Sally Kern and Divorce

For those who haven't heard, Oklahoma's very own Sally Kern, the one who said that homosexuality was a bigger threat to the nation than terrorism (I'd still like to see the statistics she was drawing from to reach that conclusion), has introduced a new bill attacking divorce. Groups across the state (and nation) simultaneously rolled their eyes and cried out, "Ban divorce! Shut up, Sally!"

But let me set the record straight. Here are the facts:

1. Sally Kern is NOT attempting to ban divorce. Restrict it, yes, but not ban it. Anyone who tells you that she's making divorce illegal doesn't know what they're talking about. Also, the restrictions are only on divorce filed on grounds of incompatibility. Divorce in the cases of extreme cruelty, drunkenness, gross neglect of duty, etc. is still up for grabs. So is divorce in the case of adultery, abandonment, impotency, fraudulence, imprisonment, and insanity.

2. For divorce on grounds of incompatibility, Kern gives three restrictions: (1) if there are minor children from the marriage, (2) the couple has been married for 10 years or more, and (3) one party files a written objection.

Here is where I'm going to draw the line between the facts and my opinion, because I do have to comment somewhere.

Ignoring the blatant intrusion into people's lives (other than to quickly comment upon it as I just did), Kern seems to miss several points here. Minor children should not grow up in a home where parents do not get along. While divorce can have severe impacts upon a child, growing up in a home with two people constantly fighting is worse. Imagine what the child goes through when his/her parents go through a bad divorce. Now put that child in that home until he/she is 18. Which is worse? Rates of depression and suicide go up for children when their parents divorce - BUT they also shoot up when in a home that is not comfortable.

Couples who have been together for ten years or more are not more likely than couples married less than ten years to "just get through it," according to anything that I have seen. So why place a restriction on that? My grandparents filed for divorce long after their kids had grown up and moved out (well after ten years of marriage) because they realized that they didn't love each other anymore and wanted the chance to live separate lives. I don't understand why this is wrong.

One party filing a written objection is also not grounds to remain in a marriage. To be married in Oklahoma (and the United States), both parties must be in agreement to do so. One person doesn't just get to say, "Oh, make this person marry me," and it happens. So why should it happen that way in divorce? A (major) problem that has been brought up with this particular part of the proposal is that it would allow an abuser to keep an abusee in a relationship against their will. While divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty is still open, this is a valid point in psychological abuse. "Extreme cruelty" is typically applied to sexual or physical abuse - not psychological abuse, which is just as damaging. What shames me is that Sally Kern is proposing getting rid of an out that women have to get out of psychological abusive situations at the same time that countries like France are attempting to make it easier to do so.

As someone I greatly respect said, "It should be harder to get married than to get divorced." The Catholic Church requires that couples receive marriage preparation before marriage can happen - and this is a great idea. One of the largest reasons for the increasing divorce rate is that people rush into marriage before they are ready and then discover that, "Oh, hey, we're incompatible." Instead of trying to make it more difficult to get a divorce, why not strongly encourage people to go through more preparation before marriage?

Valentine's Day and Assumptions

With Valentine’s Day fast approaching, there’s been an increase in a lot of things: the sale of “romantic” items like flowers and chocolate, the complaints that the day is just a corporate scam, the people who insist on calling it “Single’s Awareness Day,” and, of course, the number of articles, blogs, and general talk about what every guy should do for his girl February 14^th.

I’m going to skip all that.  You’ve heard it before, and nothing I say would be new, or frankly, very interesting.

What I am going to talk about is something else I’ve seen an increase in lately, but something that nonetheless is popular throughout the year as well.  “A Must-Read: 101 Things Guys NEED to Know About Girls.”  You know, the ones where people assume that all girls are the same and like the same things, not to mention that the only relationships worth having are those between males and females.  They’re usually the ones with horrible grammar and spelling.  I’m sure you’ve heard some of the stuff on the list: 11. Girls love it when you play with their hair, 21. Girls love babies, 82. A girl gets annoyed by a guy who pushes himself too hard to get her.

First of all, let me say that these are ridiculous.  It is a list of things that the person who wrote it likes or does or wants, not a list of things that every single girl likes or does or wants.

