?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
21 July 2008 @ 09:18 pm
Things that I think are dumb  
Let me tell you about some things that I think are very dumb.

- "Books are sacred! Never write in a book, for that is nothing short of blasphemous! I took home ten copies of a book that can be found damn near anywhere, because books are sentient and I just couldn't let them suffer all alone!"

Guess what? You are all stupid or possibly in the seventh grade. A book is not a sacred object, particularly not books that are fucking mass-manufactured and which can be found in any library, in any bookstore, and also on the Internet. (The rules are slightly different for rare and antique books, I admit.) Just because the words are so pretty and deep does not make the pages they were written on anything more than flattened tree pulp.

So please, lonely girl English majors. Loosen the fuck up or I'm going to start writing random obscenities in all my damn library books just to piss you off.

- "Men's bodies aren't pretty! Only women's bodies are! I'm a straight girl, but men are funny-looking and ugly even when I like how their genitals feel inside mine!"

Shut up. Why do people act like this is some sort of fact? Immature straight girls often have what amounts to a weird grudge against men's bodies. Like, "omg, what is that crazy dangly thing?! It's so ugly!" No, honey, it's not. It's no worse than other frankly goofy body parts, like vaginas and breasts and nipples and ears and noses and your little toe (all of which I find incredibly comedic and a little alien). I don't care if you, personally, find men's bodies repulsive (I mean, I happen not to like carrots, but I love carrot cake; we all have our little quirks). But it's certainly not fact that women's bodies are more "aesthetically appealing". That's cultural conditioning, and if you think that's bullshit then let's all look back at the ancient Greeks and all the women they painted/sculpted--oh wait. Oh but they were a bunch of fags, amirite? They reproduced pretty damn well for a society of queers though, I must say.

- Anti-PC whiners.

Bitches, please. There is no danger of us "losing words" to some "politically correct machine." And if we were, guess what? Language change is entirely normal and healthy, so stop thinking about language as something that needs to be preserved in all its prejudiced glory. You can also quit using words like "nigger" and "faggot" as casually as possible because you think you are so hip and ironic and 3dgy. You are not. 99% of the time you are straight and white, so you need to cut that right the fuck out.

- Standards of beauty in general.

Are almost always racist, sexist, heteronormative, ageist, ableist, weightist, misogynist, and gender-normative and so are nothing but bullshit. I may even have missed out on a few -ists there, I don't know. Sometimes I find myself up against this brick wall, wondering things like, "Wait, who decided trannies weren't hot again? What about really geeky, nerdy boys and girls? Why aren't more hot Indian dudes like Sendhil and Kal on Western TV?" What is wrong with this society?

- People who always think they're right.

Sometimes you're wrong. Sometimes you say dumb shit. Sometimes you have stupid, fucked up, nasty opinions. Sometimes you get mad for stupid reasons, sometimes you are annoying, sometimes you just are not a good person. This goes for everyone, including myself (especially myself, lol most self-deprecating). Sometimes you will be wrong. Sometimes there's no clear answer. It's frustrating and it sucks sometimes, but that's being human in a nutshell. And some things you just need to learn to be open-minded about because you will be an ignorant dink if you keep telling people how much you hate rap and country music or how people are only gay, straight, or bi and nothing else.

I think my self-righteous rage-on is done now.
 
 
Current Mood: predatorygetting more pissed
 
 
 
Your Momsilent_hotaru on July 22nd, 2008 01:46 am (UTC)
"- Standards of beauty in general.

Are almost always racist, sexist, heteronormative, ageist, ableist, weightist, misogynist, and gender-normative and so are nothing but bullshit."

<3333333
(Deleted comment)
I'm Ellen "Scrunch" Lyle.: Satchelhortonhearsawho on July 22nd, 2008 02:43 am (UTC)
Ok, aside from writing in books (GAAAH MY HEART!) I agree about 150,000,000%. Mostly my reasoning for not wanting to write in books is more that, as an English-obsessed person, I don't want to be thinking the same thing I was thinking when I read it when I read it again. It's distracting. I also really detest getting other people's thoughts and comments in my used books, or highlighting that I have a seriously horrible time ignoring, but used books are so much cheaper that I suck it up and do my best to erase and/or eradicate. haha This is all coming from fiction, though, and not non-fiction. In non-fiction I don't get all woobly and angry and instead usually just pass right on realizing that my inability to read things that aren't highlighted on pages with highlighting is my own problem.

