October 27, 2005
So you'll see that we've got a few doozies on our hands.
Now, it's time for the obligatory bloggy disclaimer. I'm normally one of those people who doesn't touch the topic of abortion with a ten foot cattle prod. I can't stand how this topic turns rational people into lathered idiots by the briefest mention of it. I have yet to see one reasoned debate about any aspect of abortion on any blog, and considering I've been reading blogs for, oh, a good four years or so, that should tell you something, blog years being similar to dog years. It is a topic that raises the passions, so you will perhaps understand that when the topic was raised in group discussion that I was leery of tackling it. I will also admit that I thought long and hard about bailing out and not touching it at all because I don't feel like getting screamed at by trolls. But I haven't bailed on a Divas topic yet, and I don't intend to start now, so all I would ask is that I don't want to have regrets about sticking with it. Don't make me have regrets, ya dig? Do you get what I am saying? You do? Excellent. DAMN THE TORPEDOS!
Ahem.
As to the first question, should the father of an unborn child have the right to block the abortion of said unborn child? Yes, absolutely, is my answer. It takes two to tango, after all. The father of the child should have precisely the same legal rights as the mother. But---and you knew there was a 'but' coming, didn't you?---it's not only one life he would be holding in his hands, but two, mother and child being something of a package deal. Does the father of said child---if we're working under the assumption that these presumptive parents aren't married, nor even committed---take care of both of them for nine months and then ditch the mother after she gives birth? Is he legally allowed to do that? To control her life because that's just the way the biology works? Under our system of laws---and by that I mean the US legal system---this is a moot point. I'm not an expert on these matters, but a woman over the age of majority doesn't need to notify anyone of what she intends to do. Furthermore, she is the sole authority over what happens to her body---and any child she's carrying. In which case the father of said child would be up shit creek.
I find this an interesting question because it seems like an odd, world-turned-on-its-ear, futurama question, even for someone who is as reasonably young as I am at age thirty-four. It sounds like a future where the sexes really are equal, whereas men, today, still, other than through court-ordered child support payments, aren't held responsible for their actions to the same degree that women are. Nor do I think there's been a sea change in attitudes toward single fatherhood since I was younger. The history of male-female relationships is there for all and sundry to see: given the male half of humanity's long history of dumping women they thought suitable for sleeping with, but not for marrying, this is a curious hypothetical situation. Don't get me wrong. I think it's good that some hypothetical man would want to block an abortion. I just find it unusual because the whole situation is set up specifically because men have neglected their duties in this arena. For millenia women were abandoned, vilified and treated like the scum of the earth because they'd had sexual relations out of the bonds of holy wedlock. God help the child born of such a union. It doesn't bear repeating, does it, what it would be like for such a child because it was generally awful? Yet, nothing ever happened to the man in such a circumstance, of course. They got off Scot-free; the system being, after all, rigged in their favor. They made the rules---and of course it was always their word against the woman's when it came to establishing parentage. Women worked around their rules and tried to create options for themselves. It would seem by this hypothetical question as if the men didn't appreciate being left out of it.
As to the second question, should a woman who has had an abortion and not told the biological father be liable for damages, I have no freakin' clue. I would lean toward saying "yes" but, as with all other legal questions I tend to think about the precedent this would set, and I cannot imagine what sort of precedent this would set because my mind just doesn't go that far. I have a feeling that screaming "tort reform" isn't going to help me out here, so I will simply say this: beware where you go and claim liabilty. I could easily see a woman countersuing and asking for damages for pain and suffering due to the abortion she thought she had to have because she didn't feel she could tell the father of child the truth because she feared for her life, etc. Tack on the "loss of consortium" charges and you've got yourself one heck of a countersuit.
One could make the assumption that the only purpose of such a lawsuit would be to punish the mother of the aborted child. In a situation such as this, where most rational people would be feeling pain from every angle conceivable, it doesn't make much sense to me to create more of it. This, of course, assumes certain emotional reactions of the respondents, but I can't see where it would be a great idea even if the bitch was richer than Croesus. Too much pain by attempting, once again, to attach a monetary sum to a human life.
