Freak out with your geek out

It's here once more, folks: Geek Pride Day! If you're a lover of any and/or all things nerdy, today's the day to fly the banner proudly, regardless of stodgy bosses and disapproving parents/significant others. Here are a few things from various corners of my nerd world that I'm currently excited about: 

Book Nerding: Bitterblue. This is the sequel to Graceling and companion to Fire, Kristin Cashore's two previous fantasy novels, and a more gloriously charmed third offering I cannot imagine. Bitterblue is coming into her own as Queen of Monsea, a country ravaged by thirty-five years of mind control due to her father Leck (one of my personal most terrifying villains in literature); all our favorite characters are back (I have been yelling PO!!!!  KATSA!!!! every other page or so); and some awesome new characters have arisen as well (for librarians, it doesn't get much better than Death. Yes, there is a librarian named Death in this book. WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR). 

Comics Nerding: Dudes, Batman Incorporated started up again this week! I haven't gotten my issue yet, but I hear it's delectable. Say what you will about Grant Morrison--most of it will be accurate, good and bad--but his Batverse is one of my favorites. Leviathan, the winter offering which tided over Inc. fans, was pretty great, but I can't wait for the ongoing to begin again in earnest. Another great newish DC offering (from Vertigo, specifically) is Saucer Country, written by Paul Cornell and drawn by Ryan Kelly. This is one of my absolute favorites of the year, a fantastic blend of political maneuverings with alien abduction and featuring a Mexican-American lady governor running for president. Basically everything I love at once. It's only three issues in, so catch up!

image from Talking Comic Books  

Comics Movies Nerding: Hey, they get separate categories. Obviously The Dark Knight Rises and The Amazing Spider-Man are going to have to step pretty to top what The Avengers pulled out, but I look forward to their attempts. We're kinda living in the golden age of comic book movies and I'm enjoying every attempt that's being thrown at us--even the wretched ones, like X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Here's to the rest of the summer superhero offerings, and I hope we'll see lots more in the future (pssst, Hollywood: more ladies. More characters of color). 
 
 Music Nerding: I am pleased to announce that I have spent my concert fund on tickets to see Nightwish and Kamelot in September. Both are amazing live bands, both are favorites of mine, and...well, let's just say that I hope by the time September rolls around, Kamelot will have found a new lead singer. They're being awfully closemouthed about the whole business considering their tour kicks off very soon and they have plans for a new album. In other music news, Regina Spektor's newest, What We Saw from the Cheap Seats, is coming out next week, and if you haven't already contributed a buck or two to another red-headed pianist's Kickstarter, no time like the present!






What's going on in your fandoms, fellow geeks? Whether you travel to Westeros, Apokolips, or Hogwarts and whether you get there by Floo Powder, a TARDIS, or the Millennium Falcon, travel safely, be cool to your nerdy compatriots, and always know where your towel's at.

I think my optic nerves are strained

Due to excessive eyerolling, of course. But how can something like this be met with anything else? Not to say Andy's post is eyeroll-worthy, but the topic at hand is a further plummet into ridiculousness plaguing the shelves of school and public libraries, and more to the point, why am I being asked to take seriously a study on profanity conducted by Brigham Young University?

Are we going to pretend now that BYU has some sort of objectivity when it comes to a subject like this? Even if the academics who conducted the study aren't church members, they're still under pressure to present data and conclusions which jibe with BYU's goals and image (and which fall within the parameters of the school's position on academic freedom). Of course they're going to suggest that books (books, of all things) should be rated. Think of the children!

(Speaking of the children, here is my teenage LDS experience: reading curse words in books and hearing curse words in music, films, and from real live humans did not make me any more inclined to swear. Indeed I was nigh on terrified of profanity coming out of my mouth. Hell, I still live in fear of letting an F-bomb slip out in front of my mother. Once upon a time in high school my mom critiqued a short story I had written, and her major complaint was that a character took the Lord's name in vain. One of my good friends likes to tell the story of the first time she heard me curse--according to her I blushed like a fire hydrant. By the way, I was nineteen by this point. Surely everyone recalls the horrible things I read as a kid? They must have had a delayed effect.)

Rating children's, middle grade, and YA fiction would provide yet another excuse for parents to not be parents and yet more ways for libraries to be bullied into pulling books off shelves regardless of their buying and evaluation policies. But come on, if you're not policing your kid's reading (or listening, or viewing), no one else should be expected to do it for you. The role of librarians is to provide the most comprehensive array of media possible for patrons and to help patrons select media suitable to their tastes and needs. That is NOT the same as collating a list of all perceivable offenses for each book in the system. As Andy indicates in his post linked above, stickering books with a rating system provides a shortcut for people to be preemptively offended--if the book is OBVIOUSLY bad news, why bother to read and evaluate it? There is no such thing as a rating system that fits everyone and is completely objective, nor should there be. This whole business smacks of the continual underestimation of youth patrons and the increasing bent to fob parental and personal responsibility off on someone else, not to mention the whole distrusting-children angle. Yeah, I don't have kids, yeah, I don't want to have kids, but I was a kid once and one of my very favorite growing-up memories is the knowledge that my mother trusted me and let me use my library card as I saw fit.

