Wednesday, October 24, 2007
New word: squeam
Squeam (verb): the kind of weird cringe you do when someone tells you something that makes you squeamish.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Technojoy!
My new cellphone arrived. It has a still and video camera and apparently can connect to the internet. And it is small enough that I palm it in my hand such that no one will see it unless they're specifically looking for it. And it is a starter phone - the cheapest one currently available. And it was unexpected delivered COD, but it was cheap enough that I was able to pay for it with the emergency cash I keep stashed in my apartment.
I love the 21st century!
I love the 21st century!
Going to hell
Similar letters from Cary Tennis, Dear Prudence, and Damage Control: religious kids who think their non-religious parents are going to hell.
Here's something I don't get, and I say this as a former religious child myself: why would you care if someone else is going to hell? The only reason I can possibly think of is because you want them to be in heaven with you. But surely any deity worth being worshipped as a deity can arrange things so that you have everyone you need for a heavenly heaven experience, while everything deserving of a hellish hell experience experiences just that. (In fact, just to make things easier, maybe some people's hellish hell experience is being trapped for eternity with their evangelical relatives!)
Here's something I don't get, and I say this as a former religious child myself: why would you care if someone else is going to hell? The only reason I can possibly think of is because you want them to be in heaven with you. But surely any deity worth being worshipped as a deity can arrange things so that you have everyone you need for a heavenly heaven experience, while everything deserving of a hellish hell experience experiences just that. (In fact, just to make things easier, maybe some people's hellish hell experience is being trapped for eternity with their evangelical relatives!)
Monday, October 22, 2007
Anyone watching Corner Gas right now?
Today's episode of Corner Gas looks different than usual, like it's lit differently or filmed differently or something. Anyone else see it?
Sunday, October 21, 2007
"Dumbledore's Gay!" for Dummies
Are you a non-HP fan who might sometime feel the need to comment on the recent revelation that Dumbledore is gay? Are you an HP fan who doesn't feel like rereading but still wants to be able to comment intelligently? This post is for you! Questions are sorted from complete non-fan at the top to more fannish at the bottom, so start at the top and proceed downwards until you've got all the information you need. I haven't done a full reread yet, just picked and chosen sections based on the Lexicon, so if I have missed anything please post in the comments and let me know.
Wait, what just happened?
At her recent reading at Carnegie Hall, Harry Potter author JK Rowling replied to a fan's question by mentioning Dumbledore (the kindly elderly wizard who was Headmaster of Hogwarts and Harry's mentor) was gay.
How on earth does that subject come up?
A fan asked if Dumbledore had ever fallen in love. The answer was yes, with Grindelwald. As both Dumbledore and Grindelwald happen to be male, this prompted the outing of Albus Dumbledore. The important character information is really that Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald, but "Dumbledore's Gay!" makes a much better headline.
The books are over, how is any of this relevant?
The question is relevant because a major theme of the book is that love is powerful enough to overcome evil. Dumbledore was a strong proponent of this philosophy, so it's only natural to wonder if he has ever been in love.
The answer is relevant because Grindelwald was the bad guy who came before Voldemort (Voldemort being the head villain in the Harry Potter books). If Voldemort is Hitler, then Grindelwald is the Kaiser (although somewhat more evil). In Book 1 we learn that it was Dumbledore who defeated Grindelwald, and in Book 7 we learn that decades earlier Dumbledore and Grindelwald were close friends decades earlier, but Dumbledore ended the friendship because Grindelwald was getting too evil. The fact that they were lovers sheds significant light on Dumbledore's character and decisions.
So why wasn't this mentioned in any of the books? It seems kind of tacked on.
The books are written from Harry's point of view. Harry is a student at Hogwarts, and Dumbledore is the Headmaster. As such, Harry is not privy to Dumbledore's personal life, any more than you were privy to the personal life of your high school principal. There was simply no room to mention Dumbledore's love affair from over 100 years ago.