Although on the other hand, the examples you sighted in your comment make me have a party in my pants. I think I NEED to see this Bible.

Pretty much though I'm addicted to Post Its.

And, Ok, if you stare at ANY part of ANY body long enough it starts to look weird and uncomfortable. I've never understood the men's body's aren't pretty thing because, uh, yes. Yes they are. Quite a bit. As are pretty much lots of bodies of all different sorts, when it comes to it. But, you know. People.
Adam: colorful circle bubblesadamchristopher on July 22nd, 2008 03:21 am (UTC)
that was fun.
does the w in woolworths stand for 'wool science'?saltedpin on July 22nd, 2008 03:26 am (UTC)
I know someone who used to have a Christmas present exchange with her cousin, where they used to give each other books that they read first and added their own (humourous or otherwise) marginalia. I always thought that was a cool gift idea.

Plus, there's a lot of famous people from history whose margin notes I would kill to read, and whose thought processes would be lost if they hadn't made them.

But I guess you're like, allowed to write in a book if you're Thomas Jefferson (or Richard III or whoever)? Or does the SACREDNESS OF BOOKS trump him?
xjestx on July 22nd, 2008 03:45 am (UTC)
Books are sacred!

Given the historical connotations of book-burning, it took me a while before I finally settled on a satisfactory answer to this attitude, i.e. an industrial wood-chipper. Sophie Kinsella 'Shopaholic' books are far more attractive as a pile of sawdust than they ever were as paperbacks.

The other book-snob attitude that really pisses me off comes from customers who bitch about paying taxes on books - as if reading John Grisham novels is some form of superior entertainment. What really irks me about these people is that they always expect me to be sympathetic and act wounded when I point out that a) it's not even full tax, only federal which is about 5% b) taxes is how we pay for public services such as LIBRARIES where millions of titles may be borrowed for FREE! c) if 25 cents on a 5 dollar book is really such a hard burden to bear then maybe stopping at the library might be a good idea.



The protector of italian virginityetiolate on July 22nd, 2008 05:48 am (UTC)
I have to disagree. The female form is more aesthetically appealing, just like many genders in other species have one side that is made to attract and the other to serve another purpose. It isn't always the female gender in all species that does this, but in humans I would have to say it is the female gender that is designed to attract.

Even if you look at the males that are commonly thought of as attractive in our pop culture, you will often find them having feminine features. They don't design boy bands to be very burly, but paint them in softer, more feminine tones whenever they can. Orlando Bloom isn't selling posters of himself based on his highly male features.

As for the Greeks, the "they were fags" thing isn't really that bad a counter, but just a half-assed counter that isn't fully thought out. The Greeks were a male dominated society, with male officials in the government, male leaders, and male heads of household. The manlove wasn't just sexual obviously. And if you look at their depictions of the nude male, you will often find that the most male of body parts, the penis, to be smaller than you'd expect for any heroic depiction. This is partly to symbolize the idealism of the mind over the body, the mind over physical traits, that the ideal man is not based on his male body parts, but his mind. Here you have a beauty worshiping society and they choose to diminish the most male of body features.

Which does get me to things that are seen as attractive in males, which is any symbol of power, be it broad shoulders, muscular tones or virility. So then maybe, you can argue that these features, the feminine or the male, aren't really gender specific. Well, you could maybe argue that, for I am not sure on it, but they seem more common with the gender related to me than they do not.

Also, most importantly, vaginas are great to look at. I do not find breasts or vaginas odd or alien, and I know some males and many females find the vagina a weird, odd thing as well, even alien, but the reality is that most women have barely seen their own vagina due to its placing and the men who see it, are given an odd instruction of what the vagina is before ever seeing one and are faced with something totally different when the real thing appears. A penis is a less complex visual, you can abstract it into many other things and retain its basic visual shape. This is the basis of many sight gags, but a vagina, the clitoris and whole shebang is much more complex visually than a rounded shaft with adjacent spheres. We compare a penis to carrots, to sausages, to bananas, to even popsicle sticks, but the vagina is either abstracted to a simple hole or something like a flower, which more accurately reflects its true self.

