Stupid Girls

Monday, December 26, 2011

Audre Lorde reads Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power

Uploaded by on Jun 1, 2011

An early version of one of the most important essays of the 20th century read by its author Audre Lorde. "Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power" is included in the collection Sister Outsider. The text version is about a page longer. Seek it out!





Standard YouTube License

Uses of the erotic: the erotic as power

By Audre Lorde, Summer 1989

THERE ARE MANY KINDS OF POWER, used and unused, acknowledged or otherwise. The erotic is a resource within each of us that lies in a deeply female and spiritual plane, firmly rooted in the power of our unexpressed or unrecognized feeling. In order to perpetuate itself, every oppression must corrupt or distort those various sources of power within the culture of the oppressed that can provide energy for change. For women, this has meant a suppression of the erotic as a considered source of power and information within our lives.

We have been taught to suspect this resource, vilified, abused, and devalued within western society. On the one hand, the superficially erotic has been encouraged as a sign of female inferiority; on the other hand, women have been made to suffer and to feel both contemptible and suspect by virtue of its existence.

It is a short step from there to the false belief that only by the suppression of the erotic within our lives and consciousness can women be truly strong. But that strength is illusory, for it is fashioned within the context of male models of power.

As women, we have come to distrust that power which rises from our deepest and nonrational knowledge. We have been warned against it all our lives by the male world, which values this depth of feeling enough to keep women around in order to exercise it in the service of men, but which fears this same depth too much to examine the possibilities of it within themselves. So women are maintained at a distant/ inferior position to be psychically milked, much the same way ants maintain colonies of aphids to provide a life-giving substance for their masters.

But the erotic offers a well of replenishing and provocative force to the woman who does not fear its revelation, nor succumb to the belief that sensation is enough.

The erotic has often been misnamed by men and used against women. It has been made into the confused, the trivial, the psychotic, the plasticized sensation. For this reason, we have often turned away from the exploration and consideration of the erotic as a source of power and information, confusing it with its opposite, the pornographic. But pornography is a direct denial of the power of the erotic, for it represents the suppression of true feeling. Pornography emphasizes sensation without feeling.

The erotic is a measure between the beginnings of our sense of self and the chaos of our strongest feelings. It is an internal sense of satisfaction to which, once we have experienced it, we know we can aspire. For having experienced the fullness of this depth of feeling and recognizing its power, in honor and self-respect we can require no less of ourselves.

It is never easy to demand the most from ourselves, from our lives, from our work. To encourage excellence is to go beyond the encouraged mediocrity of our society. But giving in to the fear of feeling and working to capacity is a luxury only the unintentional can afford, and the unintentional are those who do not wish to guide their own destinies.

This internal requirement toward excellence which we learn from the erotic must not be misconstrued as demanding the impossible from ourselves nor from others. Such a demand incapaci- tates everyone in the process. For the erotic is not a question only of what we do; it is a question of how acutely and fully we can feel in the doing. Once we know the extent to which we are capable of feeling that sense of satisfaction and completion, we can then observe which of our various life endeavors bring us closest to that fullness.

The aim of each thing which we do is to make our lives and the lives of our children richer and more possible. Within the celebration of the erotic in all our endeavors, my work becomes a conscious decision - a longed-for bed which I enter gratefully and from which I rise up empowered.

OF COURSE, WOMEN SO EMPOWERED are dangerous. So we are taught to separate the erotic demand from most vital areas of our lives other than sex. And the lack of concern for the erotic root and satisfactions of our work is felt in our disaffection from so much of what we do. For instance, how often do we truly love our work even at its most difficult?

The principal horror of any system which defines the good in terms of profit rather than in terms of human need, or which defines human need to the exclusion of the psychic and emotional components of that need - the principal horror of such a system is that it robs our work of its erotic value, its erotic power and life appeal and fulfillment. Such a system reduces work to a travesty of necessities, a duty by which we earn bread or oblivion for ourselves and those we love. But this is tantamount to blinding a painter and then telling her to improve her work, and to enjoy the act of painting. It is not only next to impossible, it is also profoundly cruel.