And if books were rated by some outside body (a literary version of the MPAA or whatnot), guess what? That would be a barrier to purchase for both the general buying public and libraries. I'm waiting for publishers to scream about this, and hoping they do so. The bottom line for me is that there is no integrity to this study and godfuckingdammit I am annoyed that anyone should have to act like there is. I'm annoyed that this idea of rating YA books has been put into people's minds by an institutional body interested chiefly in backing up its religious overseers. I'm annoyed at the mere thought of giving more opportunities for the willfully ignorant to boil down books (or music or TV or film) to X number of curse words, context-free and inanely reductive. Let's be clear--I detest both the MPAA and the RIAA's Parental Advisory Labels, and I really do not want to see literature be subjected to these kinds of archaic, effectively meaningless systems.

Hurry, put a ring on it!

I promised it'd be all fun all the time until Next Giant Post, but Sulli always gives me food for thought. Currently the chewy topic at hand is marrying in haste. My experience of LDS marriage culture is exactly so--I watched everyone from friends  my age to my mother get married after bare months of knowing the other person. There were some shotgun weddings as well. My hypothesis is that the urge to get married as soon as possible stems from the premium the church places on (temple) marriage; holding a person's salvation hostage is a pretty good way of getting couples hitched. Also worth noting is that once you get married, you can get laid. That's a powerful impetus for young people who aren't even supposed to be masturbating.

Relatedly, a few nights ago my gentleman mentioned that he'd seen some LDS missionaries out and about, which kicked off a conversation about how missions work in the Mormon church. In high school I kind of assumed that I would serve a mission, both because I was laboring under the impression that I was unattractive to all male specimens generally and especially to LDS guys, and because I didn't actually want to get married at nineteen or twenty. Needless to say, none of that came to pass, since I am unmarried at twenty-four and left the church before serving a mission became the road to take. I hope that in the years I've been gone the attitude toward women serving missions has changed from "sweet spirits no one wants to marry even though they're rilly rilly good people" to "life experience and valid personal choice." Has the stereotype of overweight/ugly/awkward/otherwise-non-marriage-material sister missionaries disappeared? Serving the church should not be  considered the second-best option for women who can't get a husband. At the time I disliked that one pole was Get Married and the other Serve A Mission (Because No One Wants You) but hadn't really figured out why. Now it's clear as day. Part of the reason I grew away from the church was that there simply weren't enough options for meaningful relationships. In the year or so before I left there were a couple of articles in The New Era decrying the rise of "hanging out"--the authorities were not happy that traditional dates seemed to be going out the window and that young men and women seemed to be (gasp!) becoming friends before doing the dinner-and-a-movie thing. If the tendency and/or cultural pressure for LDS singles to eye every member of the opposite sex with the Moroni spire glare is diminishing, all the better!

Now, of course, there are many reasons why I am yet unmarried, none of which are satisfactory to my mother. And I can't say for certain if the hasty marriages I witnessed as a younger person were a bad idea (or if the parties are repenting at leisure). I hope they're all doing well and they probably are. But LDS marriage culture as a whole seems unhealthy to me.

My parsing sense is tingling

I sense another megapost coming on (hint: this time it will be about BOOKS!).

Until such time as it appears, I shall endeavor to be as frivolous as possible. To that end, have some baby elephants.

(via Animals Talking In All Caps)  

ALSO. It is my best friend's birthday. Just thought the world should know.

Assembled (Avengers spoilers)

 Five things I liked about The Avengers:

1. Black Widow's expanded, one-hundred-percent-unfiltered-badass role. I liked Natasha  well enough in Iron Man 2, chiefly because I enjoyed watching her and Pepper Potts get shit done while Tony broke things and made an ass of himself, but Whedon and Johansson magnified her greatness by a thousand for The Avengers. Her opening fight scene was my favorite fight of the movie. It's still wonderful for me as a woman viewer to watch a movie where no comments about characters' sex are made. Not one person says anything to Natasha or Maria about them being women, and when Loki trades on what he perceives as Natasha's weakness, he learns part of why she's an effective spy. Also, it's a nice change to see a woman rescuing a man, and rescuing him for reasons other than "I love him!"--Clint and Natasha's relationship may have a romantic component (it would be canonically accurate), but there's more to it and Natasha places a premium on atoning for her sins (a favorite Whedon theme).

2. The team dynamic. Whedon's chief strength is making ensemble pieces coalesce, and that is the sticking point of this film--if the team's interactions hadn't worked, the film wouldn't have worked. The Avengers is a team of opposites and clashing personalities who manage to work together despite themselves. It was fantastic to see that brought to the screen. There are no weak links or bad performances here.

3. Mark Ruffalo's performance. Yes, you may recall how I feel about Ruffalo as an actor, but he did a bang-up--as it were--job as Bruce Banner and the Incredible Hulk. I'm not real interested in the Hulk as a character (I'd rather see either or both the She-Hulks on screen), but he is an integral part of the Avengers team and had much more depth here than I'm used to reading for him in the comics. I venture that many people loved the "let's do science!" bromance of Tony and Bruce.

