Using Birth Control = SLUT????

Rush Limbaugh has once again stirred up controversy with his comments about Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student, who - in her Congressional testimony - argued that birth control should be covered by health insurance at religious institutions.  From NY Daily News:

Conservative radio host declared Georgetown Law School's Sandra Fluke "a slut" for arguing that birth control should be covered by health insurance at religious institutions.
The shock jock mocked Sandra Fluke for arguing that her fellow students shell out $1,000 a year in out of pocket expenses. Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, does not cover  birth control as part of its health insurance plan.

Limbaugh dismissed Fluke’s assertion that women may be prescribed the pill for medical reasons and accused her of merely promoting promiscuity.

“What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute,” he said. “She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception.”
Limbaugh went on to insult Fluke’s family for raising a daughter with loose attitudes.

“Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be?” he said. “Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope.”

In order to accentuate his point, he played the 1970s soul song “Troglodyte (Cave Man)” by the Jimmy Castor Bunch. He shouted “get pregnant!” over the lyrics about clubbing and grabbing women.

Even the top-ranked Georgetown Law School, a Catholic institution, did not escape Limbaugh’s sexist wrath.

“Well, I guess now we know why Bill Clinton went to Georgetown and why Hillary went to Wellesley,” he said. “Well, all the sex going on at Georgetown.”

.......................

The Case of the 41yr old Teacher and the 18yr old Student

You would have to be living under a rock (or not watch the news) to not know the latest teacher scandal.  From the Modesto Bee:

A 41-year-old Enochs High School teacher in Modesto has resigned and moved in with an 18-year-old student. The reaction has been largely shock, disapproval and betrayal.

The teen's mother has waged a very public campaign on Facebook since last week, when her daughter moved out of the family's home and into a Modesto apartment with the man. He has left his wife and children, one of whom is a junior at Enochs. 

Modesto police are investigating whether there was inappropriate contact before the girl turned 18 in the fall.  And school district and teachers union officials worry that an ethical and moral line has been crossed, even if the student is legally an adult.

James Hooker was placed on paid administrative leave Feb. 3 by Modesto City Schools and resigned Feb. 22, he said Tuesday. Hooker taught business and computer classes, and he was an adviser to three active campus clubs.

"In making our choice, we've hurt a lot of people," Hooker acknowledged. "We keep asking ourselves, 'Do we make everyone else happy or do we follow our hearts?' " Hooker and Enochs senior Jordan Powers said Tuesday in an interview at The Bee that they are making a life for themselves "day by day."

Powers was in Hooker's virtual business class and an associated club until his suspension. They said they met when she was a freshman.

Tammie Powers, Jordan's mother, said she believes Hooker pursued her daughter. She said her daughter's grades fell this year, and Jordan had panic attacks.  "I believe it was the stress of the lie," Tammie Powers said. She said her daughter was "always compliant," kept her room tidy at their Waterford home and minded her curfew. No R-rated movies until she was of age. No lone trips to the mall or the movies.

"I was really, really careful. I wanted her to be safe," she said.  "In hindsight, in retrospect, I should have looked at things differently," Powers said.......

Looking back over phone records, she said she found an estimated 8,000 text messages between the teacher and student going back through the summer. In the fall, about 32 texts a day, starting at 6 a.m. were recorded, she said......

On Facebook, Powers has called Hooker "an arrogant pervert," among other things, and urged readers to "help get the word out" about his involvement with a student.
The hundreds of responses are, for the most part, supportive of her. Many express disbelief.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2012/02/28/2090490/enochs-high-teacher-resigns-after.html#storylink=cpy

David Wainwright posted that he sees teacher and student as complicit in the relationship, then added: "I just wouldn't of expected this from my fav teacher. What is the world coming to?"
Modesto City Schools Superintendent Pam Able confirmed Hooker's resignation Tuesday morning.

"Allegations of Mr. Hooker having a relationship with a student is the source of great concern for staff, students and parents. I consider student-teacher dating relationships to be not only unprofessional, but immoral," Able said via e-mail.

Modesto City Schools Board President Rubén Villalobos said Tuesday: "Schools need to be a safe place. Anything less than that is a failure." He said he could not comment on the case, but said in general teacher-student romances are wrong "because of that unequal balance of power."