As women, we need to examine the ways in which our world can be truly different. I am speaking here of the necessity for reassessing the quality of all the aspects of our lives and of our work, and of how we move toward and through them.

The very word erotic comes from the Greek word eros, the personification of love in all its aspects - born of Chaos, and personifying creative power and harmony. When I speak of the erotic, then, I speak of it as an assertion of the lifeforce of women; of that creative energy empowered, the knowledge and use of which we are now reclaiming in our language, our history, our dancing, our work, our lives.

There are frequent attempts to equate porn('graphy and eroticism, two diametrically opposed uses of the sexual. Because of these attempts, it has become fashionable to separate the spiritual (psychic and emotional) from the political, to see them as contradictory or antithetical. "What do you mean, a poetic revolutionary, a meditating gun-runner?" the same way, we have attempted to separate the spiritual and the erotic, thereby reducing the spiritual to a world of flattened affect, a world of the ascetic who aspires to feel nothing. But nothing is farther from the truth. For the ascetic position is one of the highest fear, the gravest immobility. The severe abstinence of the ascetic becomes the ruling obsession. And it is one not of self-discipline but of self-abnegation.

The dichotomy between the spiritual and the political is also false, resulting from an incomplete attention to our erotic knowledge. For the bridge which connects them is formed by the erotic - the sensual - those physical, emotional, and psychic expressions of what is deepest and strongest and richest within each of us, being shared: the passions of love, in its deepest meanings.

Beyond the superficial, the considered phrase, "It feels right to me," acknowledges the strength of the erotic into a true knowledge, for what that means is the first and most powerful guiding light toward any understanding. And understanding is a handmaiden which can only wait upon, or clarify, that knowledge, deeply horn. The erotic is the nurturer or nursemaid of all our deepest knowledge.

THE EROTIC FUNCTIONS FOR ME IN several ways, and the first is in providing the power which comes from sharing deeply any pursuit with another person. The sharing of joy, whether physical, emotional, psychic, or intellectual, forms a bridge between the sharers which can be the basis for understanding much of what is not shared between them, and lessens the threat of their difference.

Another important way in which the erotic connection functions is the open and fearless underlining of my capacity for joy. In the way my body stretches to music and opens into response, hearkening to its deepest rhythms, so every level upon which I sense also opens to the erotically satisfying experience, whether it is dancing, building a book- case, writing a poem, examining an idea.

That self-connection shared is a measure of the joy which I know myself to be capable of feeling, a reminder of my capacity for feeling. And that deep and irreplaceable knowledge of my capacity for joy comes to demand from all of my life that it be lived within the knowledge that such satisfaction is possible, and does not have to be called marriage, nor god, nor an afterlife.

This is one reason why the erotic is so feared, and so often relegated to the bedroom alone, when it is recognized at all. For once we begin to feel deeply all the aspects of our lives, we begin to demand from ourselves and from our life-pursuits that they feel in accordance with that joy which we know ourselves to be capable of Our erotic knowledge empowers us, becomes a lens through which we scrutinize all aspects of our existence, forcing us to evaluate those aspects honestly in terms of their relative meaning within our lives. And this is a grave responsibility, projected from within each of us, not to settle for the convenient, the shoddy, the conventionally expected, nor the merely safe.

During World War II, we bought sealed plastic packets of white, uncolored margarine, with a tiny, intense pellet of yellow coloring perched like a topaz just inside the clear skin of the bag. We would leave the margarine out for a while to soften, and then we would pinch the little pellet to break it inside the bag, releasing the rich yellowness into the soft pale mass of margarine. Then taking it carefully between our fingers, we would knead it gently back and forth, over and over, until the color had spread throughout the whole pound bag of margarine, thoroughly coloring it.

I find the erotic such a kernel within myself. When released from its intense and constrained pellet, it flows through and colors my life with a kind of energy that heightens and sensitizes and strengthens all my experience.

