I see this being Laci Petersen, Part II. Who cares about the vibrant young woman who was murdered, or the sad things these cases say about domestic abuse and assault? Its all about the right of the fetus! Let's protect those fetuses! Women ARE important- as fetus carriers! Let's throw the book at the murderer(s), not because of the slaying of a woman, but to send a message to would-be murderers to find non-pregnant victims, 'cause we mean BUSINESS when it comes to fetuses! Long live the fetus!

If only Ms. Davis' (female) fetus had been saved, it could have grown up to be a fetus carrier some day, too! What a waste of a life.

*Sigh*

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070624/ap_on_re_us/pregnant_woman_dead http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/19/missing.woman.ap/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/24/missing.woman/index.html

I Like Sex

I do. I really like sex. I know that isn't the most socially acceptable thing to say, especially as a woman, but it is true. And I am betting I am not the only one. So why, WHY do we still see the endless repetition of the same tired old chestnuts about men having higher sex drives than women, wanting and "needing" sex more? I get so sick of it: 1.) because it makes me seem disordered for liking and wanting sex; 2.) because the suppposed disparity gets used to excuse all sorts of bad behavior by men; 3.) because it trivializes women by excluding them from the "boys only" realm of sexual gratification we supposedly don't care for; 4.) it places an undeservedly high premium on female virginity, as if it is something hard-won by men ; and 5.) it reinforces the madonna/whore dichotomy. There are probably other things this does that I don't really like. Insert those here.

I have a higher sex drive than my husband, and my ex-husband, too. I have never spent a single day of my life worrying about how to fend off unwanted sexual advances. I am sure this doesn't hold true for all women, but I would like to see more cultural acknowledgement of people like me.

Yes, I like kitties and poodles and all manner of pink, girly things. I like to cuddle and snuggle. I like to talk to my partner and do silly, romantic things.

I also like to fuck like a bonobo chimp as often as I can.

Is that so wrong?

Poodle- 1, Ten Commandments-0

Yeah. This just goes to prove- cute beats... um, I don't know WHAT to call it... Creepy? Preachy? Every time.

Recently, both the Japanese and the Vatican have been worried about issues of public safety and motoring. The Japanese response to unsafe street crossing? A cute little poodle who crosses on command on his hind legs.

The Vatican response? A strange riff on the Ten Commandments- this time, aimed at motorists. It would be blasphemous, if it wasn't so lame.

Here- judge for yourself.

TOKYOMANGO: Pluto the Poodle Promoting Public Safety

Vatican issues 10 Commandments for drivers - CNN.com

I know which I would want on a t-shirt...

Sorry, Folks: CDD=S+M

Thanks to Jesus' General for introducing this to me.

CDD, or "Christian Domestic Discipline" is a new one on me. I know the Bible blathers on about women being obedient to their husbands, and sanctions domestic abuse, but hey, it also sanctions slavery and plucking out people's eyes if they offend you, so ... Let's just say, I didn't think many people probably took it too seriously any more when the Bible perscribed proper whipping rod sizes and such.

Wrong.

Apparently, there is a whole subculture dedicated to reviving "Biblical" relationships in marriage (translated: domestic abuse). At first. I wondered how anybody in their right mind would want to go back to that, especially women. Then I read some of the stuff at: http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com And now, I finally understand. CDD= S+M. Fundies wat to put some fun back in "fundamental", but they can't exactly go parading in to the local leather scene without seriously damaging their cred, because everyone KNOWS Christians dont do "that" stuff.

And lest you think I'm some libralislamofacist Christ-hater, I'll let YOU be the judge:

sa·do·mas·o·chism /ˌseɪdoʊˈmæsəˌkɪzəm,
1.
interaction, esp. sexual activity, in which one person enjoys
inflicting physical or mental suffering on another person, who derives pleasure
from experiencing pain.
2.
gratification, esp. sexual, gained through
inflicting or receiving pain; sadism and masochism combined. Abbreviation: S-M,
S and M

From "Wisdom Worker" at Christiandomesticdiscipline.com

“No, no, no,” she whimpered. “Please, no
more.”

“Have you learned your lesson?” he
asked softly.

“Yeesss,” she cried, “I
promise. . .please. . .”

Lucas put the
belt down next to her on the bed and removed his jeans. Alyssa’s heart
picked up in rhythm when he lifted her further up into the bed and moved her
legs apart to lie between them. She could barely breathe as he entered
her, so afraid he’d hurt her. He was such a big man. If he was still
angry with her. . .