Hooker knows his decisions may have cost him his teaching career. He taught business courses for 15 years and advised three campus clubs — Future Business Leaders of America, Mock Trial Club and Virtual Business Club.  Extra jobs such as the clubs earned Hooker $28,000 in added pay in 2009, the latest figures immediately available. District records show Hooker made $110,537 that year.

Hooker and Jordan Powers said their relationship was strictly teacher-student until mid-December, when they started talking more frequently and then dated. "I just kind of knew that she's the one," he said.

Powers turned 18 on Sept. 5, and Modesto police say that makes her a consenting adult. However, Lt. Rick Armendariz said there is an ongoing investigation involving a high school teacher and student.

Hooker confirmed Tuesday that he remains the object of a police probe. He said he is confident he will be cleared of accusations that any physical relationship started while Powers was a minor.  "There's no evidence of that. There's no proof of that. It didn't exist," Hooker said.He said the criticism is part of a campaign of lies he and Powers face online and in person. "I've been portrayed as a monster through all of this," Hooker said. "I'm not a monster. I'm not any different than I've always been."....

Hooker said he hopes to get a job in the private sector. "We're just taking it day by day," he said.

And We're Supposed to Be in a "Post-Racial" Time....

For those who say that racism or racist tendencies is no longer a big issue, or that we're "post-racial", check this out and get back at me afterwards....

From the The Huffington Post:

The unexpected emergence of Jeremy Lin from the depths of the New York Knicks' bench has been a dream for headline writers and just about everyone who loves puns. The "Linsanity" has spawned some Lincredible wordplay as well as some really unLinteresting phrases.
And, now, we may have found our most offensive headline from a mainstream media outlet.
Several hours after the Knicks' Lin-spired winning streak was snapped by the New Orleans Hornets, ESPN ran the headline "Chink In The Armor" to accompany the game story on mobile devices. ESPN's choice of words was extremely insensitive and offensive considering Lin's Asian-American heritage. According to Brian Floyd at SB Nation, the headline appeared on the Scorecenter app. The offensive headline was quickly noticed, screen grabs, Twit pics and Instagrams were shared and it began circulating widely on Twitter.

The use of the word "chink" is especially galling as Lin has revealed that this racial slur was used to taunt him during his college playing career at Harvard. After a brief run, the headline was changed to "All Good Things.."

...........................

TAXES - a Necessary Evil

A few moments ago, I had a little chat with my Dad about Republicans and taxes.

We were watching the local news about Virginia Beach public schools possibly undergoing what will probably be the worst tax cuts in years.  Things like no summer school, no sports for middle school, and teachers having to do 3 furlough days (temporary unpaid leave), just to name a few.

We then got on the subject of Republicans and how they always brag about (or want to brag about) not having to raise taxes or stopping the raising of taxes, which then leads to cuts on schools and needed programs.

I don't like the idea of raising taxes, no one does, but the question is, where will the money come from???  How can we pay off our debt (or at least try to)?  I would rather pay taxes than to have budget cuts on schools, space research, social programs, etc.

Speaking of which, Romney claimed that he doesn't need to focus on the poor because they have a "safety net".  However that "safety net" is what he and other Republicans want to cut funding for in the first place!

Ahem...anyway, by no means am I an expert on politics, but really though....it makes me sick that Republicans want to try so hard at not raising taxes, but at the expense needed programs, especially those for children.  It seems like schools are the first thing to have it's funds cut.  Is it really worth it?  I don't think so.

To me, taxes are simply a necessary evil. 

Homosexuality and Public Acceptance Based on Sex

In today's day and age, people have become more accepting of homosexuality.  Now as a Christian myself, I have my own views about homosexuality, but that's another topic for another day.  This is more of an observation that I've been noticing.


About a year ago, I was watching an episode of ABC's What Would You Do on a Friday.  There was a segment dealing with homosexual couples and the public response to them openly showing affection for one another. 

In one scenario, two gay men were showing off public displays of affection (or PDA) for one another while sitting on a public bench out in the open.  While onlookers looked on, the couple snuggled, kissed, held hands, etc., etc.  Nothing graphic.  However many people looked on in disgust.  One woman even called the police, and an officer came on to the scene and calmly told the couple to refrain from displaying any PDA.  It turns out though, that the officer was aware of the scenario being for a show and was in on the whole thing.  With all this happening to a gay male couple minding their own business, one would think that the same thing would happen to a lesbian couple.  Not so fast....