WE HAVE BEEN RAISED TO FEAR THE yes within ourselves, our deepest cravings. But, once recognized, those which do not enhance our future lose their power and can be altered. The fear of our desires keeps them suspect and indiscriminately powerful, for to suppress any truth is to give it strength beyond endurance. The fear that we cannot grow beyond whatever distortions we may find within ourselves keeps us docile and loyal and obedient, externally defined, and leads us to accept many facets of our oppression as women.

When we live outside ourselves, and by that I mean on external directives only rather than from our internal knowledge and needs, when we live away from those erotic guides from within ourselves, then our lives are limited by external and alien forms, and we conform to the needs of a structure that is not based on human need, let alone an individual's. But when we begin to live from within outward, in touch with the power of the erotic within ourselves, and allowing that power to inform and illuminate our actions upon the world around us,. then we begin to be responisible to our selves in the deepest sense. For as we begin to recognize our deepest feelings, we begin to give up, of necessity, being satisfied with suffering and selfnegation, and with the numbness which so often seems like their only alternative in our society. Our acts against oppression become integral with self, motivated and empowered from within.

In touch with the erotic, I become less willing to accept powerlessness, or those other supplied states of being which are not native to me, such as resignation, despair, self-effacement, depression, self-denial.

And yes, there is a hierarchy. There is a difference between painting a back fence and writing a poem, but only one of quantity. And there is, for me, no difference-between writing a good poem and moving into sunlight against the body of a woman I love.

This brings me to the last consideration of the erotic. To share the power of each other's feelings is different from using another's feelings as we would use a kleenex. When we look the other way from our experience, erotic or otherwise, we use rather than share the feelings of those others who participate in the experience with us. And use without the consent of the used is abuse.

In order to be utilized, our erotic feelings must be recognized. The need for sharing deep feeling is a human need. But within the european-american tradition, this need is satisfied by certain proscribed erotic comings-together. These occasions are almost always characterized by a simultaneous looking away, a pretense of calling them something else, whether a religion, a fit, mob violence, or even playing doctor. And this misnaming of the need and the deed give rise to that distortion which results in pornography and obscenity - the abuse of feeling.

When we look away from the importance of the erotic in the development and sustenance of our power, or when we look away from ourselves as we satisfy our erotic needs in concert with others, we use each other as objects of satisfaction rather than share our joy in the satisfying, rather than make connection with our similarities and our differences. To refuse to be conscious of what we are feeling at any time, however comfortable that might seem, is to deny a large part of the experience, and to allow ourselves to be reduced to the pornographic, the abused, and the absurd.

The erotic cannot be felt secondhand. As a Black lesbian feminist, I have a particular feeling, knowledge, and understanding for those sisters with whom I have danced hard, played, or even fought. This deep participation has often been the forerunner for joint concerted actions not possible before.

But this erotic charge is not easily shared by women who continue to operate under an exclusively european-american male tradition. I know it was not available to me when I was trying to adapt my consciousness to this mode of living and sensation.

Only now, I find more and more women-identified women brave enough to risk sharing the erotic's electrical charge without having to look away, and without distorting the enormously powerful and creative nature of that exchange. Recognizing the power of the erotic within our lives can give us the energy to pursue genuine change within our world, rather than merely settling for a shift of characters in the same weary drama.

For not only do we touch our most profoundly creative source, but we do that which is female and self-affirming in the face of a racist, patriarchal, and anti-erotic society.