#12: The girl who gives a quick “yes” could either be too impulsive.  Yes, that is the complete statement.  She could either be impulsive… or what?  I’m going to fill in the blank in two ways.  What I think the author was going for: “or easy.”  What I think the answer is: “she likes you a lot.”  Other options include: “there is a creepy guy following her and she wants him to think she has a boyfriend so he’ll stop,” “she thought you were offering to give her a bunch of money.”

#14: It’s really hard to trace why girls are unpredictable.  Uh, isn’t that the point of unpredictability?  That aside, I know many girls who are extremely predictable, myself included.

#23: Girls don’t take a full meal, especially when they are on a diet.  Obviously this person has never seen me and my friends together.

#29: Girls aren’t necessarily after an extremely tall guy, just someone taller than her.  I have many, many friends who have dated guys who are shorter than them.  I know women who have married men shorter than they are.  The “guy has to be taller” thing is stupid, and most girls know it.  If you’re the right guy, then it doesn’t matter how tall you are.

#31: Girls who court guys are desperate.  Or they just really like the guy and don’t give a damn about traditional gender roles in society.

#47: Girls cry easily.  Not true at all.  I rarely cry, and when I do, it’s not always because something is horribly wrong.  Turning to my female friends, most of them do not cry often, because they think it’s a sign of weakness and they don’t want to show that.  Girls that cry easily are just as common as girls who never cry.

#60: Girls are generally better at subjects like languages and social sciences than math and general sciences.  At least this one said “generally.”  But, generalizations are not always true.  That’s like saying, “Generally, guys are good at math and science.”  Tell that to the boys in my English classes.

#63: Girls have legions of insecurities.  As do men.

#77: Psychologists proved that a girl, when molested at a young age, loses her self esteem and develops a negative attitude toward people.  Maybe they proved that “a” girl did that, but everyone reacts to molestation and trauma differently.  Many victims – of both sexes – actually become more outgoing as a shield.  Low self-esteem does correlate with abuse, but again, there are typical cases and non-typical ones.  Also, low self-esteem and a negative attitude does not mean molestation.

#91: A girl can make you wait for years courting her, but eventually give you a “no” in the long run.  Any girl who does this is a bitch and is not representative of the general female population.

#97: High-heels increase a girls’ poise on the catwalk.  This person needs to watch some of my friends try to walk in heels.

#100: Unless a girl enters nursing, biology, or medical courses or professions, she will always have that irk from seeing blood and will always repel to see, smell, or hear disgusting stuff.  I think this may be the worst one.  I am a psychology, English, and political science major, and I can stand the sight of blood more than many of my friends who are on the track into the medical field.  I like war movies, which have a lot of gore. 

I could go on and on, but these are my “favorites.”  Basically what I’m saying is that these lists are stupid.  Anyone who is looking for a date needs to know this: every person is different.  Go with what feels right to you, and don’t change because some stupid list tells you that you need to be more outgoing or romantic.  There are people who think shyness is adorable, and there are people who hate romance.  Go find one of them instead.

Sex Toys Take a Horrible Turn

 

That picture is of a real man with a not-so-real woman (you can breathe easier now).  His name: Douglas Hines.  Hers: Roxxxy.  Triple X, as in sex - because she is, in fact, the newest sex item on the shelf (for a cool $7,000).  Yes, she's a robot, but no worries!  Her skin won't be icy cold and metallic - she's made from silicone and has a motor that pumps warm air through her so she'll always be warm to the touch.

As Hines himself puts it, "She doesn't vacuum or cook, but she does almost everything else."  In fact, she has her own personality - five of them in fact, which you can switch out to suit your preference.  So, after (or before) you - ahem - use her in the way intended, you can have a conversation with her about anything.  Just think!  She could seduce you with the laws of thermodynamics and then proceed to tell you all about weather patterns around the world.  Mmmm.  Just what every guy wants.  She even "shudders" to simulate orgasm.  I want you to imagine that - robot shudders are supposed to look like orgasm.  All I can picture is Mr. Roboto attempting to breakdance.

