Monday, February 25, 2008

Newsflash: PETA confirm they're anti-fur, anti-women

Actually, it's no news that PETA has frequently resorted to objectifying women as a medium to get its message across.

To my eyes, this blunt and often quite gory objectification of the female body, and the distasteful sexualization of violence against women could already be characterized as pornography.

But now they've officially crossed the line between the radical feminist interpretation of what constitutes pornography, and that of the mainstream public.

As a matter of fact, PETA has teamed up with Suicide Girls, a so-called "alternative" pornography website for its new campaign against fur. Seemingly nubile, skinny pornography models strike falsely coy poses, and are tagged with the slogan "I'd rather go naked than wear fur."

Please do complain to PETA if you feel shocked by their exploiting women to promote their ideas. (And prepare yourself to get a patronizing, "you should know that there's nothing shameful about the female body, you should learn to love yourself", touchy-feely kinda crap of an answer.)


Just a few quick facts about Suicide Girls (no, I won't link to their website).
  • Although they flatter themselves for allegedly featuring "alternative porn" and models, they mainly feature very young, skinny, conventionally beautiful, able, hairless, White women (though apparently, some of the models are "alternative" to the extent that they've got tattoos, piercings or still a little pubic hair left);
  • They objectify women for money;
  • Suicide Girls is - no shit - run by men;
  • The company's managers have been accused of exploiting their female employees - yes, the very same people who are being objectified in such a progressive way;
  • And please, what's with the name? Since when is suicide considered as sexy? Since when one's self-destruction gets people off? WTF.


Some Conservative wingnuts at the House of Commons want to restrict our right to choose whether and when to have children through the back door.

Bill C-484, which will be debated at the House of Commons this Friday, February 29th, aims at amending the Criminal Code so as to criminalize as murder the fact of causing the death of a foetus, notwithstanding its stage of development, upon hurting or killing pregnant woman.

These amendments - also known as "The Unborn Victims of Crime Act" - have been presented under the guise of "preventing violence against pregnant women" or even "protecting a woman's *cough* choice to bring her pregnancy to term."

The Bill would even characterize the foetus, no matter its stage of development, as a full-fledged person, which is the first step towards recriminalizing abortion.

So let's say no to this hypocrisy. Contact your MP. Spread the word among your friends, family and coworkers.

This Bill must not be enacted into law.


For more information about the issues regarding Bill C-484, and recent attacks on our freedom of choice, visit the folks at Birth Pangs.


If you own a blog, please take part in the One Person, One Body, One Count to oppose Bill C-484, hosted at Rose's Place.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Yet another rant on (or constructive criticism of) pornography...

I've already said before that, at a purely personal level, I don't get it. I don't understand what people like about porn. I don't understand what people find arousing about it.

First, it's just so artificial. It's fake because it probably depicts people who are only doing it for money, not primarily because they enjoy it, or because it's so graifying. It's fake because it's also likely to depict - or evidence - non-consensual sexual activity.

The pleasure is fake, the desire is fake, the love (if any) is fake.

How can a person enjoy looking at images of fake pleasure? How can a person get off on people faking, on people pretending to find sex pleasurable?

The inevitable answer to this question seems to be: the people who get off at this type of stuff :
  1. do not understand what pleasure is, and what it looks like in reality, OR
  2. make themselves believe that the fake images are in fact real; OR
  3. obviously don't care about other people's pleasure but their own when it comes to sex...

In any case, if that's how you think, there's something seriously wrong with you. Either because you've got a fucked up notion of what constitutes someone who genuinely willing to participate in sexual activity, or because you don't care about other people's enthusiasm, willingness or consent.

Which, of course, makes you a sicko and a wannabe rapist.

Most people accept the argument that, in child pornography, the minor participants are not *exactly* enjoying themselves, and that people who get off at this are would-be criminals who are sick enough to make themselves believe that this is for real.

Why don't people then also accept that the same is true with respect to "adult" pornography, and that the people who use it and get off on it are equally sick?


I've just realized that I've been writing this blog for a year. Cheers to me.

I was going to write about depressing matters.

(E.g. Michel Veillette who pleaded not guilty today to charges of stabbing his wife to death and of killing his four children by setting his house on fire, on account that he had a fight with his wife and that he was provoked. *vomits*)

However, I can't commit myself to write anything remotely thoughful, so here's some good old abstinence humour.


(This skit reminds me of the brilliant folks at Iron Hymen and their sister site, Sex is for Fags.)

Monday, February 4, 2008

On painful periods and sucking it up...

I just came across an interesting post at The Curvature, on the pros and cons (but especially the pros) of the suppression of menstruation through the continuous use of birth control.

It also addresses the so-called debate about the "end" of menstruation and the myth that our monthly bleeding is a grand, spiritual, reassuring experience of female-bonding - or some hippie bullshit like that.

But what struck me the most was this comment to that post, which I thought accurately summed up the issues that most women encounter when it comes to their periods.

Before I went on continuous BCPs sometime around the late 90’s or early 00’s, my periods were consistantly so shitty that I had to take major painkillers and whatnot. Of course, in my case, it was because I have Endometriosis, and Superbad Periods are a symptom/result.

When I first started getting my period, I thought it was a tremendous pain in the ass (or uterus, as the case may be) and mentioned this to my mother. “This is annoying. At what point do you get used to this?” I asked. “I’ll let you know,” she said. “I never have.”

Frankly, the kumbaya/Have A Happy Period/women in tampax commercials prancing around in white pants approach to menstruation has always felt quite alienating to me, rather than being a source of bonding and camraderie, because it just made me feel like my superbad periods were all the more freakish.

I certainly wouldn’t want to deny a period to anyone who wants one, but at the same time, I think being a woman is about more than just whether or not you get a period every month and/or think it’s fun.

Menstruation is not exactly a spotted owl. It’s not like it’s being endangered by continuous birth control pills and must therefore be protected.

Another thing I appreciated about this comment is that it mentions endometriosis. Although it is a chronic condition that plagues approximately one woman out of ten and can ultimately cause infertility, endometriosis is rarely acknowledged or even spoken of.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that girls and women are conditioned to readily accept the idea that periods are supposed to be extremely painful and uncomfortable, or that sex is not that enjoyable after all, or simply that we really have nothing to complain of.

But why, in those modern times of wondrous medical advances, should women suffer debilitating symptoms every month? Why should women accept that their reproductive system should disturb their activities and dictate their schedule?

In my humble opinion, we should not. As a matter of fact, we women should, as a class of human beings, vindicate our right to not to be treated as cattle when it comes to our health.

Humour, bona fide work of art, or patriarchal provocation? You decide!

It has recently come to my knowledge that a major law firm in a major French speaking city of some province in Eastern Canada has acquired, as many major law firms frequently do, a new work of art to ornate its corridors.

The sculpture in question portrays a woman wearing a pink suit. Above the woman is a transparent glass plaque, through which one of the woman's hands pierces.

Charming. Great way to cheer up the female lawyers who work their asses off all day and manage a husband and a few kids in addition, and still can't make partner.

Although it's supposed to be innovative and tongue-in-cheek, from what I know, the reaction to this purchase was kinda cool - among female lawyers, that is.

Any thoughts?