Black lesbian feminist Audre Lorde is the author of numerous books of poetry and essays. She is an outspoken critic of racism, sexism, classism, and other systems of domination, as well as a prolific creator of nest, cultural possibilities. This essay was originally delivered as a speech in 1978 at the Fourth Berkshire Conference on the History of Women, Mount Holyoke College, and has become a feminist classic of sorts.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Women of Science: "Harvard Computers" Part 1

Uploaded by on Dec 19, 2011

So, a single mom, immigrant from Scotland, with no formal science training, became a U.S. astronomer: the first ever recognized by the Royal Astronomical Society of London.
post script: "Women of Science: the Harvard Computers" is messed up, by Windows Movie Maker, in processing it down from project to movie. The sound track pops, gaps and even REPEATS in 2 places: a simple, Kevin Macleod tune: butchered. Gets snarled when I use any form of captioning and, since it's a silent movie, captions are necessary. I'm so discouraged: why try to make more, if they're going to look so cheap, after so much hard work? Why bother/
Harvard Computers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
'Pickering's Harem' standing in front of Building C at the Harvard College Observatory, 13 May 1913.
Edward Charles Pickering (director of the Harvard Observatory from 1877 to 1919) decided to hire women as skilled workers to process astronomical data. Among these women were Williamina Fleming, Annie Jump Cannon, Henrietta Swan Leavitt and Antonia Maury. This staff came to be known as "Pickering's Harem" or, more respectfully, as the Harvard Computers. This was an example of what has been identified as the "harem effect" in the history and sociology of science.

It seems that several factors contributed to Pickering's decision to hire women instead of men. Among them was the fact that men were paid much more than women, so he could employ more staff with the same budget.This was relevant in a time when the amount of astronomical data was surpassing the capacity of the Observatories to process it.

Williamina Fleming

Fleming was born in Dundee, Scotland, to Robert Stevens and Mary Walker Stevens. She attended public schools in Dundee, and at the age of 14, she became a pupil-teacher. She married James Orr Fleming, and they moved to the U.S. and settled in Boston, Massachusetts, when she was 21. While she was pregnant with her son, Edward, her husband abandoned her, and she had to find work to support herself and Edward.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

"Christian" politician hates Queer marriage

You are reading
Share |

So, it should not be legal for infertile, heterosexual couples to marry, since they can't produce progeny?
And same-sex family units, such as penguins who adopt and raise orphaned eggs, do not constitute naturally-occurring same-sex, breeding families?

And invitro fertilization, surrogacy, adoption and foster parenting do not qualify as "parenting," (by your narrow-minded and bigoted "definition," which is not found in any dictionary) and, therefore, should not be considered either natural nor a justification for marriage?
Greeks didn't believe women were human; we were chattel property, owned and controlled so we would produce heirs. Marriage was a way, and still is, to control property and inheritance, therefore, marriage was merely a legal contract to control wealth. Greeks had no access to turkey basters, invitro fertilization, etc. Hence, women were owned as baby factories. Ah, the good, old days!

Your wholly babble was written by semi-literate, Bronze Age goat herders. It is completely fabricated, unscientific, superstitious and contradictory. It is no basis for modern, social contracts. It is a very weak citation for any argument regarding contemporary, social contracts.
US law is not based on the wholly babble, but on contemporary social contracts. Now that we, in the LGBTQA community, REFUSE your closets, mental hospitals, dungeons, prisons and ignorance (which takes an incredible amount of courage, at considerable personal risk, by the way, you smug "Christian"), we are telling you: We have civil rights; we demand them. We're not asking you; we're telling you. We are full partners in culture, and always have been. We demand the same rights and responsibilities as the rest of the population. "Majority" does not equal "right." We may be a smaller population, but we are equal to you. And we will not stop demanding until we are fully enfranchised in our culture.

Many cultures that you are either choosing to ignore or of which you are ignorant in your white, Western, male, heterosexual privilege included various forms of family bonding, and made room for transsexualism, transgenderism, pansexuality, Gays, Lesbians and other forms of bonding not based on heterosexual monogamy. Just because YOU don't know something exists doesn't make it unreal. And these relationships last, to this day, despite imperialistic attempts to wipe out indigenous cultures, traditions and bonds globally.
Your religion is of no interest to us. We are not imposing on YOUR rights. Go ahead.
But, when you impose your superstitions, faulty logic, prejudices and ignorance on US, we will resist, demand our rights and challenge your assumptions that EVERYBODY on the planet is required to live by your standards.
Tell you what, mister: we've been marrying, raising children, caring for elders and bonding for life for tens of thousands of year, with or without your knowledge, support or consent. And we will continue to do so. The only difference now is: We refuse to LIE about who we are and who we love, any more.