Lucas made love to her
with exquisite gentleness, tenderly cradling her sore bottom in one hand while
he held her body close to his with the other. Though she didn’t feel like
reaching her own climax, his lovemaking comforted Alyssa, and by the time he was
through she had stopped crying and her heart felt much better. They lay in
each other’s arms for a long time
afterwards.

“Now that is what I came home
for,” Lucas said with a kiss to her forehead.

Scare Tactics

Oh, yeah. I'm mad. Really mad. I just saw the most incredibly misogynist public service announcement, courtesy of Pandagon. Check it out. It really, really has to be seen to be believed. http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/05/think_before_yo.html

Done watching? Good. Now I'll start ranting.

Please, please, patriarchal killjoys, get the message: the Genie is out of the bottle. Young women are on the internet, and they WILL, in fact, post things, including pictures of themselves, to websites. These women are not all naive bubbleheads. As a matter of fact, a good number of these young women know a lot more than you patriarchal overlords do about the internet. They know exactly what they are doing, and exactly how to do it. And that is what really whips your polyester-blend boxers into an uproar.

The young women aren't playing your game by your rules any more, are they?

They are operating in cyberspace- free of physical threat to their physical bodies, which has been the dominator's stock-in-trade since times unrecorded. As long as men could actively threaten women with physical force, it was easy to keep them under control. Of course, the second-best thing to use was community-wide condemnation, keeping women in check through fear of harassment and ostracization.

But that doesn't work as well on the Net either, does it?

So, you're stuck. You want to control, commodity, and keep for your own private use the bodies of women, but the internet makes that so much harder to do.

Little morality tales like the ad above are all you have left to fall back on. Scare women into believing they are at imminent risk of harassment, stalking, or worse, in an effort to bring them back in line. Tell them to "think before you post", inferring they are not very bright, and aren't really qualified to make choices like what to put on Facebook or Myspace without "oversight". Shame them with stories of "bad girls" with all sorts of shorthand for promiscuity- tattoos, people knowing what color of underwear they have- so that they don't ever doubt that "good girls" wouldn't DO this internet posting thing. And finally, emphasize the fact that society will not interfere in any way with those who would harm imprudent posters- it is the posters who must protect themselves if they want to be in society's good graces.

Yes, pat yourselves on the back for your little masterstroke. Score one for the patriarchy while ostensibly looking out for the public's well being. But your victory is a hollow one. Because, like it or not, the invigorating freedom of the internet will not be so easily thwarted. Young women want to be able to walk in the open air, with the sun on their faces, unapologetically, for all to see.

Until that time comes, Myspace, Facebook, and the internet at large will have to do.

Sorry, fellas. Maybe you should move on to the "Think Before You Listen To Your I-Pod" ad.

Marriage Is Not The "Magic Bullet"

There has been a lot of discussion lately over the statistics released this month that point to the overall ineffectiveness of abstinence-until marriage sex education. I hate to be the one to pour more cold water over the abstinence crowd (OK, maybe I don't hate it THAT much), but the poor job it does keeping young, unmarried people out of harm's way is really only the tip of the iceberg.

Marriage is no panacea regarding STD's (or anything else, for that matter). The fact that someone "waits" until marriage is no guarantee they will never be infected. This seems like common sense, but even the mainstream medical community does a poor job of communicating this. Consider the following statistics: 22 percent of men and 14 percent of women admitted to having sexual relations outside their marriage sometime in their past, according to a study done in the 1990's. The same study found that 70 percent of married women and 54 percent of married men did not know of their spouses' extramarital activity. On top of that, consider the fact that annual well-woman exams rarely include STD testing for women who self-identify as married or in a monogamous relationship, and most men do not go to their doctors at all for regular checkups. The following quotes from the University of Tennessee Medical Center give insight into the prevailing attitude of the medical community regarding STD's:

Your care provider may want to perform other lab tests to make sure you
are healthy. Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are a big problem in
women who have multiple sexual partners and don’t use condoms.

They go on to say:

Many times women are not aware that they are infected because they
have no symptoms. For this reason, women at any age with a history of
risky behavior or evidence of problems, may need special tests.

Now, it would seem the fact that women often fail to notice symptoms would be reason enough to test all women for STD's, but the "risky behavior" clause is again thrown in. Considering the statistics above about infidelity, how many people who feel "safe" in a marriage are really unwittingly in the "risky behavior" category?

So, we have folks going around, telling teens and young people that the best way for them to avoid STD's is to avoid sex before marriage, and they do so by framing it in mystical, loaded language that relies on religious "sanctification" of the act. Here's an example I found on a site about the "Top 10 Reasons Why Sex Should Wait Until Marriage".