In the scenario of the lesbian couple, while there were still people who looked on in disgust at their PDA, there were also men who looked on in interest.  The segment even showed men approaching the couple and starting a conversation.  In a few instances, the conversation leaned on the flirtatious side.  Now let it be said that with the gay couple, they were also approached by a few women, but the conversation didn't appear to be flirtatious in any instance (unless women just have a different way of going about it).  In fact, in one example, a woman seemed to be striking up a more supportive conversation, if you will.  Something I didn't witness with the lesbian couple.

These differences in the interaction with couples such as these is the main point of this post, which is the observation of how society treats gay couples vs. lesbian couples.

All you have to do is to look at TV and movies to see how vastly different gays and lesbians are treated and viewed by society based on their sex. A lesbian couple is more often shown on TV, movies, music videos, etc. compared to gay couples.  If one wants to incorporate sex into something and attract a male audience, then either a hot lesbian couple or simply how chicks making out. However, with a gay couple, showing them in media is seen as something more controversial than hot.  Sometimes it seems almost like pulling teeth to simply show two guys kissing.

Take the kiss between Madonna and Britney Spears, then with Christine Aguilera on one of the past MTV awards.  The media considered it hot.  But with Adam Lambert kissing one the members of his band during a performance on TV, it was considered offensive, and too much.  Why???  

A common attribute that I notice is that these views and receptions seem to be "male-based", as in, beautiful looking lesbians or women making out are many times seen as hot to men, thus they are seen often in the media compared to handsome looking gays or men making out.  Two men kissing are not seen as hot to men, hence you don't see those images often.

Now....why are the opinions and sexual turn-ons of the male audience the foremost concern?  Do they believe that women aren't turned on by two men kissing (fanfiction and the internet in general disproves that idea lol)?  Why is the media quick to show two beautiful women making out?

Here are bullets of other observations on this subject:

• Why do guys get seemingly "squeamish" when it come to gays, or go out there way in voicing how grossed out they are by it?  I rarely see this reaction when it comes to women and lesbians.  Is it because gayness is related to "weakness" and strength (or different forms of strength) is a known characteristic of masculinity ("be a man")?  
• Why do people wonder about the sexuality of an actor who plays a homosexual in a movie, or on TV, but people aren't that concerned when it comes to actresses who play lesbians? 

Thoughts to Ponder.....

• HPV vaccine regarding girls and boys. 

Back when there was controversy surrounding possible mandatory vaccinations of girls, I found myself thinking, "Ok this is a good idea, early prevention and all that...". So when I read some of the reactions of parents and officials, was rather confused and annoyed.  It's one thing to have concerns about the safety of vaccinations (that's understandable), but to not agree with mandatory HPV vaccinations because you're not comfortable with the thought of your daughter loosing her virginity and having sex is ridiculous.  Looking back I remember reading comments from parents and people in position saying something like how they'll be teaching their daughters abstinence and how they were too young getting vaccinated against something related to sexual activity.

I wanted to tell these parents to GET A GRIP!

Don't get me wrong.  I'm a Christian and all for abstinence.  But I'm also realistic. 

A parent can teach their child how they should save themselves until marriage until they're blue in the face, and that child may still decide to have premarital sex.  Not to mention that a woman can wait to have sex until marriage and STILL catch HPV because her husband had engaged in casual sex before or adultery during marriage.  A girl receiving the HPV vaccine will not in and of itself encourage her to have casual sex.

Interesting thing though.  I remember reading a long time ago about the HPV vaccine possibly being made for boys.  Recently CNN has had articles saying that HPV vaccine was effective in males and that vaccination of boys is encouraged and even urged*.  It seemed that the main concern in this case was potential health risks for the boys.  NO mention of possible repercussions toward their sexual activity.  Hmmm......But that was when it was first being considered, a few years ago.  Maybe today people are as concerned with their supposed potential sexual activity as well.  Seriously though, what's wrong with taking precautions if the vaccine's proven to be safe???

Speaking of sexual activity.....

• Plan B

As you all know (if you've been watching the news), Plan B was pretty close to being available over-the-counter for females of all ages.   However, it didn't happen:

For the first time ever, the Health and Human Services secretary publicly overruled the Food and Drug Administration, refusing Wednesday to allow emergency contraceptives to be sold over the counter, including to young teenagers. The decision avoided what could have been a bruising political battle over parental control and contraception during a presidential election season..... 