If you want us back in closets, fine, we'll go. But we're polite, so after you.


Nature already decided who qualifies for marriage


Bill Sharer
Here is my response to Jake Mayfield’s op-ed, “Allowing gay people to marry is the right thing to do.”
New Mexico law does not address homosexual marriage at all. Until recently no one even contemplated such a dramatic change in the thousands of years of traditional interpretation of marriage.
Although I am a Christian I do not need to use the Bible or any other religious book to see the fallacy of homosexual marriage. I do, however, acknowledge the great truths and wisdom of the Bible, including the commandment to “love thy neighbor” taught in the New Testament.
My position on homosexual marriage is clear; nature already decided who qualifies for marriage. A man and a woman can (although they may choose not to) have children. A man can love many things, he can be committed to those things, he can even have sex with them, but he can only have children with a woman; therefore, he can only marry a woman. Commitment and love are not sufficient reasons to alter the definition of marriage.

No benefit to society by calling it ‘marriage’

Relationships that qualify for marriage are based on the universe of humanity, not specific individuals. Humanity has accepted this law of nature for thousands of years. Even people who never heard of the Bible have accepted that marriage is between a man and a woman. The bonding that takes place in the relationship between a man and a woman, which most often results in children, is a natural and good thing since it encourages couples to stay together to rear their children and creates the most fundamental unit of all societies: the traditional family.

If we look at history we can see that the ancient Greeks clearly accepted homosexual behavior. It was an open part of their society, but even they did not have homosexual marriages. It was then, and is now, clear that such marriages would do nothing to benefit Greek society as a whole, nor would it serve to perpetuate their society or culture. Societies have long regulated who can and cannot marry in the interest of the health of society; for example, we have laws against incest.
I believe that all of us must “love thy neighbor;” however, this does not mean that we must accept and encourage any and all behavior. Rejection of behavior is not hatred of the individual. Hatred or bigotry is not the basis for my objection to homosexual marriage. I have never advocated mistreating anyone.
The advocates for homosexual marriage seem to be interested in healthcare benefits, inheritance, property rights, etc. All of these concerns can be addressed today through proper estate planning and beneficiary designation. I see no benefit to society by calling these issues “marriage.”

Far more than a mere legal contract

Marriage is a natural law. The state Legislature can legally change the definition of gravity, but that does not change the reality of gravity. The same is true of marriage.
The only reason the state has any business in marriage is because of children. Marriage is the first and best child welfare system. Keeping moms and dads together protects the unrelated taxpayers from being burdened with having to pay for dadless children.
Marriage is far more than a mere legal contract endorsed by the state.
Sharer, a Republican, is the state senator representing the Farmington-area District 1.

Applying the term "homosexual" to animals

The term homosexual was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1868 to describe same-sex sexual attraction and sexual behavior in humans.[14] Its use in animal studies has been controversial for two main reasons: animal sexuality and motivating factors have been and remain poorly understood, and the term has strong cultural implications in western society that are irrelevant for species other than humans.[15] Thus homosexual behavior has been given a number of terms over the years. When describing animals, the term "homosexual" is preferred over "gay", "lesbian" and other terms currently in use, as these are seen as even more bound to human homosexuality.[16]
Animal preference and motivation is always inferred from behavior. In wild animals, researchers will as a rule not be able to map the entire life of an individual, and must infer from frequency of single observations of behavior. The correct usage of the term homosexual is that an animal exhibits homosexual behavior or even same-sex sexual behavior; however, this article conforms to the usage by modern research[16][17][18][19][20] applying the term homosexuality to all sexual behavior (copulation, genital stimulation, mating games and sexual display behavior) between animals of the same sex. In most instances, it is presumed that the homosexual behavior is but part of the animal's overall sexual behavioral repertoire, making the animal "bisexual" rather than "homosexual" as the terms are commonly understood in humans,[19] but cases of homosexual preference and exclusive homosexual pairs are known.[21]