4. Whedonisms. Despite his shows' flaws (and they aren't perfect), I'm a Whedonite--I try not to be the super-annoying brand. This film is a treat for Whedon fans: the snappy dialogue, which I found particularly suitable for Tony, especially in how it came out in his nicknames for everyone; the WHEDON'D death (?) scene of a beloved character; and creating Maria and Natasha as important, well-rounded characters are great hallmarks of Whedon. There's also the matter of a bunch of people fleeing as a city caves in behind them...

5. Equal-opportunity asskicking. Related to points #1 and #4, the heroes in this team all get to kick about equal amounts of ass. I don't understand how a viewer could come out of the film wondering about the usefulness/efficacy of Black Widow and Hawkeye (yet these viewers exist), because every Avenger gets to pound evil dudes into the ground (literally in the case of the Hulk, in a scene which had the audience in my theater roaring). It's more obvious when Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and the Hulk kick ass, because they have giant muscles and serious weapons, but the Widow and Hawkeye are no less capable and get their fair share, which is as it should be.

Two things I didn't like about The Avengers:

1. Sort-of-whitewashing Maria Hill. Cobie Smulders is a great actress and she did a wonderful job as S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Maria Hill (AND I really liked the film's development of her character, especially when compared with her on Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes), and I would be totally in favor of an Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. film wherein she, Coulson, and Fury supervise Clint Barton and Natasha Romanoff as they kick All The Asses (in Budapest, perhaps?), but Maria Hill's ethnicity is unaddressed in some media and Hispanic in others, and I would have loved to see a Latina actress in that role. More broadly, of course, I would have wished for more heroes of color on the team, but that's a wish that's about eight years past being able to come true for this particular franchise. I do hope that perhaps a future Captain America film will feature Falcon (and I nominate Isaiah Mustapha for the role), and that maybe with the incredible success of The Avengers, Marvel might look into other team properties such as Heroes for Hire or The Defenders.

2. What are you doing, Loki? I found Loki's parts of the film somewhat weak. This is a minor nitpick, but I sense that if a viewer hadn't seen Thor, there might have been some doubt as to what exactly Loki's point was. It's definitely not Tom Hiddleston's fault, as he was as slinky-evil in The Avengers as in Thor, but the Chitauri were run-of-the-mill cannon fodder and Loki's relationship to the Other somewhat underdeveloped. for my money his most threatening scene was the one discussed in my final point below--he was never more frightening to me than that, maybe because his power in this film was tied to that Staff of Destiny watchamajigger, and he can apparently be effectively thrashed into the ground by a Hulk like a cat playing with a toy.


One thing I'm still undecided on about The Avengers:


1. Quim. In case you didn't hear Loki/aren't well-versed in outdated British slang terms/have never seen Elizabeth or read Chaucer, "quim" is basically an older version of "cunt." Loki refers to Natasha as a "mewling quim" in his showdown with her when he's inside the Hulk cage. At the time, I thought vaguely that I'd heard the word before (read it in Chaucer at some point) and couldn't remember exactly what it meant, but even still, it's pretty clear that it's a gendered insult. Which...it is. So the question becomes, why is this word here? It's Whedon, so the Cynical Fan part of me says that he was playing his old game of "slip naughty words past censors" which he did in Buffy and Firefly/Serenity. But it's not a naughty word like "fuck" is--it's a specific, gendered insult for which there is no male equivalent. The Let's Examine The Character part of me thinks that Loki would indeed say something like this; he makes a veiled sexual threat toward Jane Foster in Thor, so it's not completely out of character for him to speak to or about women this way, AND he's a villain whose power flows from his words, so he wouldn't be above saying whatever he thought was necessary to grind a person down. The scene itself is also one in which he loses control without even realizing it, since Black Widow is playing him like a harp, and "cunt" is definitely a word that people--usually men--use when they feel out of control. 


The Tired Of Gendered Insults part of me thinks that the scene would have been pivotal enough without use of a word like this, and that having the line be "mewling mortal" or something would have jibed perfectly fine (especially since Loki prefaces his final insult with a lengthy diatribe about how he's going to force Clint to kill Natasha, with threat of sexual assault implied). The Let's Talk About Sociolinguistics part of me thinks that if Loki had called Hawkeye  or another male character a "mewling quim" the meaning would have been changed entirely (to "pussy" rather than "cunt"), which adds another level to the dynamic of the scene. The Take That, Misogyny! part of me sees Natasha hear him, presumably understand his meaning if not the word itself (although who knows, her brain is a magical place), and still go in for the kill, because that is just how little she gives a shit, it isn't the first time she's been called a cunt and it won't be the last. The Whedonite in me thinks that, all else being equal, Loki's conversation with the Widow is the most compelling and frightening segment of the film, the best indicator of Loki's evilness, and signifies that his threats against her (all sexualized ones) are the worst that a villain can bring to bear.