Anyways, I hope I was helped more than I pissed you off. =|

R is for Raygun: Hell yeah titskleenexwoman on July 22nd, 2008 06:04 am (UTC)
male bodies are not designed to attract, no. because signs of masculine attractiveness are not pretty. except when they look like girls, then they're pretty.

\o/ circular thinking!

vagina is either abstracted to a simple hole or something like a flower, which more accurately reflects its true self.

i like my vaginas like i like my flowers! covered in bees!
A. Askewanivad on July 22nd, 2008 06:23 am (UTC)
I don't like bees. :(

With regard to the books being sacred thing - apparently this spawned from ancient times when each page of a book had to be painstakingly made from scratch from pulp and then set and left to dry, and then written in by hand where a single mistake meant the whole page needed to be redone. And then the book had to be bound, and that was just one copy. So books were treasured a lot and deemed sacred out of respect for the amount of work that had gone into each.

Whereas now with printing presses and mass production, books are produced so easily and there's not much more reason to hold them as sacred.
R is for Raygun: Wonder stories!kleenexwoman on July 22nd, 2008 06:32 am (UTC)
Also, the written word was regarded as magical by the peasantry, and altering it was either seen as a power grab (by the small educated class) or an attempt at witchcraft/angering the gods.

But now it isn't! And we can write stuff in books without being burned at the stake, except by ridiculously overzealous librarians.
DrWorm: cunt pillsdrworm on July 22nd, 2008 07:16 am (UTC)
:( Ewwwwwwwwwwww insectsexual. >:( Go back to your hive!
DrWorm: butch updrworm on July 22nd, 2008 07:14 am (UTC)
Yeah, uh, these are a lot of the arguments that were irritating me and that I didn't want to get into because they do make me angry and they do frustrate me.

Philosophically, we can argue whether a true aesthetic hierarchy exists in anything beyond our society and culture. There's no concrete answer to this. Yes, many species have one gender or the other outfitted with "attractors." It's usually the males, actually, that use physical aspects to display for females. However, I think we can be pretty certain that human ideas about attractiveness are on a level that transcends that of most of the animal kingdom.

The manlove wasn't just sexual obviously.

I would go so far as to say that human beings almost never have contact that is "just sexual." The relationships pretty much always represent something else within the culture, whether it's love or tutelage or ceremony to become a man and promote the growth of the harvest.

Here you have a beauty worshiping society and they choose to diminish the most male of body features.

But they did not feminize them. You get older males with beards, younger boys, but everyone is a muscular athlete. They deemphasized the genitals, but emphasized the masculine form. We do the same thing. You don't have to see women with their legs open and showing the pink to emphasize and privilege the female form. The Greeks were a male-dominated and largely misogynist society that privileged men and their thoughts, feelings, and bodies. What's interesting is that now we are doing the opposite and privileging the female body as sexual and aesthetically pleasing--but that doesn't eliminate misogyny (because, of course, we also don't privilege women's feelings and ideas).

Maybe you see where this is going and why it's so problematic? Expressing an aesthetic preference for men's bodies tends to be discouraged. Media sexualizes women's bodies and men often remain fully clothed. It's kind of telling that you think of "pretty boys" as an example of male beauty. My first thoughts are of a lot of vintage and gay male nudes and Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs. Not terribly feminine, really. More recently there were quite a few girls drooling over a shirtless and sweaty Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man. Hard to call that feminine. And I've got to say, it seems to be getting better. Maybe straight men are getting more secure and aren't getting as weird over homosexuality, or maybe feminism has come far enough that women can express their sexual fantasies about men as opposed to being expected to like the things that men do. Hell, it may not even stick; cultural ideas about attractiveness also tend to ebb and flow.

So then maybe, you can argue that these features, the feminine or the male, aren't really gender specific. Well, you could maybe argue that, for I am not sure on it, but they seem more common with the gender related to me than they do not.