Premarital sex breaks the 10 Commandments given by God. The 10
Commandments are given to man by God to make man happy. They are
not outdated and they are not restrictive. If we follow these laws, we
can create happy and prosperous lives. If we don't follow them, we will pay
a heavy price in divorce, disease, abortions, illegitimate children and loneliness.

We see marriage portrayed as a sort of "Get out of Jail Free" card. If you just wait until marriage, you don't have to worry about things like divorce, disease, abortions, illegitimate children, or loneliness. And don't just take MY word for it-- this is God's law, after all (?!) Now, I expect as much from the radical right, but it just appalls me that the medical community has fallen in lockstep with such absurd notions. So we have married people who think they are protected when they are not, and who the medical community just ignores as potential infection risks. Except, of course, when a woman is pregnant. Because anyone who has ever been pregnant knows that, as a matter of course, all women (married or otherwise) are given a full battery of STD tests during the course of their prenatal care.

Because, you know, we've gotta keep those embryos and fetuses safe, even if that means admitting married people sometimes get STD's.

My recommendation is simple. All annual checkups (for women or men) should have STD tests as a part of the regular battery of tests to perform, regardless of their relationship status. People should opt out, rather than opting in to these crucial tests. And, of course, we should dump the abstinence until marriage education, and paint a more realistic picture about what marriage and the transmission of disease really look like. That assumes, of course, that we're really worried about lowering STD infection rates, and not just indoctrinating people with "family values" falderall about the sanctity of marriage.

My first marriage was one of the 17 percent of marriages that end in divorce due to infidelity. I never saw it coming, and to this day, I don't know what kind of sexual activity my ex-husband may have participated in with "the other woman" while we were married. Never once, until I expressly asked for it (after finding out about the infidelity) did any of my doctors offer me a STD test while I was married except for when I was pregnant. Marriages provide little enough protection from the vagaries of human emotion, let alone the transmission of disease. Society needs to be honest to people about both.

Believe Me

Oh, all ye people of little FAITH! See what is before you and TREMBLE at the awesomeness of my Awesome revelation! For I finally have CONCLUSIVE, IRREFUABLE proof of extraterrestrial life visiting this planet! Feast your eyes on the above pic! What do you see? To some, it is a strange zig-zaggy light. To others, it might seem like the camera was bummped while taking a picture of something bright in the dark. I, however, know it to be none of the above. It is, in fact, a picture of an extraterrestrial being in the shape of a large light dog zipping through the earth's atmosphere! Staggering, isn't it? But there it is. I think these light-entities are taking the form of dogs because they know we consider dogs to be human's best friend, and they want to communicate their friendly intentions. Aren't they way smart? They may even be interdimentional as well as intergalactic travelers-- I just don't know yet.
So, you may ask, "How do you know these are light-dog entities from another galaxy?" A very good question, for which I have a very good answer. I believe it to be true. And that's all I need. Because belief is stronger than the strongset steel. More immovable than the largest mountan. More inpenetrable than the deepest fog. As really Super Spectacluar as the picture is, I don't need it. Because I have faith in the illumicanines (that's the name I have coined for our most Revered and Stupendous guests), I just know they are there.
That is the beauty of faith. It is what it is. If you have it, it is real. Faith doesn't need proof, it has itself. I mean, how elegant is THAT? I am a real supporter of faith. Well, as long as it isn't stupid faith. That, I've got no time for. Like , for example, those Native Americans who call G-d "the Great Spirit". Please. Yahweh. Now THAT'S a name for G-d. Or, the Holy Ghost! I don't know about you, but that just resonates. Even Allah has got a ring to it. How do I know what the right name for G-d is? I just do. Cause that is faith. And GOOD faith, the kind I like-- well, that's the STUFF!!
The other day, Jimbo and I were on our way to the mall when we got behind this car that had a really great bumpersticker that drives home this point. It said, "If you think you are perfect, try walking on water". Yeah. Can't do it, can ya? Well, it just goes to show you... yeah. THAT, my friend, is the power of faith. If you are a Believer, you KNOW you can't walk on watter. You take it on faith. But all of these other, science-y types, they have to go falling in to the lake, getting all wet, and maybe drowning before they know the Unalterable truth. You can't walk on water. That's what MY faith gives me. In your FACE, un-faith types!
Those un-faithers out there kinda worry me. I mean, if they don't think like I do, what's to keep them from practicing their un-faith all rampantly, and squeezing out MY faith? I think that is a really big concern. What if everybody just went around believing or not believing as they wished? Hmm? What then? I shudder to think.
Greeting to the Illumicanines
Oh! Great glowing Dog of the Cosmos! Thank you
for gracing me with your presence. I am here, and I have
FAITH!!!