it is NOT a weapon

A bunch of safe sex advertisements

Most of these, I like. If MTV is looking to turn me one while reminding me of the importance of being safe, consider it done! And the one with the girl at her computer makes me giggle like a schoolgirl.

This one, on the other hand, does not:

Image #1:I loathe "penis as a weapon" imagery but whatever. It does have the ability to become a deadly weapon. Fine, I get it.

Image #2:Right, yes. If I take precautions, it's less likely said penis will become a deadly weapon.

The problem I have is with Image #3, which I'm providing in a link because of the main problem I have with it: The copy reads, "Girls, protect yourself. Demand your partner wear a condom."

Really? Did nobody in the marketing group responsible for this ad think it could possibly be triggering to someone who has been a victim of sexual assault or gun violence? Hell, I haven't been and it still makes me cross me legs and cringe to see a gun pointed at some random woman's snatch. Then again, it's really not some random woman. It's some random headless, humanity-free hole because let's face it...nobody wants to look at a face when they're thinking about fucking (or hurting) a hot, naked chick, do they?

Which leads me to the second point. This woman is very obviously shaved or waxed. So not only is a gun pointed at her, it's pointed at the oh-so-pretty-every-woman-must-have-one-so-she-looks-like-a-little-girl bald bajingo. I've got absolutely nothing against keeping the nether regions nice and tidy but for the love of 70s porn, can I please see a stray hair somewhere? And the hairless images never come with tips about the pros and cons of shaving or waxing. It comes along with the subtle and sometimes not so subtle implication that dudes dig it so we should be digging it too. Apparently, even with a gun pointed at it, it needs to meet the socially-accepted standards of beautiful.

Now, the copy. Girls, protect yourself. Demand your partner wear a condom. I'm all for that. As every person does, I have every right in the world to decide how someone comes into contact with and touches my body. Every woman absolutely should take it upon herself to make sure she (and her partner) are protected. But who's making the demands here? If you're the one sans gun power, you're the one without the ability to make demands. The goal of any safe sex ad should be to empower the people looking at it to realize they have the right and responsibility to ensure their safety and sexual health. I see no female empowerment when a gun is pointed between one's legs.

I asked a male friend for his opinion and what he thought when first seeing the ad. His response was:

That a man's penis can be seen as a weapon and some men see women as a place to use their weapon.

Interesting. Sex (whether safe or not) wasn't the first thing on his mind...violence was.

I'm almost done reading The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women and this ad reminded me of the tools abstinence supporters use to get their silly little point across, which are almost always rooted in fear. And it drives me absolutely batty when sex is portrayed as something terrifying.

Scaring people into not having it is not the way to get people to start subscribing to your idea of morality. Shaming those who do is not the way to show them the error of their ways (especially since it's neither shameful nor sinful). Withholding it is not a way to punish a nagging spouse. Using it as a bartering tool is not the way to get what you want. Manipulating, coercing, forcing someone to do it is not the way to assert your misplaced feelings of dominance.

It is NOT a weapon. It's sex.

Dear Will Arnett,

Not only do I think you're one of the most hilarious men ever but I also very much enjoy watching you kiss a dude.

Thank you.

Great To See You (featuring Will Arnett, Amy Poehler,
Peter Serafinowicz and Sarah Alexander)

math (not girls) is evil

A friend posted the following picture to his Facebook page, leaving me no choice but to blog about it since I can't say nearly what I want about it on that site.



Where does a girl begin? I guess with a disclaimer. I tend to think there are a total of probably two or three people who actually read this blog but what do I know? If there are others reading it who know where and from whom the proof originated, I'd like to state that my response to it has nothing at all to do with him as a person. Quite honestly, I think he's fantastic. But this is about the sucktastic math. Could he truly believe girls are evil? I suppose it's possible. Is the math proof nothing more than proof of his sarcastic, hilarious nature? I suppose it's possible. Either way, it got me thinking. The fruits of that labor is what follows.

1. Girls require time and money.
This is the part I take the most issue with. If you want to talk in terms of majority, sure, I'd probably be willing to bet that within the context of intimate relationships between people (of the opposite sex), more money may be spent on the woman than on the man. But I think that may be the case because society is constantly reminding us what the expectations are. The guy courts the girl (I fucking hate the word court but it seems most appropriate) by wooing her with gifts of some sort. He buys her flowers, he takes her out to dinner, he gives her jewelry in the middle of February. Sure, people defy these expectations but again, if we're talking about majority here, I'd be willing to bet the majority of people still operate under that dating mentality. If a woman offers to pay for dinner, it's often thought of as emasculating the guy. When was the last time a woman came to her date's door with a bouquet of flowers? Are both of those instances acceptable? Absolutely. Are either of them encouraged? Nope. Should they be encouraged? Hell yes. Not because you should never split a dinner bill between you and not because flowers are the greatest gift of all but because if there are going to be expectations, they shouldn't be based on who has the tits.