POST SCRIPT: New Mexico Politics is refusing to publish my comments for the following reason:

Hey Rogi,

I can't publish your comment as is because I don't allow name calling, but if you make a few changes and resubmit it, I'll be happy to publish it. Here's the comment, with my suggestions:
  (by your narrow-minded and bigoted "definition," (take out "bigoted) 
  was written by semi-literate, Bronze Age goat herders. It (take this part that's highlighted out) i
  you smug (take out smug) "Christian"),

That's it. If you resubmit with those three changes, I'll be happy to publish it. Thanks for responding to him.

Heath Haussamen
Editor and publisher,

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Cat-Women of the Moon: Sonny Tufts, Victor Jory, Marie Windsor (1953 Sci...

Uploaded by on Dec 13, 2011 DVD:

Cat-Women of the Moon is a 1953 Science fiction 3-D film directed by Arthur Hilton. It stars Sonny Tufts, Victor Jory and Marie Windsor. The musical score was composed by Elmer Bernstein.

This is one of several low-budget films from the 1950s-1960s that share the same premise of a typically all-male expedition to a remote and isolated location where the males discover a race of women without men.

An expedition to the moon encounters a race of "Cat-Women", the last eight survivors of a 2-million-year-old civilization, deep within a cave where they have managed to maintain the remnants of a breathable atmosphere that once covered the moon. The remaining air will soon be gone and they must escape if they are to survive. They plan to steal the expedition's spaceship and return to Earth.

Through the use of their telepathic ability the Cat-Women have been subliminally controlling Helen Salinger (Marie Windsor) so she can win the navigator slot on the expedition and lead the crew to their location. Once Helen and the male members of the crew arrive on the moon the Cat-Women take complete control of her mind. They are unable to control the men's minds, but they work around this obstacle with Helen's help and the use of their superior abilities and feminine wiles. "Show us their weak points," one says to Helen. "We'll take care of the rest."

Along with telepathy, the Cat-Women have the ability to transport themselves unseen from place to place within the cave. They use this ability to steal the crew's spacesuits from the mouth of the cave, where they were left.

Using Helen to smooth things over after an earlier failed attack on the crew, the Cat-Women approach the men openly. Food and drink are brought out and a party ensues. Kip (Victor Jory) is suspicious after discovering the spacesuits are missing and confronts the Cat-Women's leader Alpha (Carol Brewster), who promises to return the suits in the morning. Kip sits alone, unable to intervene while the Cat-Women exploit the "weak points" of expedition commander Laird (Sonny Tufts) and the other men.

Soon the Cat-Women have learned how to operate the spaceship and are well on their way to success. But Lambda (Susan Morrow) falls in love with crew member Doug (William Phipps) and tells him of the plot. Carrying three spacesuits, Alpha, Beta and Helen make a break for the ship. Lambda teleports ahead to delay them and is killed by Beta (Suzanne Alexander). Kip catches up and fires several shots; Alpha and Beta are killed; Helen is uninjured. The expedition escapes and begins their return to Earth.

Cast Sonny Tufts as Laird Grainger Victor Jory as Kip Reissner Marie Windsor as Helen Salinger William Phipps as Doug Smith Douglas Fowley as Walt Walters Carol Brewster as Alpha Suzanne Alexander as Beta Susan Morrow as Lambda Bette Arlen as Cat-Woman Roxann Delman as Cat-Woman Ellye Marshall as Cat-Woman Judy Walsh as Cat-Woman

You are reading

Monday, December 12, 2011

Monika Bulaj: The hidden light of Afghanistan

Uploaded by on Dec 12, 2011 Photographer Monika Bulaj shares powerful, intimate images of Afghanistan -- of home life, of ritual, of men and women. Behind the headlines, what does the world truly know about this place?

