To Those Who Think Women Are Already Equal

(based on assumptions made after women were *allowed* to vote, wear what they want, say what they want, have whatever job they want)

1.  When a married couple files jointly, the IRS doesn’t use both social security numbers. They *demand*, by their rules, that the man’s number be used. His is the first name, the *primary* name, and the woman’s is the second, and thus part of the man’s filing. It is thus, less important.

This is not for simplification or for some ham-handed method of “ease of identification” nor is it used as part of an easier filing system. It is used because we live in a patriarchal society that is fundamentalist where men are considered the higher position in the joined arrangement (marriage).

2. When women marry men, they are expected to take the man’s name. This is due to a system called Patrilineal, where all inheritance and ancestry is viewed only through male lines. This system comes hand in hand with Patriarchy. Even if the woman keeps her last name, she is still seen as Mrs Male Name.

I can’t help but wonder how the IRS rules are implemented under same-sex marriage, but it doesn’t really matter.  Someone is placed in a higher position (in charge) than the other.

3. Patriarchy/Patrilineality and Matriarchy/Matrilineality are systems of inequality because they favor one gender over the other. As long as those systems are in place, genders will never be equal.

There are some Native American tribes that split this down the middle. Positions of leadership were Patriarchal but inheritance and ancestral identification was Matrilineal. Men led the tribe but the women owned the property. Unfortunately, those tribes were murdered to such an extent that it can be filed under genocide.

However, one must consider that our current system of democratic government–representation–can be traced specifically to the Five Nations of the upper east.  While people think we got it by copying ancient Rome, the only part of that system that was copied were the names “senate” and “senator”.  But this is neither here nor there.

Women are automatically second-class citizens in a Patriarchal society. In the age of extremism, abortion *&* birth control are being eliminated in ultra conservative states.  Women are under attack by being told that they have no control of their own reproduction.  Restrictions are masked as “pro-life”, with a morality that is forced onto everyone by those who believe abortion is murder.  One must understand that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the so-called “life” of fetal embryos.

Pro-life is an oxy-moron as well as a lie because concern for the life of that fetus ends when it is born.  You cannot delineate a life inside the womb to life outside of it.  Anti-abortion is *only* for the systematic control of women.  This is proven by the addition of birth control.  Anyone who feels it necessary to include birth control with their attempts to control the abortion of fetal tissue is revealing themselves to be misogynistic control freaks who believe women are *property*.

Women are one half of the human race.  We are not the property of the human race.  We belong only to ourselves.

American Gods’ “Head Full of Snow” Gay Scene

I was practically squeeing when they went true to form (detailing the book, as is proper).  Neil Gaiman is one of the producers and I’m glad he’s there to have influence over telling the story according to the source, “American Gods”, which was a spellbinding, if confusing at times, book.  Hopefully Starz won’t interfere when the goddamn anti-gay shitheels come a-knocking and complainin’.

They showed the Muslim man getting it on with the Djinn.  Accurately.  I was so chuffed by this, I can’t tell ya.  Sure, I’m a woman, and I’m straight, but in my book, if one man’s good, two are better.  I love gay stories, gay porn, and I write it in fanfic because I just love two men (or three) together.  So to see it played out accurately on the TV show (admittedly STARZ b/c it couldn’t have been done on frickin’ network TV, even if they shaded the dicks on display) was simply charming.

Now, while I was watching, I’m imagining all the homophobes having conniption fits.  Turning it off, covering their eyes, whatever.

Ohhh, boo hoo.  Did it ever once occur to you that gay men have been having to endure straight sex onscreen for over 60 years and they’ve been a million times’ better than you at putting up with it?  Oh, and just to give you something else to think about, consider this stupidity:

Two men play gay men on the big screen and suddenly, you think they’re gay or they’re worth disparaging.  But two gay men play straight men on the big screen and that’s okay?  What, are they suddenly straight for doing that?  No. How many gay and lesbian actors were on Queer As Folk or The L-Word?  Less than half.  Does that mean that those straight men went gay?  Ask them and you’ll get the same dumbfounded looks of confusion you’d get if you asked a man who played a serial killer if he’s now out there killing people.  Actors.  Get it?  They’re ACTORS.

So, consider that the two actors who played those roles of salesman and Djinn don’t have to be gay or straight to play those roles.  They’re ACTORS.  And while you’re at it, consider for a moment that if gay porn were “okay” for women to watch, and by okay I mean by the members of porn-watching society, as a whole, then you men wouldn’t get so pissed off about straight women not wanting to watch the lesbian porn that you find so hot just before you have sex.  You’d be grateful she wasn’t asking you watch the gay porn.