So...I'm not sure how I feel about this word, being in this film.  I am not real bothered by "cunt" itself, but when a person calls me that, it isn't the word that is trying to hurt me, it's the feeling behind it. Having only previously encountered "quim" as a quaint, har har, term for female junk, I'm not sure I WAS aware that it could be connotatively similar to "cunt," but of course that's Loki's (or Whedon's) goal. Erring on the side of optimism, if what this scene gives us IS solely Loki's misogyny and not Whedon's flippancy, I would think the creator might still be aware that the US is not quite ready for that conversation. Context as ever is key, since in some erotic scenarios we have "cunt" being used as an endearment (Lady Chatterley's Lover comes to mind as the classic example) and the same is true of "quim," which is largely cutesy in Chaucer, as I recall. For me as a consumer of culture "quim" was on level with "minge" prior to this movie. I can believe both that Whedon wrote the line intending for it to tell us something about Loki's character AND that Whedon should know that it isn't as cut-and-dried as all that. Ultimately, the line was written and signed off on; ironically I think it would be much more clear-cut if "cunt" had actually been used--and yes, I am one of those who think MPAA ratings for language are absolutely fucking idiotic. Regardless, there's a discussion to be had, and as always, Cleolinda has a thoughtful analysis and a lot of great comments.

*facepalm*

My hometown library system is in the news, and not for a good reason. Hell, is any Florida news ever good? Such an embarrassing state I hail from. Anyway, in the interest of helping the dear folks out back home, I present a partial list of Literature Easily Accessible at the Brevard County Public Library That Will Scar Children for Life and Cause Adults to Abandon All Morality (AKA Some Things I Read Age 13-17 That Taught Me More About Sex Than the Brevard County School System):

The novelization of The Wicker Man

Anne Rice as Anne Roquelaure's Sleeping Beauty trilogy

Incarnations of Immortality and every other fantasy series Piers Anthony has ever written

obvious shit like A Spy In the House of Love and Tropic of Cancer

River God

any number of Zane novels
part of Sin City

Trainspotting (the novel and the film)

hoary classics such as Lady Chatterley's Lover (hey, it was naughty when I was fifteen)

Rubyfruit Jungle 

These are all going to be removed, right? Right? For the betterment of humanity? Right?! 

 

Movie things

Yes, I saw The Avengers. Yes, I have many Thoughts and Feelings, but I am going to put off writing about them until a) more people in the US have seen it and b) I've seen it again. It's a pretty vast film deserving of at least one repeat viewing on the big screen.

Until then, a partial list of how movies are going to break my wallet this summer: Prometheus, Brave, Snow White and the Huntsman, Magic Mike, The Dark Knight Rises, The Amazing Spider-Man, Rock of Ages, The Expendables 2.

Always

Hey dudes! It's May 4th--let's talk about Star Wars! Now, surely all of you are aware that yes, in terms of intergalacticy shit I err on the side of Wars rather than Trek, but I'm not sure I've ever really gabbed about my SW feels in depth here before. No day but today, right? /mixing genres

So. Being born in 1987, I arrived on the mortal coil too late for the original Trilogy releases, and when they were re-released, my mother would never have dreamed of taking me to see them (she hates science fiction), but thankfully I had a friend whose dad was an SW nut, and she lent me their videotapes. Yes, videotapes. That was a good choice, since the tapes were ORIGINAL VERSIONS OF THE FILMS (gasp!). None of that Greedo-shooting-first nonsense. I became an SW nut straightaway, spending my days hunting down every EU book I could find at the library and drawing pictures of Han and Leia for my bedroom walls. My mother was somewhat dismayed. Then--oh, then!--Episode I came out, and I saw my first SW film in theaters. Now the older folks among you may be shedding a tear for this blasphemy, but we take what we can get.  Accidents of birth and all that. Of course, being all of twelve or so at the time, I loved it and my adoration of all things Star Wars grew. My first real entrance to participating in online fandom was through the starwars.com Message Boards. For my best friend's birthday a few years later, we checked out of school in the middle of the day to go see Episode II. And of course, senior year of high school, we were standing in line at midnight for Episode III. All the while we had read legions of EU stories good and not-so-good; we'd written a gigantic, awful science fiction novel largely inspired by SW elements; we'd gone to STAR WARS WEEKENDS at Disney World and had our picture taken with Figrin D'an and the Modal Nodes; and we'd watched the Trilogy more times than either of us can count. 

Star Wars chess set

For good or ill, depending on how you view the franchise and its creator, Star Wars will never die. It is truly an heirloom, as kids born five years ago to people who enjoy cosplaying as Chewbacca are cutting their teeth on the Clone Wars cartoon (which is great). It was my gateway into science fiction and what it means to be a fan. And for that, dear Mr. Lucas, I am indebted. Being an SW fan can be a fraught experience, but it is a rewarding one.

If you're for some reason flummoxed as to how to celebrate this wonderful day, geek with curves has some ideas! I'll be popping a Han-Solo-in-carbonite ice cube into my whiskey sour later on as I take in Empire for the nathanfillionth time. Go forth and make merry like unto the Ewoks on Endor, and may the Force be with you...always.

I can't even tell if I'm joking

I feel like Cosmo and Glamour's dating tips would be much more interesting if imparted through the lens of shitty 80s hair metal. Therefore I am proud (...) to present the Cock Rock Innuendo Index, A Work In Progress. Basically, look to the rough poetry of Axl Rose, Bret Michaels, and Vince Neil to be sure of whether the person in question is hitting on you and how you feel about that.