But why didn't JK Rowling mention it earlier? Funny that she waited until all the books were published and sold...
This is the first time she was asked. JK Rowling doesn't make unilateral announcements about her characters, but she does answer fan questions. This is the first time since the publication of Book 7 that anyone has asked about Dumbledore's private live. Mentioning it before Book 7 would have been a spoiler, because Harry learning about Dumbledore's youth is part of a key plot point in Book 7. JKR did tell the screenwriter when an early draft of one of the movies had Dumbledore mentioning a girl he once loved.
But shouldn't it have come up in Rita Skeeter's book?
I can see two options here:
1. It was mentioned in the book, but Harry didn't read the whole thing. As a point of characterization, Hermione would be likely the read the whole thing, but I can't find any specific mention of whether Harry (or Hermione) actually did. If I'm wrong about this, please correct me.
2. Rita Skeeter didn't find out about it in her research. The excerpt from Rita Skeeter's book concerning Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald is in Chapter 18, The Greater Good, of Deathly Hallows. Her only source there is some letters and an interview with Grindelwald's great-aunt, Bathilda Bagshot. It is quite possible she didn't know about their romance - after all, if you're 18 years old and having a romance, do you tell your great-aunt all the sexy details? Dumbledore was about 150 years old when he died, and his relationship with Grindelwald took place when he was about 18 and lasted only a few months. Neither man was famous yet. So to learn about their romance, Rita Skeeter would have to find someone who remembers what two unremarkable (if brilliant) 18-year-olds were doing in private over 130 years ago.
So does this mean Dumbledore was in the closet? What does this have to say about the wizarding world's attitude towards homosexuality?
I think Dumbledore was in the closet about his romance with Grindelwald, but not necessarily because it was a gay relationship. I think it's because Grindelwald was evil! If you met an old man who was once Hitler's lover, your first thought wouldn't be "No need to keep it secret, society's much more open about homosexuality these days."
So in terms of the wizarding world as a whole, I think there are three possible interpretations here:
1. The wizarding world is so open-minded that no one felt the need to point out that Dumbledore's gay or mention it as something scandalous.
2. The wizarding world is so closed-minded that Dumbledore was highly closeted and no one ever found out.
3. Dumbledore successfully closeted his relationship because it was with an evil dictator (before even arriving at the question of sexual orientation) so we can't read anything about the wizarding world's attitude towards homosexuality into this particular.
Have I missed anything? Is there anything in the books I forgot to take into account? Post in the comments and let me know!
Wait, what just happened?
At her recent reading at Carnegie Hall, Harry Potter author JK Rowling replied to a fan's question by mentioning Dumbledore (the kindly elderly wizard who was Headmaster of Hogwarts and Harry's mentor) was gay.
How on earth does that subject come up?
A fan asked if Dumbledore had ever fallen in love. The answer was yes, with Grindelwald. As both Dumbledore and Grindelwald happen to be male, this prompted the outing of Albus Dumbledore. The important character information is really that Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald, but "Dumbledore's Gay!" makes a much better headline.
The books are over, how is any of this relevant?
The question is relevant because a major theme of the book is that love is powerful enough to overcome evil. Dumbledore was a strong proponent of this philosophy, so it's only natural to wonder if he has ever been in love.
The answer is relevant because Grindelwald was the bad guy who came before Voldemort (Voldemort being the head villain in the Harry Potter books). If Voldemort is Hitler, then Grindelwald is the Kaiser (although somewhat more evil). In Book 1 we learn that it was Dumbledore who defeated Grindelwald, and in Book 7 we learn that decades earlier Dumbledore and Grindelwald were close friends decades earlier, but Dumbledore ended the friendship because Grindelwald was getting too evil. The fact that they were lovers sheds significant light on Dumbledore's character and decisions.
So why wasn't this mentioned in any of the books? It seems kind of tacked on.
