Since I'm both lazy this week and in awe of this woman's efforts to display the gorgeous, week after week, I'm going to kick this off by both paying her homage and shamelessly lifting some of my favorite images from her treasure trove (hope that's all right). Yes, she has way, way more where these came from--98 pages' worth of women alone, and a whole passel of gentlemen (almost as many as women), and art pics to boot. Thanks, skywardprodigal, you are an inspiration, truly.
Most of the following, then, are cribbed shamelessly from skywardprodigal, with a few additions of my own, can't be arsed to remember for positive which now alas--a Maggie Cheung, I think, Aishwarya Rai, and some Alex Kingston. (ETA: and Rachel Weisz, and Grace Park, and Kera Knightley, and...screw it, I lost track. sorry if I broke anyone's Internets).
thanks, sarahspy! this one is my favorite, i must has on own blog. seven week old fuzzy -tux- kitten + sleepy + standing with paws on chair + butt-wiggle scoot = ZOMG SO DED.
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!
also
I am so cool, you could keep a side of meat in me for a month. I am so hip, I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis.
and
[The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal is a] mind-bogglingly stupid animal. It thinks that if you can't see it, it can't see you. Terribly daft, but very, very ravenous.
While I’m here, can I ask: why are there next to no “sexy” images of men on sex positive* sites, or sites focusing on porn for women etc? ...
Well, you see--
(reads on)
Not all women are attracted to women…
...o, I see, never mind! It wasn't addressed to me anyway! Well, what else is new.
You know, I like you, Laura, but I have to say the urge to snark is strong with me tonight. Because, you see,
Not all women are attracted to women…
I would have had -no idea,- you know. I mean, from reading sex pos sites, or feminist sites in general, or, well, the entire world, basically. Because if there's one thing I was always confident about, it was that having -sexual- desires for women was totally okay. Why else would a non-heterosexual have been attracted to something called "sex positive" in the first place, if not...
-calms down- Okay, okay, okay. Okay. I know it wasn't ill-meant. I'm in a Mood, and that's probably another post. Let's just move on.
Just seems to me that there’s a bit of the same old woman = sex idea going on here, and while the presentation of the woman and the context in which she is presented may be different from the mainstream, I wonder how radical this kind of approach is if the focus is still on women as the sexually stimulating object or subject.
I may be misunderstanding something here, but "object OR subject"--okay, if -neither- is acceptable, then basically we're talking female-authored m/m slash, amirite?
Which I'm actually fond of myself. F'r instance, along with any number of overwhelmingly female fanfen and smut enthusiasts of varyingorientations, I wouldn't kick either of these (canonical) scenes out of bed:
...not to mention any number of considerably filthier fan-inspired um creations of various sorts which I shan't post here; suffice it to say that there's a plethora of "female-gazed" written fiction, anime, photo manipulations or fanvids re-contexting for "subtext," for example:
Mostly, though, I'm fairly certain that the only reason there's extremely little porn in the sense of "original film with live actors" catering to these demographics is, simply because, well, women tend not to own the means of production, and it's a hell of a lot easier (and cheaper) to draw, photoshop, or write something than to make an entire original film, much less produce and publicize it on the scale of "mainstream" porn.
Best way to start changing that, it seems to moi, is to figure out, own and name one's desires, then see what one can do about seeing/experiencing them made flesh. Which, one may not be able to do right away given the limited palette of available models, at least the ones that are -overtly- defined and marketed as "porn;" still, well, as you can see here, and as most non-hetero and/or kinky folk know, one can and does find one's inspiration from all sorts of material. Or, for that matter, in the available "mainstream" material, because, you know, in most media, one reads one's own narrative into whatever it is, and yeah, even "bad" or formulaic or sexist/stereotyped porn is not an exception.
But first of all, ime, it helps to not shut oneself down with a "oh, shit, I'm Doin It Rong AGAIN; quick, to the Critiquemobile" but rather, "hey, I'm not seeing what I want here; what DO I want, anyway? Specifically, and without censorship:"
(Laura Woodhouse emailed me her comment cos she's not got a Blogger account and she's v. busy this morning.)
Laura here - I just want to make it clear that I have no problem whatsoever with "men fucking women onscreen" or sex where the woman isn't on top - I like it, ffs. It'd be nice if people could not assume that because someone thinks x they must also think y and z. Belle - I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough that my post obviously wasn't directed at lesbian women.