The line: "You're [insert typically masculine adjective here] for a woman." The lyric: "Slow down, hold on/you're too fast, too strong/slow down, make it last/take it easy, not too fast/don't let go" ("Let It Go," Def Leppard). The interpretation: He's slightly threatened by your cornhole game, sculpted biceps, or beer-pounding panache, but it's turning him on.

The line: "I thought I'd seen it all, until I met you." The lyric: "I've seen everything imaginable/pass before these eyes/I've had everything that's tangible/honey, you'd be surprised" ("Rocket Queen," Guns N' Roses). The interpretation:  No one's that jaded. Except maybe Chuck Bass...Is Chuck Bass creeping on you?

The line: "Bad girls get spankings." The lyric: "Nobody knows how to tie the simple knots I know/getting weak in the knees/and your bruises are beginning to show" ("Where There's a Whip There's a Way," Faster Pussycat). The interpretation: He may be into bondage or he may just be an abusive asshole.

The line: "Damn girl, you're nasty." The lyric: "You never act the way you should/but I like it/and I know you like it too" ("Talk Dirty To Me," Poison).  The interpretation: Keep talking, it's working.

The line: "Have you ever made out in an elevator?" The lyrics: "Here I come/my mind is set/get ready for love/you're my ten-second pet" ("Ten Seconds to Love," Motley Crue). The interpretation: He wants a BJ in between the hotel bar and his room.

The line: "Such a tease!" The lyric: "You see I'm beggin' you please/saying I can't wait to feel your love tonight" ("Feel Your Love Tonight," Van Halen). The interpretation: The balls are in your court, play them as you will.

The line: "Oh, you're dangerous. I know about girls like you." The lyric: "Like a fallen angel/with the devil's charm/she promised paradise/with the kiss of death" ("Kiss of Death," Dokken). The interpretation: Tread with caution--he might be playing coy or he might be a skittish, needy, once-burned Dokken aficionado. 

The line: "You're gorgeous. Are you here with someone?" The lyric: "You got it/but are you getting it?" ("Armageddon It," Def Leppard). The interpretation:You get to decide if a) you ARE indeed here with someone; b)c) you're not here with someone but now you have someone to go home with. you're not here with someone but this person isn't your speed; or

Changing views of sex and sexuality in SFF

"The Chaste Hero/ine" was the title of a panel I attended at a convention last weekend. It was a very interesting panel, one of several featuring Tamora Pierce (the con's major doubleplusbonus for me), but it didn't quite go in the direction I anticipated. If I'd had longer than 45 minutes to gather my thoughts, I might have stuck my hand in the air and said something; as it is, I will have to do my thinky thawts thing here on Ye Olde Blogge.

One thing that struck me immediately about the entire topic is the value judgement inherent in the word "chaste." It is a word intimately tied to concepts of purity, virtue, and moral goodness. Historically, in fiction and in life, those who are chaste are good and those who aren't are bad. For me this is the most salient point when talking about SFF protagonists, since by and large speculative fiction has moved away from overt portrayals of this value system. And the panelists did briefly talk in this direction when they discussed Galahad, but the point was never explicitly made or expanded upon that his power, stemming from God, was directly tied to his sexual purity. This is true for other male characters of the Arthurian cycle, including Galahad's father Lancelot, the wizard Merlin, and arguably even Arthur himself. Both of these men's powers diminish drastically after sexual contact with women; in some instances, Lancelot blames his tryst with Guinevere for his failure to obtain the Holy Grail, and Merlin is imprisoned (or dies) after his power is drained by his protege Nimue.  In some versions, the decline of Arthur's kingdom can be read as originating in his cuckoldry, or at least his unwillingness or inability to punish Lancelot and Guinevere. In these and other instances, magical, spiritual, and physical power stems from bodily (sexual) cleanliness. This runs the gamut from actual celibacy to faithful monogamy and sometimes ignores male-male sex as "not counting" (certainly there are examples, in fiction and in life, of female-female sex being considered to "not count"). The most bald examples are of male fantasy heroes dedicating their sexuality to a deity in return for power.

Although Virgin Power (as TV Tropes would have it) exists for female SFF characters--the Keepers of Darkover, for instance--the god-human-sex-life relationship for female protagonists tends to take somewhat of a different tack. In mythologized history, there are examples of women mystics who derive (thinly veiled) sexual experiences from their spiritual experiences; Teresa of Avila and Joan of Arc come to mind. In place of sexual appetite being swapped for physical, spiritual, or magical power, spiritual fervor and physical chastity lead to sexual ecstasy. In fiction, the first warrior maidens appeared as equal to their male counterparts in all ways save one: sexual prowess and appetite. It's safe to say that "manliness" has been and is often still tied to boning everything in sight, and many SFF heroes have voracious appetites. The first SFF heroines outside of the damsel-in-distress, exotic-Other, and evil-enchantress molds were strong, capable, good, powerful...and still virginal, so that something might be left for a man to conquer. Eowyn is an example of this early on in fantasy literature (Red Sonja is another who combines Virgin Power with Rape As Backstory, and who despite her sultry appearance has very strict rules about when the sexin' happens). We have departed a good deal from the stock story of ladies doing "men's work" until the right man comes along: many speculative fiction heroines have active sex lives these days and many are treated with a great deal more nuance than "exotic dusky-skinned temptress," "maiden a-questing 'til it's time to settle down," "pure wide-eyed damsel," and "femme fatale sorcerer-dominatrix." Some are even lesbian or bisexual or pansexual (sarcasm italics).