The books are written from Harry's point of view. Harry is a student at Hogwarts, and Dumbledore is the Headmaster. As such, Harry is not privy to Dumbledore's personal life, any more than you were privy to the personal life of your high school principal. There was simply no room to mention Dumbledore's love affair from over 100 years ago.
But why didn't JK Rowling mention it earlier? Funny that she waited until all the books were published and sold...
This is the first time she was asked. JK Rowling doesn't make unilateral announcements about her characters, but she does answer fan questions. This is the first time since the publication of Book 7 that anyone has asked about Dumbledore's private live. Mentioning it before Book 7 would have been a spoiler, because Harry learning about Dumbledore's youth is part of a key plot point in Book 7. JKR did tell the screenwriter when an early draft of one of the movies had Dumbledore mentioning a girl he once loved.
But shouldn't it have come up in Rita Skeeter's book?
I can see two options here:
1. It was mentioned in the book, but Harry didn't read the whole thing. As a point of characterization, Hermione would be likely the read the whole thing, but I can't find any specific mention of whether Harry (or Hermione) actually did. If I'm wrong about this, please correct me.
2. Rita Skeeter didn't find out about it in her research. The excerpt from Rita Skeeter's book concerning Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald is in Chapter 18, The Greater Good, of Deathly Hallows. Her only source there is some letters and an interview with Grindelwald's great-aunt, Bathilda Bagshot. It is quite possible she didn't know about their romance - after all, if you're 18 years old and having a romance, do you tell your great-aunt all the sexy details? Dumbledore was about 150 years old when he died, and his relationship with Grindelwald took place when he was about 18 and lasted only a few months. Neither man was famous yet. So to learn about their romance, Rita Skeeter would have to find someone who remembers what two unremarkable (if brilliant) 18-year-olds were doing in private over 130 years ago.
So does this mean Dumbledore was in the closet? What does this have to say about the wizarding world's attitude towards homosexuality?
I think Dumbledore was in the closet about his romance with Grindelwald, but not necessarily because it was a gay relationship. I think it's because Grindelwald was evil! If you met an old man who was once Hitler's lover, your first thought wouldn't be "No need to keep it secret, society's much more open about homosexuality these days."
So in terms of the wizarding world as a whole, I think there are three possible interpretations here:
1. The wizarding world is so open-minded that no one felt the need to point out that Dumbledore's gay or mention it as something scandalous.
2. The wizarding world is so closed-minded that Dumbledore was highly closeted and no one ever found out.
3. Dumbledore successfully closeted his relationship because it was with an evil dictator (before even arriving at the question of sexual orientation) so we can't read anything about the wizarding world's attitude towards homosexuality into this particular.
Have I missed anything? Is there anything in the books I forgot to take into account? Post in the comments and let me know!
Locking the door
Sometimes people say of small towns that they're "So safe you can leave your door unlocked."
This made me think: how much good does locking the door actually do?
Someone comes to break into your house. They try the door. It's locked. Do they go away? Or, being the type of person who wants to break into a house, do they know how to pick the lock or break the door down or break a window? What percentage of people who want to break into a house are unable/unwilling to pick a lock or physically break in?
However, I continue to lock my door. Not because I expect that potential burglars/attackers will be stopped by a locked door, but because it will slow them down and make some noise. Hopefully this will alert me in time to grab the phone, look through the peephole, dial 911, and maybe be prepared with a blunt object or a knife or some chemicals to spray in their eyes or something. But honestly, I don't think it's going to be a full deterrent to that many people.
This made me think: how much good does locking the door actually do?
Someone comes to break into your house. They try the door. It's locked. Do they go away? Or, being the type of person who wants to break into a house, do they know how to pick the lock or break the door down or break a window? What percentage of people who want to break into a house are unable/unwilling to pick a lock or physically break in?