Laura--I'm sorry for snarking too, but you see, I -did- read that it wasn't aimed at lesbian women and that's precisely what irritated me. I'm sure it wasn't intentional? that you were merely trying to say that it's a given that the sex-positive lesbian/bi/queer sites would have images of women? And that as a straight woman, you don't see yourself or anything that tempts you in what you've seen of "sex positive" culture/sites/etc. And, you know, I do sympathize. The straight female gaze(s) is not exactly catered to either, at least compared to the straight male gaze. I agree.
Thing is, though, when you write it as Not all women are attracted to women, it pushes buttons that were already kind of hard pushed by what -I- perceive to be erasure of lesbian sexuality both within mainstream erotica/imagery and from "radical" feminists who insist that anything that smacks of femme or bisexuality or anything that isn't Clear Eyed Lesbian (tm) Approved isn't -real- lesbianism.
and, of course, the perception that "sex positive" is overwhelmingly heteronormative...along with, well, everything else.
Personally I don't always find what I love within the "sex positive" communities/sphere either, and I am hoping to broaden the range when it's my turn to host the Carnival. And, I mean, yeah, there are some points to be made about the standard tropes of mainstream and even let's call it mainstream-alt porn/erotica, wherein female bisexuality within a certain range of body types and acts and personas and so on is acceptable, even sometimes de rigeur; but male bisexuality or homosexuality is considered a whole separate genre. Not to mention, yes, there's still more taboo on objectifying the male body than the female one, although I'd submit that the past years' worth of advertising has broken that down quite a bit. I do find it impossible to completely separate standard sexism and sex negativity from heteronormativity; I still think I'm part of this conversation though, see.
but...well, again, this is a longer post. Maybe several longer posts.
I can vouch for the awesomeness of the co-creators of this project, and definitely, speaking as a non-Christian who still gets the importance faith has for a lot of people who, no, are NOT reactionary rightwingers and are in fact some of the best activists as well as souls out there, I think it's a great idea. Read on and submit if this fits you:
The carnival for Progressive Christians came out of a conversation about frustration with the organized Christian church. As a Christian without a church, I am in a quandary about sacraments, worship, fellowship…all those things that happen in a church, and I am deeply conflicted about attitudes and behaviors I see within the organized church, attitudes that, in my opinion, do not reflect the mind of Christ. The Carnival is open to anyone, and is a safe place for queer/trans/non-normative folk.
Do you ever feel frustrated with Church? What do you do to keep in touch with God? Have you written about your experiences and how you deal with them? The theme for July is “Community”.
The first submission will be at Reweaving sometime around the first of July.
The definition of Progressive Christian being used is this
Progressive Christianity is the name given to a movement within contemporary…Christianity characterized by willingness to question tradition, acceptance of human diversity (including the affirmation of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people), and strong emphasis on social justice. Progressive Christians have a deep belief in the centrality of the instruction to “love one another” within the teaching of Jesus Christ. This leads to a focus on compassion, promoting justice and mercy, and working towards solving the societal problems of poverty, discrimination, and environmental issues.
via Sarah J, coupla months later, mostly because this is exactly the sort of thing that I can focus on right about not.
How it works: these are the 110 top banned books. Bold what you’ve read, italicize what you’ve read part of. Read more.
#1 The Bible #2 Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain #3 Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes #4 The Koran #5 Arabian Nights #6 Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain #7 Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift #8 Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer #9 Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne #10 Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman #11 Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli #12 Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe #13 Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank #14 Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert #15 Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens #16 Les Misérables by Victor Hugo #17 Dracula by Bram Stoker #18 Autobiography by Benjamin Franklin #19 Tom Jones by Henry Fielding #20 Essays by Michel de Montaigne #21 Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck #22 History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon #23 Tess of the D’Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy #24 Origin of Species by Charles Darwin #25 Ulysses by James Joyce #26 Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio #27 Animal Farm by George Orwell #28 Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell #29 Candide by Voltaire #30 To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee #31 Analects by Confucius #32 Dubliners by James Joyce #33 Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck #34 Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway #35 Red and the Black by Stendhal #36 Capital by Karl Marx #37 Flowers of Evil by Charles Baudelaire #38 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle #39 Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D. H. Lawrence #40 Brave New World by Aldous Huxley #41 Sister Carrie by Theodore Dreiser #42 Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell #43 Jungle by Upton Sinclair #44 All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque #45 Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx #46 Lord of the Flies by William Golding #47 Diary by Samuel Pepys #48 Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway #49 Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy #50 Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury #51 Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak #52 Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant #53 One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey #54 Praise of Folly by Desiderius Erasmus #55 Catch-22 by Joseph Heller #56 Autobiography of Malcolm X by Malcolm X #57 Color Purple by Alice Walker #58 Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger #59 Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke #60 Bluest Eyes by Toni Morrison #61 Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe #62 One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn #63 East of Eden by John Steinbeck #64 Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison #65 I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou #66 Confessions by Jean Jacques Rousseau #67 Gargantua and Pantagruel by François Rabelais #68 Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes #69 The Talmud #70 Social Contract by Jean Jacques Rousseau #71 Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson #72 Women in Love by D. H. Lawrence #73 American Tragedy by Theodore Dreiser #74 Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler #75 A Separate Peace by John Knowles #76 Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath #77 Red Pony by John Steinbeck #78 Popol Vuh #79 Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith #80 Satyricon by Petronius #81 James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl #82 Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov #83 Black Boy by Richard Wright #84 Spirit of the Laws by Charles de Secondat Baron de Montesquieu #85 Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut #86 Julie of the Wolves by Jean Craighead George #87 Metaphysics by Aristotle #88 Little House on the Prairie by Laura Ingalls Wilder #89 Institutes of the Christian Religion by Jean Calvin #90 Steppenwolf by Hermann Hesse #91 Power and the Glory by Graham Greene #92 Sanctuary by William Faulkner #93 As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner #94 Black Like Me by John Howard Griffin #95 Sylvester and the Magic Pebble by William Steig #96 Sorrows of Young Werther by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe #97 General Introduction to Psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud #98 Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood #99 Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Alexander Brown #100 Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess #101 Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman by Ernest J. Gaines #102 Émile by Jean Jacques Rousseau #103 Nana by Émile Zola #104 Chocolate War by Robert Cormier #105 Go Tell It on the Mountain by James Baldwin #106 Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn #107 Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein #108 Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck #109 Ox-Bow Incident by Walter Van Tilburg Clark #110 Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Mind you, how many of these I can -remember- more than vaguely would be a different question.
I'm still boggling over "Sylvester and the Magic Pebble." WTF? Someone has a problem with donkeys? Pebbles? Picnics?
although I really am gonna need that intervention stat...
so, I finally steeled myself and started looking at the progboy blogs, hoping maybe I could lift & riff off someone else's homework on McCain, you know, McCain (with appropriate credit, *ahemkoffsomepeople*).
first link I hit is called "Old Man McCain," which may have some useful shit, but I was distracted, unfortunately, by the current top entry (of course they're quoting fucking Aravosis):
From McCain's recently "disclosed" medical records:
McCain's most recent exams show a range of health issues common in aging: He frequently has precancerous skin lesions removed, and in February had an early stage squamous cell carcinoma, an easily cured skin cancer, removed. He had benign colon growths called polyps taken out during a routine colonoscopy in March.
Americablog has questions:
Anybody else troubled that candidate McCain was running for the GOP nomination, went for cancer surgery, and didn't bother telling anyone? What else isn't he bothering to tell us, and won't he tell us in the future? If this is McCain's standard for disclosure about his medical condition, we'd need weekly document dumps of his medical files because McCain clearly has a policy of hiding his true medical condition while running for president.
Considering that John McCain has had bouts of skin cancer for the past 15 years, it will take a lot more than a three-hour peek at his medical records to assure Americans that he is healthy enough for the job. This so-called disclosure of his medical records is absurd. Either McCain is hiding something, or he is acting like somebody who is hiding something. Why not give the press unlimited access to these records, if there is nothing to hide?
And why is McCain refusing to release his psychiatric reports? If anything, his mental deterioration is even more worrisome than his physical ailments.
and, well, No. Just: No.
Hi, I'm less than half his age and I've had a (early stage knock wood thank fuck) skin cancer removed, a melanoma, in fact (and am going back for more surgery for another suspicious mole tomorrow, always fun, hence my eye getting caught by this). Squamous cell cancer is a lot less serious and a lot more common. It's not like going in to have a brain tumor removed or something. See above re "easily cured?" Even melanoma is if you catch it early enough. A -lot- of people have frigging skin cancer these days, you know it? And there'll only be more as the ozone continues to thin.
As for the psychiatric records: you know what, actually, no, we don't need to look at those, in fact. By their deeds you will know them. Bush has probably never been to a psychiatrist or other mental health worker in his life; does that make him mentally healthier? PTSD is just -normal- for people who've been through a goddam war, hi, the point isn't the diagnosis, the point is, how well does this person function? how does he behave? Which is perfectly observable from his record, public and offstage.
You know, it really isn't any port in a storm here. That kind of shit hurts a lot of other people far more than it does McCain. This is playing on the same ageism, stigmatization of mental illness, and even ffs cancer that enables the craptastic health insurance system we have now, not to mention all kinds of ableist/discriminatory fun.