And sometimes, male and female heroes alike are not sexual at all--and this is a facet of their personalities, rather than being a hinge on which the entire story turns. Sulien in Walton's The King's Peace is raped at the outset of the story and afterward manifests no sexual desire of any kind. She is effectively asexual, saying that she was "not made that way" (for taking pleasure in sex). This is barely notable in her culture, which is one of relative sexual permissiveness. She is also  referred to as a "walkurja"--a Valkyrie, the archetypal warrior maiden of Norse myth. Tarma and Lavan Firestorm, from the Valdemar books, are celibate for different reasons--Tarma is referred to at one point as "sexless" by dint of being a Shin'a'in Swordsworn (she also has sexual assault in her history); Lavan is lifebonded to his Companion, who is not human, and he has no interest in human partners. Paks, in Elizabeth Moon's The Deed of Paksenarrion, is asexual, and arguably Bilbo and Frodo Baggins are as well. These examples are significant to me because they indicate things beyond choice dictating sexual activity. Most of the panelists' and audience discussion of hero/ine celibacy was restricted to why protagonists choose to have sex or not, but that doesn't have to be the only route an author takes and it is certainly not the whole story for people in real life. Paks specifically bridges the space between "I have dedicated my sex life to my god(s)" and "I have no sexual urges"--she is a paladin and has no sexual desires to begin with. Over-reliance on sexual tension--no matter what form it manifests in--is, according to my tastes, found too often across all literary genres.

I guess my rambly point is, there are different tropes at work depending on what book you're reading. SFF in many areas has turned away from the all-consuming need to make sex The Big Point Of Everything (we finally got past Heinlein), coming to recognize that there are ways of writing about a character's sex life and/or sexuality without discarding or ignoring other points of interest. 


The "chaste" panel kind of tied in to another panel I attended about LGBTQ characters in speculative fiction. There is a growing market for genre fiction featuring LGBTQ characters as well as a burgeoning library of books which do just that. Best of all, it seems that, like sex in general, differing sexualities are moving from ZOMG PLOT POINT! or ZOMG SEXY WINDOW DRESSING! to being part of well-developed, thoughtful characters. I read a review of Walton's Small Change series once which complained about how many gay characters there were--and not even major characters, just side characters! This was actually something I enjoyed about those novels, because heterosexuality is not and should not be portrayed as the default. When I walk through a crowd, not everyone around me is straight. From early exploitative examples of male-gazey lesbian trysts in pulp novels we have created a legacy of such treasures as Ethan of Athos, some of the Bordertown stories, China Mountain Zhang, Swordspoint, and Huntress, to name just a few.


Something I have noticed in my reading journey is that trans people are also getting more of a presence in fiction, and more of a thoughtful, realistic one. The first arguably trans character I encountered in fantasy was in the absolutely redonk If I Pay Thee Not In Gold (the first and last Lackey/Anthony team-up) in the form of the demon Ware, who shifts from male to female depending on who s/he was sleeping with. Not exactly a nuanced representation.  There is also somewhat of a tendency to treat trans characters in terms of magic or extreme technology (scientific marvels of post-human or trans-human tech, for instance) instead of "real people" characters. But we have other examples to look to--Okha and Nestor's relationship in Pierce's Bloodhound (her earliest heroine, Alanna, has themes of transvestism and gender performance if not transgender issues); The Left Hand of Darkness comments on human gender roles through the lens of androgynous aliens; Joanna Russ' The Female Man and The Adventures of Alyx center, not unproblematically, around what it means to be a woman; Lilith's Brood and other stories by Octavia E. Butler examine sex and gender in human, post-human, and alien societies; and River of Gods and especially Brasyl by Ian McDonald feature third sex or trans main characters. Science fiction and fantasy have long been natural playing fields for speculation and innovation regarding the human form, societal and cultural roles, and gender strictures. Where once upon a time this meant men writing about the sex they wished they were having, more and more it is coming to mean truly fantastic and speculative literature, exploratory and progressive fiction. Heterosexuality and monogamy need not be the norm in fantastic fiction. Triads such as those found in novels of Walton and Simmons, gay protagonists, asexual heroes, and trans characters--these are things I want to see in genres which purport to imagine all that can be imagined and to look forward to the futures we want to shape.

Rising

This weekend was Easter, of course. No longer being of a Christian faith and having a convention to attend in Columbus, I didn't really remember until today, when I realized that all my favorite candy would be on sale at the grocery store. A few of my beau's classmates invited him to church with them, which (I believe) the former Catholic declined. If we had been at home, we would have had lunch or dinner with our families, and that's really what I miss the most. As zany and irritating as our respective clans may be, the weight of cultural holidays is centered around family and togetherness, especially for secular people, atheists, or people whose religious paths don't celebrate that particular holiday. For many years when I was growing up, Easter Sunday was the day that we took our family photograph, and it still feels somewhat strange to not see my mother's family that day. 