Hines describes his customer base as shy, awkward, or older men who "have trouble meeting girls."  Alright, so let's give them a doll who looks like a woman (kind of), always listens to your stories and will actually talk to you about your interests (I'm assuming she never argues or has emotional problems of any kind), and is down for sex at any time.  Because that will give you a great idea of what a woman is really like and really boost your ability to talk to them.  I'm imagining the first fight will go something like this:  "Well, why don't you just go screw Roxxxy then?"  "At least she knows when to shut up and spread her legs."

In fact, Hines has claimed that a sex therapist has contacted him for a Roxxxy doll.  Now, I could actually see how this would help for some cases; men who have sexual trauma usually respond better when introduced to sex a little bit at a time, rather than being forced to jump in.  But it's also my understanding that sex therapists also deal with infidelity and sex problems between couples, which are cases where it seems inappropriate, to say the least, to bring in an outside resource.  I'm going to assume that the therapist won't use it in these cases.  I'm also going to assume that since Hines has claimed that the therapist only bought one (for the patients, I am also assuming), it's going to be really awkward for those people who already have problems with sex to get down with Roxxxy, with all the thoughts of, you know, other patients getting down too.

So, Roxxxy: thoughts? reactions?  therapeutic advice (I know I need some after seeing that face)?

Now the Dictionary Is an Enemy Too?

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/01/whats_next_banning_the_dictionary_oh_wait.php

Read the article at the link above.  It's short, I promise.

I learned about sex in a book that my mother bought me.  I liked to read, so she thought I would understand it best from that, and she made sure that I knew that if I had any questions, I could ask.  (I didn't.)  While the book was great for explaining things, I learned a lot more about sex and my body in middle school and high school from my friends than I did from that book, which was written as a basic introduction: this is what traditional "sex" is, this is how women get pregnant, etc.

Unfortunately, because I heard things from my peers, much of the information I had was incorrect - and there was a lot more that I never learned about until late high school and even up until recently.  The book didn't explain "untraditional" means of sex: anal sex, oral sex, sex between same genders, etc.  That I learned from my friends.

My parents raised my very well.  They always treated me maturely and let me read things far above my age range because I was at a higher level - and they made sure that I understood the world.  But this is one subject that my parents didn't teach me well, and I think that's unfortunate.  I felt stupid when my friends talked about stuff that I'd never heard of before, and I didn't want to ask and betray my ignorance, so I usually pretended I knew what was up.  I know that my parents never meant for this to happen, they just never thought of talking about that with me.  Had they known that I didn't understand these things, I have full confidence that they would have explained them to me - I just never asked.  My parents censored me, yes, but it was not intentional.

But many parents aren't like mine.  They censor their children on purpose.  This is what is truly unfortunate.  In my experience, those children who grow up censored from sex and sexual activities are the ones who are usually the most sexually active in their mid to late teen years.  Once they discover sex, it's intriguing and they want to know more, while children whose parents tell them everything about sex - not just how it's done, but the emotions and feelings (good and bad) - are at least more prepared if they do have sex.  And it is the informed children who usually practice safe sex - because it is the informed children who are told about condoms and birth control and other contraceptives, how they work and how they should be used.

All of this was set up to be able to say this:  censorship sucks, especially when it comes to information regarding sex.  My parents introduced me to the basics, but they also relied on the sex education in the schools - which in Oklahoma, don't do anything other than showing pictures of diseased genitals and warning that abstinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy.  I learned about everything else from my peers and from reading, which is sad to me.  Parents should not let that happen to their child.  Even if you believe in waiting until you are married to have sex, you can still teach your child about sex.  In fact, stressing the emotional impact of the act might make them actually wait.  Keeping them in the dark does no favors, people.

So please, if/when you become a parent and it comes time to tell your child about sex, tell them everything.  Don't just talk about how a woman gets pregnant - talk about how she can prevent that from happening.  Don't let your child learn about other sexual acts from friends at school - tell them what anal, oral, same-gender sex, and masturbation are.  So what if it's embarrassing?  It'll be more embarrassing for your child if they don't know what their friends are talking about, and it'll be more embarrassing for you if your child ends up pregnant or getting some pregnant because they didn't know how to use contraceptives.