Really, I hope nothing ever happens to this blogger, you know? Or, rather, it won't, probably, because getting sick isn't just a potential liability in a presidential frontrunner whose veep we may not want as president instead; it's a moral deficiency, clearly. Getting old, too, for that matter.
And so then, I go to this -other- blog, and well, first of all, do not go here during work, because halfway down the front page is a nice big pink picture of a woman's vulva.
-Why- is there a seemingly completely gratuitous crotch shot on this blog called "The Truth About McCain?" Well,
I apologize in advance for this graphic image of female anatomy, but I just can't think of another way of dramatizing the shock I feel that John McCain called his wife a "cunt" in public, in front of reporters.
uh. maybe think harder.
I mean, appreciate the viva la vulva sentiment and all? but, well, "shocking" is really fucking boring. Just post the damn quote, you know? -I- hadn't heard it before, it would've been plenty on its own. Really. I wasn't looking to have my bourgeois epatéd; I was looking for -useful- shit. and: JiSM? the name of your blog is "JiSM?" (John Sydney McCain, geddit?! HAW HAW) Really? god, I'd almost forgotten why I'd been avoiding all this shit for so long...
Really, though, Beavis: wtf? Who is your intended audience here, and what is it you're trying to communicate? Serious question.
also, per the euphemism:
"if you're posting the picture, you really ought to be able to type it."
No, I mean for me, actually, though it might appear--stop me before I post this, I--
oh--
agh.
*sigh*
okay.
Dear Violet, and no doubt a bunch of other similarly inclined people that I don't "know" as well, by proxy more or less:
You know, I know it's been a hell of a long time since we've really been on speaking terms, and I realize we disagree on, well, a whole shitload of things.
It's just, well, I kind of had this idea that whatever else, you were always kind of ironically self-aware. Level headed. Wry. With a sense of humor, and proportion, and stuff.
So, well, I, I, I just don't really know what to make of, say, this entry:
I still don’t have regular internet access and I don’t watch TV, so I’m out of the loop. But I hear things — weird, disturbing, almost unbelievable things — and so I’m grabbing a few minutes here on my Dad’s computer before a family birthday party for this brief announcement:
When I wrote this post on Democratic party history back in April, I was not calling for the assassination of Barack Obama. Just thought I’d get that out there now before the Gestapo shows up at here at the house.
Sorry to post and run, but I’ll leave you with something to think about: if the collusion between the Obama campaign and the media continues like this, will that pose the most severe threat to free speech in this country since a) the Alien and Sedition Acts, b) the 1917 Espionage Act, c) the McCarthy era, or d) the Patriot Act of 2001? Discuss amongst yourselves.
Update: Over at the Mighty Corrente Building, FrenchDoc is facing a fork in the road: "There is no question that a line was crossed yesterday, by the media and the so-called progressive blogosphere. Personally, it has put me on the fence: if Senator Obama becomes the nominee, do I take a break from politics until November or do I actively campaign against him?"
I’ve been wrestling with the same issue, but I know now what my answer is. Barack Obama has run the dirtiest, most dishonest campaign I’ve ever seen from a Democrat on the national level. His mob-like supporters terrify me. And his media enablers are catastrophically dangerous. They must be stopped. Must be.
You know, and it's not as though the "media enablers" aren't also getting a tad, shall we say, melodramatic. Admittedly the only one I just really paid attention to is/was Keith Olbermann, who is also beginning to wear on my nerves, something I never thought I'd say--all RIGHT, we GET it, it was a stupid fucked up thing of her to say,** we're all vicariously cringing and were already beyond sick of the whole goddam thing, really, and yeah, I'm sure not exactly what either the Obamas or the Kennedy family really needed to hear, not to mention the rest of us; still, considering a) Obama himself just basically said 'let it go,' as did whichever the hell youngish Kennedy's still out there, I can't keep track b) she herself didn't actually KILL anybody, can we maybe stop with the Hercule Poirot GOTCHA routine?
...But, really. "They must be stopped?" THEY MUST BE STOPPED?
"...but how?" -bites knuckle-
I mean, fuck knows it's not like we had craptacular sensationalistic media before, EVER. Damn you, Barack Obama!
But would it be too much to ask for people to, I don't know, consider getting a petit grip?
Just asking.
I mean, I understand, really. Well, sort of. God knows I've had plenty of rants, for far less than this, even, that probably led a number of people to the conclusion that I'm basically Time Cube guy at a John Birchers convention.