But Easter still happens here in Ohio, and in many ways the season is more overt; maybe because of the preponderance of giant old Catholic churches in my new area and the streams of people I saw tracing the Stations of the Cross, maybe because of the extravagant flowers and blooming trees everywhere. As Christmas is the season of preparation and anticipation, Easter is the season of promises making good and tangible results. It is easy to feel inspired by the newness around me,  it is simple to enact the rites of spring in the everyday, and that is my religion.

Leave me alone

There's kicky little saying that Mormons love to parrot regarding apostates: "They leave the church, but they can't leave it alone."

Aside from how incredibly short that sells the church in terms of spiritual and cultural impact (like, you guys realize you're saying that the church is totally easy to ditch and completely forget about, right? THAT SHOULD NOT BE A GOOD THING), this adage also ignores the church's tendency to never leave anyone alone ever, not even after they've died. I don't remember if I talked here about how my mother had given the missionaries in Tampa my new cell phone number and how that made me feel--it pissed me off. A very simple invasion of privacy. Furthermore, by that time I had not been inside an LDS church in five years.

Who can't leave whom alone?

Thursday evening I got a charming email from my lady parent detailing the coming apocalypse as brought on by President Obama declaring "peacetime martial law" (I know, I know). I replied briefly and vulgarly. In her response to my brief vulgarity, my mother reminded me that this weekend is General Conference! AS IF I COULD FORGET, since she reminds me of this twice a year. Now, sure, if I had cable I'd be slamming down shots every time an old white dude mentioned Joseph Smith, but I don't and so I'll just have to conduct my weekend the way I normally do: a little library, a little grocery shopping, maybe get laid.

ALAS.

Geek love

No, not the utterly creepy and strangely beautiful novel. Over the past few days, as fans have shown their racist asses to the world and other fans have lambasted OTHER other fans for not being "real" enough, I have been very disappointed in the nerd world. Being a geek is supposed to be about passion and excitement and loving things, not about racism, poor reading comprehension, and flat derision. So I decided to give the Internet geek message boards a rest for a bit and consider all the wonderful nerds in my life who aren't racist or sexist or cruel or exclusionary.

There's my best friend, with whom I share everything from Animorphs to Star Wars to Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

There's my friend dead-girl, who can always be relied upon for a run through Jurassic Park, a marathon of Doctor Who, or a long chat about fantasy novels (complete with property-appropriate food).

There's the group of people I've been lucky to hang out with here in Cleveland--my first friends here, really--an amazing collection of people who love comics, among other things. Guess what? Most of them are men, and a more nice and welcoming slew of dudes you will never meet. I've yet to be condescended to and I think it'll stay that way.

There's my bud Sara, a fellow nerdbrarian, a new comics fan, and a serious Whovian and lover of all things British literature.

There's some of my favorite Tumblrites: the-houxbois-academy, antioxidantsuperhero, and fyeahlilbitoeverything. Emma Houxbois brings the Marvel, antiox brings the Young Justice and Tammy Pierce love, and fyeah...well, as the name implies, that Tumblr's got some of nearly every geek property under the sun. 

There's my Shauna, for the times we've spent watching Firefly and Futurama and talking about Girls With Slingshots.

There's my youngest cousin, with whom I enjoy talking about books and movies, and who is just starting to read comics (her gateway drug was Batman: Arkham City), and my third-youngest cousin, often my date to the comic store when we lived in the same city. 

There's everyone at the Tao of Scoot and everything they love: anime and manga, Transformers, creepy old kids' films like Dark Crystal, Dune, Star Trek.

There's my gentleman, my companion to cons and comic shops and bookstores and action films, for always.

In short: there are very kind, very cool geeks out there, men and women alike.  For every dickbag there's five more friendly people like the ones I'm lovin' on here. If you haven't found your karass yet, you will. And to my various karasses, thank you for embodying the best of our communities.

Women who love women

Occasionally I pop over to Feminist Mormon Housewives to see what the forward-thinking members of the LDS community are up to. Recently there was a post about female friends which struck me. I don't think our society is very interested in female relationships, not when there's a possible male/female romantic relationship to be had. Lots of popular cultural memes revolve around the concept of "frenemies," women as backstabbing and untrustworthy friends, women as gossips, and so forth. A lot of young women end up with the feeling that it's easier to be friends with men, because there's "less drama." There is also the impetus of fitting into the boys' crowd and being "one of the guys"; I venture for some women, being the odd lady out and having male attention is somewhat of a powerful feeling. 