However, I continue to lock my door. Not because I expect that potential burglars/attackers will be stopped by a locked door, but because it will slow them down and make some noise. Hopefully this will alert me in time to grab the phone, look through the peephole, dial 911, and maybe be prepared with a blunt object or a knife or some chemicals to spray in their eyes or something. But honestly, I don't think it's going to be a full deterrent to that many people.
Shyness as selfish
I recently heard someone say that shyness is inherently selfish, because if you're shy you're overly concerned about what other people think about you, as though you're so fucking special that people are paying attention to every single little detail about you.
Thing is, empirical evidence suggests that for a huge chunk of my life, they were. In elementary school and middle school and early high school, my peers tormented me for so many tiny stupid things that you'd think would go unnoticed. Because my jeans were the same shade of blue as the jeans of an uncool guy in the class. Because the lines on my forehead form a sort of square when I furrow my brow. Because, if I wear the waistband of my pants at my waist (this is the 80s), it is very close to my ribs (because I'm shortwaisted). Because I walk quickly. Because my mother also walks quickly. Because my mother's prettier than I am. Because I was seen walking around on the driveway of my parents' house in a pair of heels (testing if I could walk in them). Because I was seen standing next to the principal of the other high school while we were both waiting to cross a street. Because I was seen alone on the playground. Because I was seen talking to a boy named Mike on the playground. Because I finished the math worksheet before any of the other girls in the class. Because I did a cannonball into the swimming pool, even though everyone else was doing cannonballs and to this day I have no idea why they singled me out. Because I generally have good posture. Because I was smiling. Because I wasn't smiling. Because I uttered a five-syllable word (even though two of the syllables were just morphemes making it into an adverb).
From preschool to probably the middle of high school - a good 10 years of my life - I would randomly get tormented for strange bizarre miniscule things like this. I couldn't anticipate what would get me tormented - I felt like every aspect of my life was up to scrutiny and if I broken any of the unspoken rules I'd be punished, and empirical evidence backed this up. If this happened now I might call the tormenter on it - "Why are you so obsessed with what colour my socks are? You really need to get a hobby!" - but as a kid I was surrounded by this every day so I had no idea that it wasn't normal. So you can see why I might be painfully shy.
I'm only just beginning to recover from this, and what it took to recover was 10 years of being treated with basic human respect to outweigh the 10 years of being constantly scrutinized. And that I was only able to achieve by having been fortunate enough to develop a few solid friendships that are independent of my environment (so I don't necessarily need to make friends with classmates/coworkers/neighbours), and by moving away from family and the place where I grew up to a busy neighbourhood in a big city where everyone is busy with their own lives. People who live in small towns, or in the town where they grew up, or surrounded by relatives, or who need to have friendships in their neighbourhood or workplace, might still find themselves subject to this scrutiny, or might be more strongly affected by this scrutiny whether or not it exists.
Thing is, empirical evidence suggests that for a huge chunk of my life, they were. In elementary school and middle school and early high school, my peers tormented me for so many tiny stupid things that you'd think would go unnoticed. Because my jeans were the same shade of blue as the jeans of an uncool guy in the class. Because the lines on my forehead form a sort of square when I furrow my brow. Because, if I wear the waistband of my pants at my waist (this is the 80s), it is very close to my ribs (because I'm shortwaisted). Because I walk quickly. Because my mother also walks quickly. Because my mother's prettier than I am. Because I was seen walking around on the driveway of my parents' house in a pair of heels (testing if I could walk in them). Because I was seen standing next to the principal of the other high school while we were both waiting to cross a street. Because I was seen alone on the playground. Because I was seen talking to a boy named Mike on the playground. Because I finished the math worksheet before any of the other girls in the class. Because I did a cannonball into the swimming pool, even though everyone else was doing cannonballs and to this day I have no idea why they singled me out. Because I generally have good posture. Because I was smiling. Because I wasn't smiling. Because I uttered a five-syllable word (even though two of the syllables were just morphemes making it into an adverb).