I have to say, I was kind of disappointed with the decision.  Again, I am a Christian but I am also realistic.  If there was a chance that a young girl can avoid an unplanned pregnancy with this pill being widely available then that's a good thing.  I mean, you have condoms being available for boys of all ages.  Why not have the pill be widely accessible for girls of all ages if it proves to be safe to use?

Of course there is the question of when life actually starts.  I don't know, but personally I don't really believe it starts right at conception.  Maybe it's the biology major-side of me....Anyway, while I think abstinence is the best way to go, there are young people that will choose to have sex.  And I would rather a girl use Plan B than have an abortion.

I might make a post of this by itself so I can expand on this more.

• Trigger warnings

From the website Objectify This - What is a Trigger Warning:     

Anyone who reads feminist blogs has come across “trigger warnings” before graphic images or descriptions of rape or violence to women.  The intent of a trigger warning is to advertise the potentially emotionally triggering content of a piece, which might revive memories of rape or sexual assault for survivors.  Survivors of sexual assault are especially sensitive to such images because they are traumatized, and like other traumatized people, this may affect their whole world-view. Some survivors experience post-traumatic stress disorder.............The trigger warning also implicitly validates survivors of sexual assault, by recognizing their existence and their potential needs and offering them control over some of what they process.

I understand the need for trigger warnings.  The consideration for victims is noble.  However, why are trigger warnings exclusive to mainly rape and sexual assault victims?  Not to mention where does one draw the line?  If there are trigger warnings for rape and sexual assault, what about overall abuse (I have indeed seen warnings for domestic abuse), murder, physical assault....violence in general?  Like I said, it's noble to be considerate of victims of sexual assault and rape, but I do wonder if it's leaning closer to coddling.  I know, that sounds mean, and I'm really trying to explain my point in such a way that I don't come across as a b*tch.

What I'm saying is, this world is violent and will pretty much remain violent until Judgement Day.  I guess what rubs me the wrong way is this idea that victims of rape and sexual assault - most of which are women - need to be sheltered and protected as if they're these weak, helpless beings, something that for thousands of years have been associated with women. 

I don't know...I still don't think I really expressed what I was thinking on this point that well :-/

Sandusky vs. Polanski

Sometime during November of last year, I was over at good ole' Oh No They Didn't where I was reading a post entitled Polanski, Paterno, and the Press.  This was during the time which the whole Penn State debacle started.  The article originated from a site called American Thinker. 

If any one lesson was learned these past weeks from the Penn State scandal, it is that our progressive friends have not quite figured out what is right and what is wrong.
On November 5 of this year, for instance, the Huffington Post broke the news to its readers of former coach Jerry Sandusky's arrest for sexually assaulting minors.  Appropriately, there was no irony in the article, no mirth.
"This is a case about a sexual predator who used his position within the university and community to repeatedly prey on young boys," Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly was quoted as saying.
A month earlier, however, the Huffington Post ran a piece by Regina Weinreich on the American premiere of the new Roman Polanski movie Carnage.  Wrote Weinreich approvingly, "At Alice Tully Hall Friday night, where the movie opened the New York Film Festival, audiences cheered Polanski's credit, knowing that this master Academy Award-winning filmmaker would not attend."
At the Zurich Film Festival a few weeks earlier, which Polanski did attend, he received a ten-minute standing ovation and the lifetime achievement award.  Although every sentient person in the film world knows why Polanski missed the New York event, pre-Penn State, they were clearly untroubled.

Here the article talks about the case and the testimony from the victim:

According to the grand jury testimony of Samantha Geimer, Polanski had approached her and her mom about taking photos of Samantha for a fashion magazine.  Impressed and reassured by his celebrity, the mom agreed.  After a couple of outdoor shoots, Polanski and the girl ended up alone at Jack Nicholson's house. 

Wrote Polanski in his memoir, Roman, "I could sense a certain erotic tension between the two of us."  At the time, Polanski was a worldly 43.  Geimer was a thirteen-year-old seventh-grader.

At Nicholson's otherwise empty house, Polanski plied Geimer with champagne and had her take her blouse off for a shot in the jacuzzi.  He then gave her a Quaalude.  "Why did you take it?" asked the prosecutor.  "I think I must have been pretty drunk, or else I wouldn't have," Geimer answered. 