The reality is that our ideas of what either gender should or should not be at any given time (and what features are more or less attractive) have changed radically over time. They vary so widely from culture to culture and generation to generation that it's honestly difficult to see how most of our standards for what's attractive could be anything but correlated directly with our environments and the cultures we exist in.

but the reality is that most women have barely seen their own vagina due to its placing

Maybe it's just me, but a lot of the girls I know are well-acquainted with their vaginas (and were encouraged to be so). It's not ever going to be as visible as male genitalia, but I also think that not knowing what your vagina looks like is currently a lot less prevalent than some people continue to think it is (of course there is still repression and ignorance; I'm just saying that it's getting better).

or something like a flower, which more accurately reflects its true self

At some point I saw some paintings online of uncircumcised penises, done head-on, that were very Georgia O'Keefe. I wish I could find the link. Men are not exempt from being flowers, sorry.
Wisecracks: it makes me strongwisecracks on July 22nd, 2008 06:27 am (UTC)
Wait, i can't write in my own mass-produced books i bought? To underline quotes or make notations? It's not like i'm drawing dicks all over the pages, or BURNING them. Tho i do own an unread copy of the first Harry Potter piece of shit i often consider burning. I should film and post on youtube. Idiots.

Yeah, the "women have a more beautiful body" thing is all about young twats finding the penis icky, and being spoon-fed all the women-worshipping bullshit by horny men along with feminists coming up with higher power names for their cum-dumpster bodies. Personally, i think men have it better. The power and form of the flat chest and shoulders, down to the slight hips. And at least they only have ONE stinky hole. Some vaginas look like fucking roadkill.
DrWorm: cunt pillsdrworm on July 22nd, 2008 07:35 am (UTC)
Oh no you are burning a book you paid and which has sold like millions of copies around the world! CENSORSHIP. Can Fahrenheit 451 be far behind?

And did none of these people have social studies textbooks in middle school with all the pictures of George Washington proudly bearing a thought-bubble that read: "I have to fart"? What the hell kind of schools did these people go to?

As for straight girls who can't stomach penises, I just don't know. It's very weird to me. It's an appendage. Most genitalia is weird-looking. The human body is supremely goofy more often than not. Why do we act like the female body is exempt from that? Sometimes I'm just frustrated at how it all got twisted around in the culture and then when I try to talk about it everyone looks at me like I'm a crazy-person.

It's not like I hate women's bodies or anything; they can be pleasant enough to look at and sometimes draw, though I'm pretty sick of most of the "ideal" body types because they are boring. I just like looking at men (and masculine girls) more. And so do plenty of other people. But there's far less of a mainstream culture built up behind blatantly sexualizing men and their bodies, so Playgirl is a joke and women have turned to gay porn to get their fix. :(
Wisecracks: 1985wisecracks on July 27th, 2008 05:53 am (UTC)
And did none of these people have social studies textbooks in middle school with all the pictures of George Washington proudly bearing a thought-bubble that read: "I have to fart"? What the hell kind of schools did these people go to?

LOL! Sad nazi schools, i reckon. Mine usually had the much less original squiggle of a fart coming out his hass. Or the popular drawing of the little man peeking over a paragraph with his nose. Leroy? Something.
bullwinkybullwinky on July 22nd, 2008 07:16 am (UTC)
I honestly don't remember having an opinion about penises when I was a young girl. I didn't really care about penises until I got to play with one. >.>

Up close they are rather attractive, but I have to admit I don't really care when it comes to pictures or movies or anything. It's even better when the penis involved happens to belong to someone you love. Love makes every bit of a person beautiful... though I guess butts are still pretty funny. <.
DrWorm: i'm a doctordrworm on July 22nd, 2008 07:45 am (UTC)
I think any body part loses a lot of its attraction when it's isolated from the whole person. Which is why a lot of pornography is really pretty strange, because they've gotten into this thing with doing extreme closeups of the action and really that's just kind of freaky. I know I'd rather look at their faces or their whole bodies. Sex should never just be genitals because that is creepy. :(

But I don't know, whether we respond to something as attractive or not can have as much to do with our mindsets as with the inherent aesthetics of the... whatever. God knows I find plenty of things attractive (or at least not repulsive) because I'm open to the experience. If you've already determined that something is weird or icky beforehand, well...

Bums are always comedy, though.
Henrikahenrika_amanda on July 22nd, 2008 12:34 pm (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me asking, Drworm... but are you male or female?
diamonds or sherbert or a squirrel with a gun: shine your love!fistshaker on July 22nd, 2008 08:06 pm (UTC)
Agreed on pretty much all fronts. Get your hate on, dude.