I believe relationships are about give and take and I believe they're about helping the person you're with live a happier life than if he or she was living it without you. If that means giving someone flowers, candy, and jewelry...great. If that means giving someone a first edition of their favourite book while growing up, drawing them a picture, or spending Valentine's Day listening to your favourite album rather than going to a concert...great. But having to spend money on your significant other should never be an expectation.

People are raised differently and grow up in different environments. I don't remember wanting for a lot as a kid but my parents never spoiled me or my brother. When they could, they gave us the things we wanted. When they couldn't, they explained why and that was that. We never had brand new cars, I had a job in high school, they never encouraged me to go into a profession in which I could make a million dollars a year. My best memories from childhood aren't anything that money was responsible for. They're the times we spent at my aunt and uncle's house having dinner together. They're of my dad always offering to drive me around with my friends. They're of my brother and I playing Scrabble (I'll take a "B," Chuck!) after it was time for lights out and we were both in our respective bedrooms. There was never much importance placed on money in our family because it was just never was something anyone in my immediate family cared much about.

And as an adult, that's stayed with me, as it has with the rest of my family. Life would easier if we didn't have to worry about it but we do and I accept that. The simple truth is that I'm responsible for getting the money I need to put a roof over my head, clothes on my body, and food in my tummy. And that's really it the extent of it. Anything above and beyond that is a bonus and should I want to share it with someone, I absolutely will. Not because I think I need to but because I want to.

2. Time is money.
Whatevs. I hate most quotes that revolve around the importance of money. Things are what they are. And the time I spend doing Act A is nothing more than the time I spend doing Act A. For most people, their time is spent doing something solely for the monetary pay-off; that's an unfortunate (I think) fact of life. But there are plenty of things one can do to fill one's time that do not need money to happen. And that doesn't necessarily mean what you're doing is preventing you from making more money. Stupidly untrue phrase.

3. Money is the root of all evil
I don't have it in me to get into this one because it's going to wind up being a whole philosophical bit about evil and I'm just not feelin' that. But to sum up, I do not believe the most evil, heinous things that have happened throughout history had much to do with a desire for money or a lack of money. Or much to do with money at all, really.

So.

I believe what we have here is a fallacious mathematical proof. Girls are not evil.

But math? Math is still evil. That will always be a truth.

what percentage of paycuts suck?

10%.

We had a town hall-style meeting the other day at work during which we were told of the impending screwing the economy will be providing us. As of July 1st, all employees will be given a schedule that gives us every other Friday off without pay, which equals about a 10% paycut.


We'll be expected to adhere to the schedule HR provides in order to "ensure the firm remains open every Friday" but should we need to adjust it, it will be at the discretion of our Managing Directors and seeing as though I work for some of the more relaxed people here, I'm hoping it won't be a problem ganking the Fridays I actually need. A couple weeks ago, I decided to use one of my free Southwest flights for my birthday weekend because this year, it falls on Labor Day, which is already a paid day off. So come the morning of September 4th, I'll be flying out to Denver to meet my best friend and her hubby, spending the day in Denver, and driving back to their place in Nebraska for the rest of the weekend. Hopefully, I can work it so that I can take that Friday as my unpaid day and save a PTO day. Plus, I believe there are a few remaining holidays this year that land on a Friday, in which case we've been told we have to take the day before as our unpaid day. It's still unpaid but it does make for a longer holiday weekend.

Overall, I'm displeased. I had a big, long post written out the other day about how my financial situation is looking up and how great it feels to watch my available balance on my credit cards consistently going up instead of playing seesaw with me. The paycut isn't going to send me to the streets but it's certainly going to put a noticeable dent in things and halt the progress I've made so far this year. I'm trying very hard to put a positive twist on things and I do truly appreciate the fact that the downside (a cut in pay) is accompanied by an upside (bonus day off). Hell, I'm not calling the state for a measly unemployment check this morning, so I've got that goin' for me.

But it still sucks ass.

Oh Seth, how I love you. All 5'4" of you

Too funny not to share.

oh. my.

Thank you, Internet. Never again will I be bored with you.

mullet with headlights

Quite possibly the funniest literal video ever. And a reminder of just how strange this video was.