State of the Union

As some of you might know, Wednesday, January 27th, the President of the United States gave the annual State of the Union address.  This is a chance for Obama (and all previous presidents) to address Congress and the nation, to inform them of changes he expects to see, to offer encouragement, to get people talking, to address issues, etc.

I both watched the speech and read the transcript, annotating as I went.  I support the President, but I also support questioning everything.  Many of his proposals I support, but some I do not.  I voted for him (proudly), but that does not mean that I will not offer a critique of him.  Likewise, my offering a critique does not mean that I do not support him, it means that I will question everything.  Without further ado, here is my summary/commentary on the State of the Union 2010.  It will probably be long, but I hope you enjoy nonetheless.  At the very least, enjoy it more than you would spending more than an hour actually watching the thing.
_______________________________________________________

The first part of the speech is basically the beginning of every uniting speech.  It talks about the reason for the State of the Union, gives examples of how America is the shit (the whole we've-been-through-a-lot-and-are-still-here stuff).  A bit of reminding everyone of how terrible it was when Obama took office - though interestingly, he does not say Bush once in the entire speech.  This is a fact; I triple checked it myself.  This is, of course, to set up being able to talk about how he knows what's going on and is trying to help.  There are a few quotes on how Wall street is the bad guy and Main Street isn't, and a lot of talking about how the American people don't want to put up with politics as usual.

Then, he moves on to the first topic of the day: the economy.  He mentions that the bank bailouts are unpopular with everyone, but acknowledges their necessity.  To get the money back from the banks, a fee is proposed.  Taxing the companies you gave the money to instead of the people - what a novel idea!  Then Obama talks more about job creation; the jobs that have been created and such.  

"That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts. Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college."

Does anyone have the stats on this?  But, seriously, I want actual stats, not media stuff.  If anyone gives me something from Faux News, I will explode in your face.  Anyway, then Obama says he wants more job creation stuff, which is always good.  So, I put my support behind that.

Mentions of the Recovery Act (stimulus bill).  Things on how it worked, etc.  A note form me here: don't comment on if it didn't work.  We won't be able to know that for a while, so whatever you are reading that says it did or didn't work aren't accurate.  They are just speculation, and many times they are driven by partisanship.  The good news is that the GDP grew substantially last quarter, which is a great sign.  Now, this does not mean the recession is over; it means that it could be declining.  We won't know if the recession is "over" for a while, but this is a sign that it could be ending.  Anyway, back to the speech.

Obama then goes on with stating that he knows people aren't seeing results as fast as they'd like, so there is still frustration.  This is where he explicitly calls for a new jobs bill.  Please, Congress, listen.  Then he proposes taking $30 billion of the money that the banks pay back (he calls them "Wall Street banks," again separating Main and Wall Streets) and giving it to community banks to then give to small businesses.  He also proposes a small business tax credit.  Also, he mentions using some of the new jobs to create things that compete with the world: " There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products."  Please, please, please create high-speed railways.  I would pee myself.  Mild threat to Congress: 

Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same, and I know they will. They will. People are out of work. They're hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.

Mentions of trade agreements that open global markets and strengthen trade relations.  Personally, I hope that we move toward fair trade instead.

Moves to discuss education.  Stuff on importance of education, blahblahblah.  Urges renewal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  I have no problem with this, but renewing something that's been around since 1965 isn't going to cause major changes.  It's been around for 45 years.  It's nice, but we need something new.  Then Obama proposes a tax credit to families for four years of college and an increase in Pell Grants, among other things:

To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years – and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And by the way, it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs because they, too, have a responsibility to help solve this problem.

I love the last line.  I hope you're listening, universities.

Other proposals to the middle class: double the child care tax, giving access to a retirement account to every worker, expanding tax credit for those who start a retirement fund, refinancing to make mortgages more affordable.

Onto health care.  Well, first, mentioning that First Lady Michelle Obama is taking on the problem of childhood obesity.  It's a huge problem, no pun intended, so I applaud her.  Alright, the health care bill.  Obama mentions that the Congressional Budget Office has deemed that the bill will bring down the deficit.  I've seen these stats, so I will confirm that.  He also invites anyone - from either party, though we all know he's talking to Republicans - who has a better idea to come forward.  I enjoyed this part.  Let's be real here, most Americans support health care reform, just not necessarily this one.  People generally understand that this is a needed change.  Yet conservative politicians ignore this and simply oppose anything that comes out without adding anything themselves.  Oppose a public option?  Fine, but come up with something yourself, and don't just be the party of "no."

