Archive | Whores! Whores! Whores! RSS feed for this section

I Don’t Get It

10 Feb

Just…wut? I can’t put my finger on why right this second, but this column gives me the serious creeps. Part of it is probably the fact that he talks about “Sugar Bear’s” mother being a “mentally ill prostitute” when she was a victim of incest–er, oh, sorry, I mean “having had a sexual relationship” with her father.  Actually, maybe that’s exactly the reason, though I’m sure I will realize there are more once I recover from the effects of the cider I’ve consumed.

George Will is a creepy ass creepy creeper creep. Ew.

Oh, I’ll Judge, Motherfucker. I’ll Judge Good.

12 Jan

Oh, hey! Mittens likes to threaten single pregnant ladies with hell and excommunication if they don’t give up their babies. At Pandagon, Amanda Marcotte discusses the religious obsession with controlling women’s sexuality, which is, of course, completely applicable and true, as is the practice of using single mothers as incubators to provide babies to “deserving” couples.

But there’s another element to this story I want to talk about. The interesting (and by interesting, I mean especially fucked up) thing is that the “sin” of extramarital sex had already been committed, but she wasn’t being (formally) chastised and threatened with excommunication for that. Instead, she was in trouble for not following church doctrine and keeping the physical evidence of her “sin” in her life. The policy of requiring women to give up children born out of wedlock for adoption strikes me more as an attempt to keep up appearances than anything else. I’m sure that that the Mormon church would argue that children need two parents, or that women who lack the moral character to refrain from having sex outside of marriage aren’t qualified to raise kids, but really, does anyone doubt that this is about destroying the evidence of the sins of congregation members using the most “moral” means possible?

Many religious communities aren’t built on personal accountability or integrity. They’re built on appearances. It’s more important to look righteous than it is to be righteous. When he was training for the ministry, my father said that he wouldn’t perform a wedding ceremony for a couple who had been living together “for propriety’s sake.” Did he believe in virginity tests or interrogating couples about their sexual relationship if they didn’t live together? Of course not. It wasn’t important that they didn’t have pre-marital sex; it was important that he could pretend they didn’t. The “argument” that queer people can be queer all they want as long as they don’t practice their queerness (ie, love and fuck the people they want to love and fuck) is similar—you can “sin” in your heart all you want, as long as you don’t show physical evidence of your icky, icky gayness.

Obviously, the idea that extramarital sex is a sin is founded on controlling women’s sexuality. But the emphasis on propriety and appearances is just as harmful. It creates deception and prevents people from being authentic. It perpetuates all sorts of abuse. It exacerbates the obsession with control over women’s bodies by encouraging church members to appear scandalized enough to prove themselves to be upright Christians. It’s the reason why the term “tightly-knit community” gives me hives.

It also explains why, as Erin Gloria Ryan writes, Romney’s “views are so wildly inconsistent that I’m beginning to think that Mitt Romney is actually two conflicted souls trapped in the same body, like Gollum from Lord of the Rings.” It’s clear that Romney only gives a fuck about Romney, and while he may have some tendencies toward being a reasonable, thinking human being, he’ll throw them away if he has a chance to make himself look better. He’ll threaten a woman with excommunication and hell if it protects the church’s appearance and, more importantly, preserves his place in its hierarchy. His community, his party, and his religion encourage it.

This Bodes Well

2 Aug

Just got a call from the Obama campaign. The fundraiser mispronounced my last name twice after being corrected and spent an entire minute on her pitch until she asked for $400.


Maybe I’m misremembering, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t the way they were able to do record fundraising last election.

More Fun with Search Terms!

11 Apr

Apparently someone found my blog today via the search phrase “women who fuck for money”.

Look, I could easily charge if I wanted, but I don’t, because I’m just that nice. I’m like the Mother Theresa of sex.

UPDATED TO ADD A COMPLETELY UNRELATED SLICE OF LIFE: I just heard my neighbor say that she had forgotten that she has a ten-page paper due in the next four weeks and she’s really nervous because there’s no way she can get it done.

Okay. It hasn’t been that long since I’ve been an undergrad, and I remember that most of the basic courses I took (not counting the ones that I took for my major, which was in English) required at least couple of 8-10 or at least 6-8 page papers a semester. Fucking…how the fuck is she even getting through school? How’d she get through high school, for that matter?


18 Mar

I don’t know how someone came across my blog via the search phrase “dirty rotten whore,” considering the fact that I’m pretty sure that the terms “dirty,” “rotten,” and “whore” aren’t used anywhere in my blog.  At the very least, I know that “whore” isn’t.

How does Google know so much about my personal life when I don’t even blog about it???