From preschool to probably the middle of high school - a good 10 years of my life - I would randomly get tormented for strange bizarre miniscule things like this. I couldn't anticipate what would get me tormented - I felt like every aspect of my life was up to scrutiny and if I broken any of the unspoken rules I'd be punished, and empirical evidence backed this up. If this happened now I might call the tormenter on it - "Why are you so obsessed with what colour my socks are? You really need to get a hobby!" - but as a kid I was surrounded by this every day so I had no idea that it wasn't normal. So you can see why I might be painfully shy.
I'm only just beginning to recover from this, and what it took to recover was 10 years of being treated with basic human respect to outweigh the 10 years of being constantly scrutinized. And that I was only able to achieve by having been fortunate enough to develop a few solid friendships that are independent of my environment (so I don't necessarily need to make friends with classmates/coworkers/neighbours), and by moving away from family and the place where I grew up to a busy neighbourhood in a big city where everyone is busy with their own lives. People who live in small towns, or in the town where they grew up, or surrounded by relatives, or who need to have friendships in their neighbourhood or workplace, might still find themselves subject to this scrutiny, or might be more strongly affected by this scrutiny whether or not it exists.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Things They Should Invent: study of introverts living in nursing homes
When I hear about what life is like in nursing homes, I dread it. Even if the care is exemplary, it would be hell for me because I am an introvert. Rather than having their own shower, nursing home patients are bathed (because they can't do it themselves). Health care workers come check up on them in the middle of the night. Their lives are necessarily regimented because the institution is, well, institutional - they have to wake up and go to bed and eat and be bathed at a specific time rather than whenever they want.
For me, that's no way to live. I get great joy - yes, joy is le mot juste - from sleeping in as long as my body needs to, having a ridiculously long shower and doing some of my best thinking in the pseudo sensory-deprivation that ensues, then eating whatever I want whenever I want at my own pace. I call this process rebooting my brain, and it's an essential part of staying sane and personable enough that people don't defenestrate me. Another thing that's important is being able to completely let my guard down. I cannot completely let my guard down when another person (apart from mi cielito) is in the room, or may enter the room. I could never let my guard down at my parents' unless I was home alone, and my personality suffered for it. If I lived in a nursing home where there were no locks on the doors (which is normal, according to a PSW friend of mine) I could never let my guard down, at all, ever, for the rest of my life. That's not a life worth living, that's just being kept alive.
Someone should do a study on how nursing home conditions affect introvert patients, whether they're significantly worse off than extrovert patients, and maybe come up with new care models to help people preserve their psychological privacy. I tried googling, but the results were tainted by non-scientific definitions of "introvert" - people who think the word means shy or quiet or nervous or doesn't want to go to the potluck, rather than the technical definition of being energized by being alone.
For me, that's no way to live. I get great joy - yes, joy is le mot juste - from sleeping in as long as my body needs to, having a ridiculously long shower and doing some of my best thinking in the pseudo sensory-deprivation that ensues, then eating whatever I want whenever I want at my own pace. I call this process rebooting my brain, and it's an essential part of staying sane and personable enough that people don't defenestrate me. Another thing that's important is being able to completely let my guard down. I cannot completely let my guard down when another person (apart from mi cielito) is in the room, or may enter the room. I could never let my guard down at my parents' unless I was home alone, and my personality suffered for it. If I lived in a nursing home where there were no locks on the doors (which is normal, according to a PSW friend of mine) I could never let my guard down, at all, ever, for the rest of my life. That's not a life worth living, that's just being kept alive.
Someone should do a study on how nursing home conditions affect introvert patients, whether they're significantly worse off than extrovert patients, and maybe come up with new care models to help people preserve their psychological privacy. I tried googling, but the results were tainted by non-scientific definitions of "introvert" - people who think the word means shy or quiet or nervous or doesn't want to go to the potluck, rather than the technical definition of being energized by being alone.