Now "kind of dizzy," Geimer still managed to resist Polanski's increasing demands.  "I want to go home," she told him repeatedly.  He would have none of it.  Finally, he cornered her on a couch, put his head in her lap, and started performing "cuddliness" on her -- her word.

"I was going, 'No come on, stop it,' but I was afraid," Geimer continued.  Lacking protection, Polanski sodomized the girl and climaxed therein.  The testimony rings entirely true.  Polanski pled guilty before fleeing and tells much the same story in Roman, though he remains shocked that "I should be sent to prison, my life and career ruined, for making love."

Given this attitude, the film world's Polanski fans have no reason to believe that he has stopped preying on young girls.  Indeed, two years before the Geimer incident, he had an affair, such as it was, with 15-year-old Nastassja Kinski.

............................

Goldstein used the word "misdeed" more than once to describe the child rape that had caused Polanski to flee the country.  In the same article, actor Warren Beatty called the crime a "mistake."

Goldstein concluded that "we" always "forgive [artists] their transgressions" because, in the end, good art trumps bad behavior.  Weinrich came to much the same conclusion in 2011.  "At what point do we say, enough is enough?" she protested of Polanski's seeming persecution.

Weinrich was hardly alone in her indifference to Polanski's crimes.....A month later, the Times editorialized in regard to Penn State, "No one connected to the university should feel anything but shame that the institutional leaders did so little to protect the children involved."

On October 3 of this year, the Wall Street Journal ran a celebratory article about the Carnage premiere.  "Mr. Polanski, of course, isn't allowed in the States," wrote the Journal before citing a joke by Polanski's fellow director Paul Feig, "though maybe he's somewhere here disguised as an old woman." 

A month later, the joking was over.  Editorialized the Journal about Joe Paterno, " ... the coach fulfilled his legal obligation, but not his moral duty, to look after the well-being of that child and others who may have been victimized later."

So what's going on here?  How is one more acceptable than the other?

Is it because in some circles, it is seem as natural for an adult male to be attracted to a mid to late pubescent girls due to evolution and biology?  For example, an ephebophiliac is an adult who has a sexual preference "for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19".  The definition goes further in saying: "In sexual ethics, it may be defined as a sexual preference for girls generally 14–16 years old, and boys generally 14–19 years old".  Due to most in this age group having physical characteristics near (or in some cases, identical) to that of full-grown adults, some level of sexual attraction to these young people is known to be common among adults.  But even then, Polanski (43 at the time) gave a 13 year old girl alcohol to the point of her feeling "dizzy" and then forced himself onto her.  That in itself is rape.  She said "no" repeatedly; she even said that she wanted to go home!  Even if she freely accepted the alcohol, he had no business giving her any of it!  Really it shouldn't even have gotten to the point where they ended up alone at Jack Nicholson's house.  

Did people think that because it happened years ago, and the girl - now an adult - as seemingly moved on, that it should no longer be acknowledged?

In this case, why is Sandusky treated differently?  Is it because the victims were boys?  Yes, homosexual behavior between men and boys were acceptable at some point in the past (for example in ancient Greece), but for most of human history, it was not acceptable.  Or is it because most of the boys seemed to have been pre-pubescent (before puberty).  Not to mention that it wasn't just one victim, but at least 8.

In the end, I agree with the article.  Regardless of difference between the two situations, both men were wrong.  People shouldn't just "forget" or not acknowledge what Polanski did.  Yes, I believe that a person who made mistakes and committed crimes can overcome their past and move on.  I believe in redemption.  However the only way to do so is to realize and acknowledge that some of the things you did in the past was wrong and be sorry for the things you've done.  In Polanski's case, not only does it appear that he isn't sorry for his actions, but he doesn't understand why people had a problem with what he did.  He even fled the country to escape imprisonment (though the claim is that he was possibly bamboozled by the courts in some way even though there was plea deal - going off memory here so correct me if I'm wrong).

I'll leave you with a final quote from the article:

The phrase "double standard" does not do justice to a media that can write approvingly of a slimy predator like Polanski and harshly of an otherwise decent man like Paterno who failed to react to a predator in his midst. 
"Double standard," after all, implies that the media have any standards to begin with.