And having said that (I am large, I contain platitudes), I hereby request of all concerned friends and loved ones, that if I ever end up getting quite this um well apocalyptic about an electoral campaign, particularly a bleeding primary in which it's blatantly obvious to most of the non poliwonk-as-football-fan world that there's really not all that much difference between the candidates in question? that they beat me about the head and shoulders with a wet halibut until I damn well come to my senses.
I was not alive when Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in 1968. Yet, when I hear the words “1968″ and “assassination” in the same sentence, I cannot help but to think of Martin Luther King, Jr. I cannot help but to think of the racial unrest of the period. I cannot help but to think of the struggles that my people have had to undergo in order for a black person to be seriously considered for the Presidency of the United States of America. I cannot help but to think of the numerous civil Rights leaders slain.
This is my history.
And let it be known that this is not solely the history of black folks. People of Color across the board share this history in the United States. We may be invited to the dinner table now and again, but don’t even think we will get anything until the establishment has had their fill.
I don’t think that Sen. Clinton’s statements can be divorced from several events that occurred in 1968:
The assassination of Robert Kennedy.
The Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
The riots at the Democratic National Convention.
Maybe it’s just me, but when I learned of her remarks (which she has made before, but I was unaware of), that’s what came to mind. It was offensive to the Kennedy family, especially given Ted Kennedy’s illness (Sen. Clinton did apologize for that, however). It unnecessarily brought up the specter of black folks getting killed for being black and standing up for their humanity; and it also, for me at least, brought up the 1968 Democratic Convention riots, given all the talk these days about a “civil war” at the Convention, talk that I’m sure she is aware of.
Went to see "Indiana Jones" last night. Tell me, was there like a, a blue light special on “jaw-droppingly offensive portrayals of ‘primitive savages’ with weird grayish body paint menacing the white adventurer heroes” in Hollywood this last, umm, while? I mean, not that racism in the Indiana Jones franchise is exactly a deep shock or anything, um hi, kind of built right into the premise, but you’d think with that many years under the bridge that at -least- Spielberg might be able to go, you know what, maybe we have enough with the snakes and bugs and aliens and nuclear bombs and Commie Supravillains and shit, at least empty ruins isn’t quite as OVERTLY offensive; but, no. I guess he figured, hey, if it was good enough for Peter Jackson and Mel Gibson, by golly…
of course, that’s not the only aspect that could be umm deconstructed, there, but it was far and away the most “no, you didn’t really go there, did you? oh right, of course you did…”
Also, it just plain sucked. No, seriously: even on its own terms, i.e. big dumb movie that you can't look at the plot or logic too closely, let alone really REALLY problematic not so subtext, without a concussion, but hey! car chase! things blowing up! SCARY!: didn't work. You could tell it wasn't just us: the theatre was full of extremely erm rowdy younguns, and they barely laughed or screamed or reacted for most of the flick. The part that by far got the biggest reaction was when the projector shut off and the house lights came back on, briefly. Someone's heart wasn't in it, I think. (ETA: I feel vindicated).
The only good thing about it was Cate Blanchett, who at least seemed to be having some fun with the whole “get moose and squirrel” routine (and is quite hot in leather gloves). Not worth the $11.50 and incredibly dismal setting though (would it -kill- large institutional theatre owners to shampoo the carpets or clean the bathroom every ten years or so?) Much as it does bring a goddam tear to my eye to finish a rip-roaring chase through the jungle with a happy ending of the hero marrying the heroine (which, btw, no one remembered who the hell she was, clearly, cause they hadn't been born when the last one came out, I think) in a church fulla white people in New Haven. Oops, did I give it away? Awful sorry. I R Asshole Today.
Coral reefs are among the most biologically productive and diverse of ecosystems, and directly sustain half a billion people. But some 60 percent of these reef systems are threatened by a deadly combination of climate change, industrial pollution and excess UV radiation.
...Chemical compounds in sunscreen and other personal skin care products have been detected near both sea and freshwater tourist areas. Previous research has shown that these chemicals can accumulate in aquatic animals, and biodegrade into toxic by-products.
Researchers led by Roberto Danovaro at the University of Pisa in Italy added controlled amounts of three brands of sunscreen to seawater surrounding coral reefs in Mexico, Indonesia, Thailand and Egypt.
Even small doses provoked large discharges of coral mucous -- a clear sign of environmental stress -- within 18 to 48 hours. Within 96 hours complete bleaching of corals had occurred.
So, basically, pollution makes us more and more susceptible to cancer-causing UV rays, which makes it more and more necessary to wear sunscreen, especially at the beach of course...which, along with the pollution, fucks up the coral reefs.