Things They Should Invent: don't heat the subway
They're always talking about how the TTC can save money. Here's my thought: don't heat the subway. Or perhaps heat it a little, but set the thermostat to 10 degrees or something.
Why? Because if the outdoor weather demands a coat, everyone is wearing a coat when they go into the subway. If it's heated to 20 degrees, everyone gets sweaty, which in uncomfortable and unpleasant and inconvenient. In the spring and fall, I find myself actually taking off my jacket as soon as I enter the station just to avoid being soaked in sweat when I arrive at work. Given that everyone dresses for outdoors whenever they leave the house, I seriously doubt anyone would notice if, in the winter, subways were at a temperature where you need a jacket. I think you should be able to take your gloves off so you can read or do your homework or play video games without your fingers freezing, so some heat might be necessary if it's like -20 outside, but if it's 10 or maybe even 0 I don't think we need it.
Now air conditioning is very necessary in the summer, because the trains themselves generate heat in the stations, and all the bodies generate heat in the trains. But I don't think heat is nearly as necessary, especially when it's like 15 degrees out.
Why? Because if the outdoor weather demands a coat, everyone is wearing a coat when they go into the subway. If it's heated to 20 degrees, everyone gets sweaty, which in uncomfortable and unpleasant and inconvenient. In the spring and fall, I find myself actually taking off my jacket as soon as I enter the station just to avoid being soaked in sweat when I arrive at work. Given that everyone dresses for outdoors whenever they leave the house, I seriously doubt anyone would notice if, in the winter, subways were at a temperature where you need a jacket. I think you should be able to take your gloves off so you can read or do your homework or play video games without your fingers freezing, so some heat might be necessary if it's like -20 outside, but if it's 10 or maybe even 0 I don't think we need it.
Now air conditioning is very necessary in the summer, because the trains themselves generate heat in the stations, and all the bodies generate heat in the trains. But I don't think heat is nearly as necessary, especially when it's like 15 degrees out.
Best. Ship. EVER!
I would love to know if anyone in fandom predicted this! No, seriously, go read it!
Friday, October 19, 2007
Burma and panties
It seems people are mailing panties to Burmese embassies to protest the military junta.
*I'm pretty sure this is the British use of pants to mean underwear.
I would really love a fact check on this superstition. Everything I can google up cites this same source - representatives of this organization trying to run this campaign - and googling the organization just turns up more articles about panties. I can't find anything from before this campaign started.
I have some old underwear that I could stand to get rid of, I could even arrange for traces of menstruation if that would help, and frankly I think it's a hilarious protest if its basis is actually true. But, given that there are weirdos out there who would pay money for used women's underwear, I don't want to send my underwear out to strangers unless I am more certain that it would produce the desired effect.
The manoeuvre is a calculated insult to the junta and its leader, General Than Shwe. Superstitious junta members believe that any contact with female undergarments - clean or dirty - will sap them of their power, said Jackie Pollack, a member of the Lanna Action for Burma Committee.
"Not only are they brutal, but they are also very superstitious. They believe that touching a woman's pants* or sarong will make them lose their strength," Ms Pollack told Guardian Unlimited.
*I'm pretty sure this is the British use of pants to mean underwear.
I would really love a fact check on this superstition. Everything I can google up cites this same source - representatives of this organization trying to run this campaign - and googling the organization just turns up more articles about panties. I can't find anything from before this campaign started.
I have some old underwear that I could stand to get rid of, I could even arrange for traces of menstruation if that would help, and frankly I think it's a hilarious protest if its basis is actually true. But, given that there are weirdos out there who would pay money for used women's underwear, I don't want to send my underwear out to strangers unless I am more certain that it would produce the desired effect.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Bizarre dream sequence
When my alarm went off this morning, I couldn't open my eyes so I decided to skip exercising and sleep for another hour. I promptly fell back asleep and had an extremely vivid dream - everything from the colours to the plot to the emotions were way stronger than usual. Then I woke up. Five minutes had passed. So I closed my eyes again and had another extremely vivid dream. Then I woke up. Five minutes had passed. So I closed my eyes again and this happened again.