And WTF does gay porn or straight porn have to do with the minute amount of soft porn we saw in the episode?  Sex.  It’s all about the sex.  Two men.  Muslim and Djinn.  Wow, how scary.  The homophobes and Islamophobes must be having repression porn flashbacks.

The Romanticization of the Marquis De Sade is Sick

Wikipedia’s Marquis de Sade

Wiki gets a lot of criticism for publishing inaccurate information.  One must understand that the entries in Wikipedia depend on user input, not the admin of Wiki themselves.

There are a lot of entries that aren’t misleading or just plain made up.  One has to do a lot of reading in your research of a subject in order to ferret out what’s accurate and what isn’t.

Enter Le Marquis de Sade, aka Donatien Alphonse Francois.  Much of the information here is accurate, but the page is horribly lacking in factual information and purposely, IMO, misleads the reader into thinking that de Sade was merely a sexual revolutionary and a man ahead of his time.

In one respect, this is true.  His beliefs on sexual liberation were indeed ahead of their time.  His attitude about religion and how it needs to be no part of government was also ahead of its time… on par with our own deist Founding Fathers, who were contemporaries.

HOWEVER.

“Sadism” was coined after him for a reason.  “Sexual Sadism” to be more specific.

Donatien was, IMO, the world’s most famous serial killer and serial rapist.  His acts personified the narcissistic personality disorder.  His “fiction” is a blueprint for depravity, and as a believer in sexual liberation, I can use “depravity” in its modern form, not its archaic(religious-based bullshit).

Now, when I say sexual liberation, I mean that I believe that consenting adults can do whatever they like as long as they do no harm.  If a “sadist” wants to punish a “masochist” (one who orgasms through the infliction of pain), to each their own.  I have no qualms with proper BDSM (Bondage Domination Sadism Masochism).  Consent is the requirement.  When consent isn’t freely given (without coercion), it’s rape.

Orgies are okay.  Sadomasochism is okay.  I don’t have to be into that sort of thing in order to “approve” of someone else wanting to do it.  It all depends on consent.  De Sade wasn’t about consent.  He was all about “do what you want to anyone you want and fuck consent, decency, and the outdated ideas about depravity”.  A bit much on the over-simplification, but it’s accurate.  And you have to put aside the idiotic religious and Victorian notions about decency and depravity.  For fuck’s sake, kissing in public was considered indecent, so let’s be rational.  And back then, being gay or anal sex in general was considered a depravity.  Hell, it was only 40 years ago when the psychiatric association took homosexuality out of the perversion playbook.  Morality, decency, and depravity have changed and become more specific and less judgemental, thanks to secular laws.

All that said, de Sade was, and will always be, a sick fuck.

If you can get past the archaic language of “The 120 Days of Sodom”, de Sade’s most famous and depraved fictional book, you’ll find that the content can turn your stomach.  I have a strong stomach so saying that means something special.  The story is, thankfully, written up in Wikipedia accurately.  It says:

It tells the story of four wealthy male libertines who resolve to experience the ultimate sexual gratification in orgies. To do this, they seal themselves away for four months in an inaccessible castle in the heart of the Black Forest with a harem of 36 victims, mostly male and female teenagers, and engage four female brothel keepers to tell the stories of their lives and adventures. The women’s narratives form an inspiration for the sexual abuse and torture of the victims, which gradually mounts in intensity and ends in their slaughter.

The fictional book was banned in several countries for two centuries and was only removed from the ban in the U.S. in the early 20th century (I don’t have the date, sorry).  Now, as perverted as the book is, it should never be banned.  If Mein Kampf can be sold, so can de Sade’s books.  To me, they both exhibit forms of depravity no decent society should condone. (It’s available at Amazon for .99 cents, believe it or not.)

Have you ever read or listened to Hell House by Richard Matheson?  A book ahead of its time, IMO.  It’s one scary and sickening tale about a house haunted by the ghost of a sadistic madman, Eric Belasco, who took pleasure in other people’s suffering at the risk of his own deviant sexual appetites.  (I don’t mean homosexual.  I mean deviant.  For example, sex with animals or corpses.)

Belasco was, IMO, Matheson’s supreme example of what a modern de Sade would be like, if the character had been real.  The thing is, de Sade was the purest example of all serial killers, most of whom are and were interested in sexual sadism, which included inflicting horrible pain while raping them as well as necrophilia (sex with corpses).  He may not have acted out most of what he’s written, but he believed that people should be allowed to sexually act in whatever way they wanted.

This is not a man who should be romanticized, yet this idiot of a writer in the Wiki entry does exactly that.  They aren’t alone.  Writers of books and Producers of film have done the same thing.

I have to ask.  WHY?   Why do people do that?  Romanticize evil?  Are they willfully ignorant or sick?  It simply boggles my mind.

What doesn’t boggle my mind is the fascination with this dude.