You are reading

Sunday, December 11, 2011

TEDxWomen -- Google Science Fair Winners Shree Bose, Naomi Shah, and La...

Ever feel discouraged or concerned that, just maybe, the world is going to hell in a handbasket and nobody can find the brakes? Yeah, I give in to that impulse, too, sometimes. It's one of the main reasons I'm so devoted to the interwebs as a source of information and inspiration. How else would I ever have learned of these brilliant, young women?

And it makes me so poignantly aware of how much work we have yet to do, how much latent potential in our species, particularly in young women, is squandered over foolishness, prejudice and superstition. Seeing these women reminds me how important true human liberation is.

What we can do, when our feet are unbound!
You are reading

Really Really STRONG (Really)

Uploaded by on Dec 11, 2011

America, if you openly elect people like this, then you probably deserve everything that's coming to you. I can't believe there's still people like this shameless bigot...proud, even.
This is a response to this video:
Music by Kevin MacLeod:

In America, where you can't be elected president without being an open Christian, why, I'm not ashamed to tell you that I just so happen to be a Christian.

During these tough economic times, when you may have lost your job or your house, I, Rick Perry, know what truly matters to you: the icky icky gay people. At this very moment, some red-blooded, vagina-lovin' American soldier might be overseas with a sand nig... uh, terrorist in the sights of his assault rifle, only to have Poop Chute Pete sneak up the flank and take the shot. That shoulda been Vagina Vince's kill - not Poop Shoot Pete's. Because when it comes to killin' towel-hea...terrorists, where you stick your giggle stick matters....It matters. Elect me president and I will fight for the Vagina Bill. Every adult male who can provide notarized evidence that he has come into contact with a vagina, will receive a free license to carry a firearm.

As president, I promise to end the war, the quagmire that America has been stuck in for years. That's right, I'm talkin' about the war on Christmas. Last year at my nephew's school, there were 54 children participatin' in the Christmas play. This year, there's only fifty two. Fifty two. Don't think we don't see what you're doin', Obama. I mean, were not even allowed to force kids to pray anymore. As president, I will put an end to Obama's sausage-fest jihad on God.

Bigotry and bullying made our country strong, and it can make her strong again.

I am Rick Perry, and I am a dinosaur.

A big dinosaur, like a t-rex...not one of them little gay velociraptors.

You are reading

NOM Asserts That LGBT Parents Molest Their Children

You are reading
Share |

 we have to find ways to expose them as the laughing stocks they are, disempower them, make them irrelevant, using their own language, attitudes, hypocrisies, etc. If we argue them as though they're equals, we give them too much credit. They are as foolish as any corrupt, ugly thing out there. We need to treat them as the criminals they are. That will knock them down to their proper size, which is miniscule.

NOM Asserts That LGBT Parents Molest Their Children


The National Organization for Marriage is noted for their stance against gay marriage. They have even convinced at least three of the Republican Presidential candidates to sign a pledge to form a commission to investigate the LGBT community. NOM is now claiming that gay parents molest and abuse their own children.
In response to the viral video posted on youtube and featured by, “Two Lesbians Raised a Baby and This Is What They Got…,” NOM promoted a piece from the “Bad Catholic” blog by Marc Barnes on their own blog on December 8th. In the piece, Barnes calls the video “false advertising” and tries to convince the reader, using false claims, that the LGBT community is bad because gay couples don’t last long, gays are only pretending that they want to get married, and that gays have violent relationships. But Barnes didn’t stop there. He went so far as to claim that gays are unfit to be parents because they molest their own children at a higher rate than straight couples.

To make his case, Barnes cites the discredited work of Peter Cameron, a psychologist who has been rejected by the American Psychological Association and many others. Here’s the snippet that Barnes quotes from a work of Cameron.
“Similarly, the children of homosexual parents are much more likely to be sexually abused. The journal Adolescence reports that a “disproportionate percentage—29 percent—of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent…. Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50″ (P. Cameron and K. Cameron, “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 31 (1996): 772.).”