This went on for a full hour and a half. Extremely vivid dreams, each five minutes long. The weird thing is, when I woke up in between, I couldn't get out of bed. I could sit up and look at the clock, but I was somehow incapable of rolling out of bed and starting my day.
Nothing like this has ever happened before. I quite enjoyed the dreams though. I wish I knew how to make them happen again.
This went on for a full hour and a half. Extremely vivid dreams, each five minutes long. The weird thing is, when I woke up in between, I couldn't get out of bed. I could sit up and look at the clock, but I was somehow incapable of rolling out of bed and starting my day.
Nothing like this has ever happened before. I quite enjoyed the dreams though. I wish I knew how to make them happen again.
Weirdness
On the Environment Canada Weater Office page, there's a banner ad (in Tory blue, which isn't part of the Enviro Canada colour scheme) linking to the Throne Speech.
Isn't that odd? Does that sort of partisan cross-promotion on a politically neutral page strike you as a bit, I don't know, crass and unbecoming government?
Isn't that odd? Does that sort of partisan cross-promotion on a politically neutral page strike you as a bit, I don't know, crass and unbecoming government?
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Age of consent
The big omnibus crime bill the conservatives want to pass includes, among many many things, raising the age of consent from 14 to 16.
I am strongly, almost viscerally, opposed to this.
As with most issues involving children, I look at this by putting myself in the kid's shoes and remembering my thought processes at that age. I was not yet ready to have sex on my 14th birthday, but I was ready to have sex before my 16th birthday. However, and this is the important part, on my 14th birthday I was perfectly capable of deciding for myself that I was not yet ready to have sex. Apart from medical advances in the past 12 years, I had the same information then that I do today, and was able to use the same reasoning then to determine that I was not yet ready for sex as I use today to determine that loving sex with mi cielito is a good idea while jumping the homeless guy who shouts stuff at me is a bad idea. This reasoning has served me well - I've never had sex that I ended up regreting - so I have no reason to believe that 14- and 15-year-olds are incapable of deciding for themselves whether to consent to sex.
They say the purpose of raising the age of consent is to protect kids from sexual exploitation, but it's degrading and paternalistic to do this by passing a law saying that people are not capable of making a decision they are perfectly capable of making. The existing law already raises the age of consent to 18 for situations in which one party is in a position of power or authority, rape and pimping (I forget the the legal term) and other similar stuff are already illegal - surely any capable legislator can close any existing loopholes without declaring competent people legally incompetent.
But the weird thing about this issue is it's very difficult to speak out against raising the age of consent without sounding creepy. I've heard other people do it, and they almost all came across as creepy, like they wanted to have the right to have sex with grade 9 students for their own personal purposes. So because of this, even though I'm so strongly opposed to raising the age of consent, I'm very hesitant to speak out. I don't even know if I've managed to succeed in not coming across as creepy here, I only dare speak out here because I'm not using my real name and I have a proven track record of prudishness. I just wish it were easier and more appropriate to speak out against.
I am strongly, almost viscerally, opposed to this.
As with most issues involving children, I look at this by putting myself in the kid's shoes and remembering my thought processes at that age. I was not yet ready to have sex on my 14th birthday, but I was ready to have sex before my 16th birthday. However, and this is the important part, on my 14th birthday I was perfectly capable of deciding for myself that I was not yet ready to have sex. Apart from medical advances in the past 12 years, I had the same information then that I do today, and was able to use the same reasoning then to determine that I was not yet ready for sex as I use today to determine that loving sex with mi cielito is a good idea while jumping the homeless guy who shouts stuff at me is a bad idea. This reasoning has served me well - I've never had sex that I ended up regreting - so I have no reason to believe that 14- and 15-year-olds are incapable of deciding for themselves whether to consent to sex.