All righty then, that's enough pontificating from moi. Go and see what the other divas, Silk and Phoenix, have to say on the matter. Sadie, I believe, is still on the break, but maybe if we're lucky Oklahoma's newest lawyer will chime in on this weighty subject. Ruth at Chaos Theory, this week's Guest Diva, has chimed in, so run along and read her opinion. For the male perspective Phin, Stiggy, our Maximum Leader and Jamesy are the usual token testosterone holders, hence you shall take their opinions seriously. Our guest Men's Club Member is That 1 Guy and he has chimed in as well.
Posted by: Kathy at
02:03 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1169 words, total size 7 kb.
October 20, 2005
This, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, could be good fun, provided I actually get some answers.
And away we go...
1. Does it really offend you when a gay man shows an interest in you, or is a little part of you flattered at the attention, even if you're not interested in the offer and are exceedingly quick to say, "not that there's anything wrong with that!" ?
2. Even if they've settled down and have acquired the wife, the house and the mortgage, why do men feel the need to pretend, on occasion, as if they haven't committed themselves to all that? Women don't, for the most part, do that. Once we commit, we commit and that's that. Men, on the other hand, it seems to me, sometimes have second thoughts about all this committment and we're, as women, supposed to understand this notion and let them have their boy moments. You know the ones I'm talking about, right? The weekend trip to Vegas with the boys; the trip downtown to the titty bars; golf excursions where much flirting is done with the beer cart girl, etc. I can understand male bonding and all the rest, but do you really need to remind yourselves of all you're missing to be able to stay in a committed relationship? Because that's what it seems like to me. How, exactly, does that work? Does it actually help or does it actually make that mid-life crisis---replete with a red corvette and hair plugs--- inevitable?
3. What's the deal with duct tape and WD-40? Y'all wax exceedingly rhapsodic about these things---more so than is warranted, in my humble opinion. Yes, these two things are very handy to have around. I'm not denying that. Do cults need to be devoted to them? No. Hence, I would like to know why you think there should be cults devoted to the worship of duct tape and WD-40.
Okedokey, there are my three things. Now, run along and see what Silk, and Phoenix have to say. Madame Sadie is taking a wee bit of a break currently, so we shall fervently hope for her quick return. For the male perspective Phin, Stiggy, The Naked Villains, and Jamesy have chimed in. Nugget is our guest testosterone producer this week so run along and see what he has to say as well.
Posted by: Kathy at
09:58 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 501 words, total size 3 kb.
October 13, 2005
As you can see, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, I have my work cut out for me.
As to the first question, do men always have good sex, I will refer you to the extensive research I conducted so I would be able to answer this question for you. Yes. That's right. I'm all about the demystifying. So I went and asked my usual source---the husband---and here's what he had to say. Ahem.
Sex is like pizza. When it's good, it's really good. When it's bad, well, it's still pretty good.
Deep, no?
This brings us to our second question: do women have good sex? Well, of course they do. Like, duh. It's just different for women. Men have good sex each and every time because they climax each and every time. Most women do not climax each and every time they have intercourse. We have different physiologies and I don't see where we're doing anyone any favors by pretending otherwise. One is a Fiat Panda and the other is a Volvo Estate Car. That is just the nature of the beast. And anyone who tries to tell you differently is ignoring the facts of life. Women are different from men, and THANK GOD for it. Vive la difference, I believe is what the cheese eating surrender monkeys call it, but we'll keep the French bashing to a minimum today. Anyway, where was I? Ah, yes, the differences between men and women. I believe we should glorify those differences. Furthermore, I think we should just learn to accept that things are different. To do otherwise is to miss a lot of the really good stuff that happens, with or without a climax in attendance.
Which, then brings us to our third question: who/what determines if the sex was, indeed, good? Tricky, no? I believe the difference is in how you measure what "good sex" is. Because men and women are going to have different bench marks as to what, precisely, is good sex. If one wanted to search for a ridiculous metaphor to describe this phenomenon without gettting too down and dirty, one could say that men used the metric system to measure good sex. It's a logical choice for men---who are overly fond of logic---to use: the metric system is a base ten system; there aren't any inconvenient conversions that need to be made; it's a safe, solid system that is used by the majority of the world's population to describe things. Why the heck shouldn't men use the metric system? By Golly, everyone should use it! is, I believe, what they would think.
Women, on the other hand, in this world of ridiculous metaphors, would use the English system of measurements. We like inches, feet, yards, and other obscure measurements that have come down through the ages. We like the tales that are told about these measurements. We enjoy all of the arcane historical data that comes with them. And we don't really understand, it seems, why other people would want it any other way.