This claim has been pushed on multiple occasions over the years and has been proven false every single time. There is no evidence that proves that homosexual couples molest their own children at a higher rate than straight couples. To claim otherwise is morally and factually impotent. NOM is pushing this claim in an attempt to fool others into hating the LGBT community as much as they do. Gay couples have proven time and time again that they make good parents and provide good homes to children. Members of NOM on the other hand, have only proven that they teach hate to children, which is equal to abuse. If kids are to be taken from or denied a home with certain people, let us start with the NOM members who teach their children to hate others and advocate violence against other human beings.

Saturday, December 10, 2011

I Diagnose Disney Princesses with Psychological Disorders

Uploaded by on Dec 10, 2011

Disney princesses are terrible role models for young girls to aspire to be like. I explain how two of the princesses could be diagnosed with regards to serious mental disorders.

Follow me on Twitter! @FearBlandness

You are reading

FANNY "Legendary Ladies of Rock & Roll"

The audio on this sucks and the narrator is a jerk, but Fanny is important. Surf around and find their songs.

Uploaded by on Jul 19, 2008

1970's All Girl Band FANNY "Legendary Ladies of Rock and Roll" Hosted by John Sebastian. Includes: "Special Care" & "Blind Alley" From 1971. FANNY: June Millington - Guitar, Jean Millington - Bass, Nickey Barclay - Piano, Alice DeBuhr - Drums.





Standard YouTube License

You are reading

alive! - heaven is in your mind

Oh, this is a GOOD memory! Alive!

Uploaded by on Dec 31, 2010

alive! -call it jazz-heaven is in your mind





Standard YouTube License

You are reading

Linda Tillery - Heaven Is In Your Mind

Listening to Tillery's lyrics again, I wonder: is she atheist?

Uploaded by on Aug 20, 2008

Deep funky jazz Song From a queen





Standard YouTube License

You are reading

"Freedom Time" by Linda Tillery

This is only one of my favorite songs of all time 

Linda Tillery on Olivia Records archival materials

Biography: Linda Tillery is an American singer and percussionist from San Francisco. Tillery first came to prominence as the lead singer in San Francisco group The Loading Zone in 1968-69. After that group split in 1970 she recorded her debut album for CBS Records, and worked as a studio musician through much of the 1970s, playing drums on albums by Santana, Mary Watkins, and Teresa Trull. She became a producer and staff artist at Olivia Records late in the decade, and released a second full-length on the label in 1978. Her association with Olivia led her into the genre of women's music; she has collaborated with June Millington, Deirdre McCalla, Barbara Higbie, Holly Near, and Margie Adam, as well as with pop musicians like Kenny Loggins, Huey Lewis, and Bobby McFerrin. In the 1990s she began exploring African music, forming the group Cultural Heritage Choir. She also plays with her own band Skin Tight, a jazz/blues outfit.

Uploaded by on Jun 18, 2008




Standard YouTube License

You are reading

Nina Simone - I wish I knew how it would feel to be free

A song for all of us!

Uploaded by on May 31, 2009

"I wish I knew how it would feel to be free" as sung by Nina Simone

(Written by Billy Taylor & Dick Dallas. Originally recorded by Nina Simone in 1967 on her Silk and Soul album.)





Standard YouTube License

You are reading

Wednesday, December 07, 2011

Overton bigotry

International Women's Day - Bread & Roses remake by Queen Cee

Uploaded by on Mar 11, 2010

Canadian Soul/R&B recording artist Queen Cee's remake of the historical poem and song, Bread and Roses, dedicated to women all around the world.

Queen Cee's empowering women initiative organization, When Sistahs Get Together

Queen Cee's positive self-esteem initiative for girls, Be-You-tiful Girls Club



Positive Enlightenment Always Creates Elevation!

You are reading