They say the purpose of raising the age of consent is to protect kids from sexual exploitation, but it's degrading and paternalistic to do this by passing a law saying that people are not capable of making a decision they are perfectly capable of making. The existing law already raises the age of consent to 18 for situations in which one party is in a position of power or authority, rape and pimping (I forget the the legal term) and other similar stuff are already illegal - surely any capable legislator can close any existing loopholes without declaring competent people legally incompetent.
But the weird thing about this issue is it's very difficult to speak out against raising the age of consent without sounding creepy. I've heard other people do it, and they almost all came across as creepy, like they wanted to have the right to have sex with grade 9 students for their own personal purposes. So because of this, even though I'm so strongly opposed to raising the age of consent, I'm very hesitant to speak out. I don't even know if I've managed to succeed in not coming across as creepy here, I only dare speak out here because I'm not using my real name and I have a proven track record of prudishness. I just wish it were easier and more appropriate to speak out against.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Words words words
Play a word game, donate free rice to hungry people.
I donated 2180 grains before I got tired of playing (I don't know if the game ends or goes on forever), and the highest level I reached was level 44, although I tend to hover around level 40 on average.
I'd expect this would be significantly harder for people who don't speak as many foreign languages, unless you go around memorizing huge lists of vocabulary instead of determining the meaning of words from their etymology.
I donated 2180 grains before I got tired of playing (I don't know if the game ends or goes on forever), and the highest level I reached was level 44, although I tend to hover around level 40 on average.
I'd expect this would be significantly harder for people who don't speak as many foreign languages, unless you go around memorizing huge lists of vocabulary instead of determining the meaning of words from their etymology.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Things They Should Have Invented: MMP information at polling stations
Even though I felt innundated with information about MMP, I've heard quite a few stories of people getting their referendum ballot and being all "WTF is this?" but the polling station employees weren't allowed to explain it to them.
What they should have done is have literature with non-partisan information about the two systems available at the polling stations. So when people went WTF, they could look at a pamphlet (and go home and google and come back if necessary) and then vote somewhat more informedly.
What they should have done is have literature with non-partisan information about the two systems available at the polling stations. So when people went WTF, they could look at a pamphlet (and go home and google and come back if necessary) and then vote somewhat more informedly.
My inner child on security cards
Both the building where I live and the building where I work have those security cards that you wave in front of a sensor, then the sensor beeps and unlocks the door.
I've noticed that we invariably describe it as "beeping the thing."
Which has glorious potential to sound dirty.
"Could you do me a favour and beep me? My hands are full so I can't get my thing out."
"My thing won't beep today for some reason. It took three tries before it worked."
"You can beep without taking your thing out of your pants?" "Yeah, if the thing is sensitive enough."
I've noticed that we invariably describe it as "beeping the thing."
Which has glorious potential to sound dirty.
"Could you do me a favour and beep me? My hands are full so I can't get my thing out."
"My thing won't beep today for some reason. It took three tries before it worked."
"You can beep without taking your thing out of your pants?" "Yeah, if the thing is sensitive enough."
More information please
I'm not following this.
She wired the money to her boyfriend. Her boyfriend wired the money back to her. They showed the scammer the receipt, but the wiring was between her and her boyfriend. Unless I've read it wrong repeatedly, they never actually wired money to the scammer. So how exactly did the scammer get their money? Is there banking information that allows your identity to be stolen on a moneygram receipt? Is there some kind of password involved? It would be really helpful to know where precisely the security leak was.
She wired the money to her boyfriend. Her boyfriend wired the money back to her. They showed the scammer the receipt, but the wiring was between her and her boyfriend. Unless I've read it wrong repeatedly, they never actually wired money to the scammer. So how exactly did the scammer get their money? Is there banking information that allows your identity to be stolen on a moneygram receipt? Is there some kind of password involved? It would be really helpful to know where precisely the security leak was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)