The key to succcess in the sack is for each partner to learn the other's conversion charts. It's quite simple.
Now, if any of that makes ANY sense at all to you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, well, you're two steps ahead of me. So I will now say "SHOOO!"in a big booming voice and direct you to Silk and Phoenix for their take on the matter at hand. Chrissy, in a curious change of pace, is posting on last week's topic. For the testosterone-laden take, run along and see what Phin, Stiggy, The Naked Villains, Jamesy and That 1 Guy have to say.
Posted by: Kathy at
11:06 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 685 words, total size 4 kb.
have a good weekend trying that one out. )October 06, 2005
Hmmmm. That should be an easy one to answer, shouldn't it? Just look at the left hand of the object of your affection, if there is no ring there, rejoice, but you should nonetheless proceed with caution: they still might be attached. Buy them a drink, ask them some questions, get chummy and then ask them if they're attached. If they aren't, well, isn't life good for you, my child? If they are, well, you've just made yourself a new platonic friend. Conversely, if they came up to you and started hitting on you, well, you could make the reasonable assumption that they're single, and they would like to know if you are, too. You might want to put them out of their misery if the situation calls for it, just to be nice.
But that would be me. Other people might want to be sneakier less obvious about it. And in that case, gosh, I really don't know what to tell you other than to put on your deerstalker hat, load up a pipe and play Sherlock Holmes.
Sherlock, in case you've been living under a rock for a good long time, was a master of observation and deduction. He would observe; he would then make a logical deduction based on what he had observed and the knowledge gained over a lifetime. Pretty simple stuff, no? All right, I shall describe an individual; you tell me if they are single or attached. You will find the answers below the fold.
A man is at a party at a house in an uber-hip section of the Hollywood Hills. He is about six-foot-one and has a lankiness to him that screams "athleticism." His hair is dark; his eyes are brown; his body is buff; he wears no jewelry other than a watch. His facial hair is trimmed, as is his hair. He's drinking a cosmopolitan and his eyes are wandering around the room, looking for someone interesting. Is this man single? you wonder. You double check his left hand. You don't see a ring. You move in for the kill.Have you met your match?
For our second example we have:
A middle-aged man is at a retro cocktail bar. A neon sign made in the shape of a martini glass hangs from the opposite wall, and the olive in the bottom of the glass winks at you in a shade of green reminiscent of a half-dead Christmas tree. There are few tables, a large bar and plenty of booths, designed for getting closer, and he is sitting in one. You notice that he is the epitome of tall, dark and handsome. You can tell he is comfortable in his own skin because he takes his time taking the situation in. He drinks a vodka tonic, and has made sure the lime has been disposed of properly, as well as the straw. He ensures his drink does not drip condensation onto his silk tie by fastidiously blanketing the base of the glass with his napkin. His suit is well tailored, but not flashy, and it covers any sins of middle-aged flesh rather well. His jewelry is limited to a tie bar and a watch. A freshly cracked pack of Marlboro Lights sits on the table, the cellophane wrapper lying uselessly in the ashtray, and he smokes one casually, blowing the smoke out at a leisurely pace. His eyes roam about the room, looking for something. They land on you and he smiles at you. You smile back while you surrpetitiously gaze at his left hand again. No ring. You move in.Have you met your match?
And what have you deduced from these two examples, my devoted Cake Eater Readers? Anything good? Anything worth your time? I shall leave it to you to take the jump to see if you were correct in your deductions, but, even if you weren't successful this time around, it's quite simple to become successful at this sort of thing in the future. All you need do is observe a person to see who they are because all the clues are laid out right before you. You just need to learn how to piece them together to give yourself the whole picture. The key is simply taking the time to observe.
So, enough bullshit from moi, it's time to see what the other demystifying divas have to say on the matter. As always, for the testosterone-y take, you can visit Phin, Nugget, Stiggy, Jamesy and the Naked Villains.
Due to a effort to show up the rest of us scheduling snafu , Sadie and Pammy have written their essays on next week's topic. So you can shuffle along, read their essays and get excited for next week's episode of As The Divas Turn.
more...
Posted by: Kathy at
12:53 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1054 words, total size 7 kb.
)52 queries taking 0.0445 seconds, 116 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