Then we move back to the economy, this time through government spending.  Obama talks about Bush (though, again, without mentioning him by name) and then goes on to defend his own spending by deeming it necessary to get us out of the recession.  While I mostly agree, I can't help but wonder if every single penny spent went to helping.  Anyway, to get back that money, he proposes a spending freeze, starting in 2011.  "Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected," he adds.  Let's keep that in mind, shall we?  I don't want to hear lies about this in the future, and I am looking at you, Faux News.

He mentions they are looking for ways to cut back, and have already found $20 billion in savings.  Now, I want to know (for the future) what he is cutting.  Surely that'll play into government transparency as well.  He also calls for a bipartisan fiscal commission, like the one proposed (and shot down 53-46 [it needed 60 to pass]) by Senators Judd Gregg (R) and Kent Conrad (D).  I've looked, and I can't find anyone who has given a statement on why they didn't vote for this.  Obama gives an executive order for this to go forward.

Now, a question I had when Obama first said this freeze would start in 2011 was "why not now?".  Here, he answers: because "we can't address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting."  He answers strikes from both sides here, and I'll copy it instead of paraphrasing:

Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree -- which is why this freeze won't take effect until next year when the economy is stronger. That's how budgeting works.  But understand – understand if we don't take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery – all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes. From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument – that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again. 

Then he says what might be the most controversial statement in the speech.  Obama criticizes the recent Supreme Court decision.  "OMG! The president has never done that!" screamed media outlets.  My answer: so? 

Obama is allowed to disagree with people, and he’s allowed to state that disagreement.  I’ve stated my disagreement, why can’t he?  Plus, this is something that needs to be addressed.  The Supreme Court decided that something in a bill that was a bipartisan effort (McCain-Feingold) is unconstitutional.  Obama disagrees.  I’m going to assume that McCain, and one of the authors of the BCRA, does as well.  Now Obama is urging Congress to do what they did before and fix some of these problems – so what?  He is allowed to do that, I support him doing that, and I hope that Congress will fix it as well.  My only concern is that people will cry “unconstitutional” again – even though the Constitution is supposed to apply to citizens (individual people) of the nation, not to corporations.

Back to American frustrations with "politics as usual" in Washington.  Obama urges against that.  As much as I agree, the major problem is that the politicians who are elected today are ideologically more extreme than the politicians of yesterday.  The “old” politicians were centrists; they were willing to compromise and talk.  Those politicians today are extremists who believe what Obama touches on here: “that if you lose, I win.”  As much as I love words, words alone are not going to stop this belief.  Electing centrists, not extremists, is.  Getting people into the government who listen and not just argue will help.  Just asking people who don’t want to listen to do so isn’t.

Security talk.  There's not much there, really just mentioning that they will increase it.  Then we move to Afghanistan.  While Obama mentions the pull-out date of July 2011, he does not give a plan.  I want to hear a plan, damn it.  He also mentions pulling troops out of Iraq by August.  After that, they'll probably be send to Afghanistan (that statement was me, not him).  More mentions of supporting the troops not only overseas, but also when they get home.  I'd like to personally add that this means psychological care also, something that has been forgotten over the past decade.

Nuclear arms talk. One statement that stands out to me is that we need to secure "all vulneralbe nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists."  To me, terrorists aren't the only ones who shouldn't have nuclear arms.  Mentions of consequences to nations (North Korea, Iran)  who violate international agreements when it comes to nuclear weapons.  I wonder what kind of consequences.

Further pushes on prosecution of those who violate civil rights and employment discrimination, as well as violations of equal pay laws.  Here is one sentenc e that has also become the subject of debate: " This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."  In other words, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  Quick mention of immigration laws and securing our borders, again in just a sentence.

Then we go into the feel-good stuff that he leaves us with.

_______________________________________________________

So there you go: the State of the Union.  Debates and comments welcome.