I can relate to this as a woman who was deeply unpopular in high school and was not used to having appreciative male attention, but I strive to not feel and act this way. A lot of my interests are traditionally dude-heavy: I like science fiction, action films, comic books, and heavy metal. I have a lot of male friends. I like hanging out with guys and I get along easily with guys. BUT: I also love women. I love being around women, talking with women, and having relationships with women. I do not subscribe to either the idea that men and women can never be friends without sexual tension fucking things up (literally) or the idea that women's relationships will always be drama-filled and emotionally dangerous. I also don't really find that boy friendships are for one thing (going to cons, headbanging, attending sports events) and girl friendships are for another (getting pedicures, venting about love lives, watching Moulin Rouge!). There doesn't need to be any kind of false demarcation in the lives of our relationships. People like what they like and hang out with who they hang out with. There are horrible people in every gender group and of every sex and sexual orientation. There are women who will demand to check your credentials when you tell them you like such-and-such kind of music; there are men who will gossip about you behind your back. 

Once upon a time I parroted the idea that "I just think it's easier to hang out with guys"--I know of what I speak. This attitude is rooted in sexist tropes about men AND women. This attitude reinforces the idea that most women are "girly" and useless, unintellectual, petty, out to steal your man--that smart women prefer the company of the compelling male personality. This attitude needs to be combated. Women's relationships are valuable and valid and deep, beautiful, strong, and ALL women are real women. Women are interested in sewing and interested in reconstructing medieval trebuchets; women like to read romance novels and books about entomology; women listen to Rascal Flatts and Slayer. Throw out the snap judgments--they are a way of not having to do the hard work of relationships. Incidentally, this discussion on fMh dovetails into yet another debate in the geekosphere about "fake geek girls." Do they exist? If so, why do they exist? What is their purpose? What are they trying to prove? These questions aren't the point; the point is the furthering of the "boys' club" mentality and the woman-on-woman crime present in these discussions, since a good amount of the shit being flung is coming from women. Women accusing women of not being real, because REAL women have curves and REAL women want to be mothers and REAL women don't start fights and REAL women this, that, the other. I reiterate: all women are real women. Women who are just discovering comic books because they loved Thor are real women, and real geeks. Women who are learning how to play videogames are real women, and real geeks. Women venturing into the hefty pages of George R.R. Martin because someone DVR'd Game of Thrones for them are real women, and real geeks. I hate seeing geeks lambast one another for perceived lack of cred and I especially hate seeing women nerds doing this to other women. I hate seeing the same old tired-ass falsehoods, that "fake" geek girls are trying to get attention or start drama.


As mentioned previously in this post, a lot of the things that I am into have a largely male fan community. I have faced and will continue to face questions about my credibility as a metal music fan, as a comic book fan, as a sci-fi fan. Because the bar is so low, I expect this from men. I don't expect it from women and I hate it when it happens, because it feels like a betrayal. Surely they know what it's like to be sneered at or disbelieved! Yet it still occurs, because internalized misogyny is insidious and difficult to root out. So I say, Be strong in your relationships. Be welcoming and try not to be judgmental, in geeky matters or on Ravelry or in any community you are part of. We already face so much bullshit from all sides, so let's not add to it.

The Hunger Games (spoilers)

So, The Hunger Games! I was looking forward to seeing it, because I am a big fan of the books, and I saw it, and I liked it, and now I will need Catching Fire to be released as soon as possible.

Things I liked:

• how the film was able to expand the POV of the story. In the books, we have Katniss' point of view at all times, which makes for tense reading but doesn't give as much scope as maybe some readers would like. So it was very cool to see sweeping crowd shots, the faces of the people back home in District 12, and especially how the Gamemakers went about controlling things. That was maybe my favorite part, actually--seeing a slew of people creating forest fires to drive Katniss toward the Career Tributes and setting the mutts on the battlefield.
• Seneca Crane's enlarged role. Similarly, I think choosing to give Seneca a reasonably large part was a good move. Watching Wes Bentley and his magical circus beard stride around the control room and smarm on television were good ways of showing just how soulless the Capitol and Games are.
• The acting. I had some issues with the casting process of this film, as many people did, but there's no denying that Lawrence did an ace job with Katniss. Lenny Kravitz was also very good as Cinna (restrained but clearly caring about Katniss), Stanley Tucci was wonderful as zany talk show host Caesar Flickerman, Amandla Stenberg was perfect as Rue, and I can't wait to see Donald Sutherland really bust it out as President Snow in the next two films.
• Capitol fashion, yo! The Capitol crowd scenes were really great in terms of nutty hair, clothes, and makeup. For the next film I kinda want to dress up as some Capitol fashionista (though I did wear some Cinna eyeliner for this one). I would have liked to see more of Venia, Octavia, and Flavius in their brilliant glory though.

Things I didn't like:

• the mutts. Without the utter creep factor of what the muttations really are, they came off as simply giant wolfy things. However, I venture that explaining about the mutts would have taken too much time (especially with the film already clocking in at nearly 3 hours). When I told my manfriend what mutts are in the book, his face was exquisite.
• the end battle. Similarly to the first point here, I found the final scene at the Cornucopia not quite what it might have been. Though I suppose having Cato be eaten alive for hours would have both taken too long and been a bit much for a PG13 film.
• the mockingjay pin. Cutting out Madge didn't bother me TOO much, but would it have been that hard to have Katniss' mother give her the pin? As it played out in the film, it just didn't seem significant enough.
• the marketing of Team Peeta/Team Gale. OH MY GOD YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT.
• the casting of Katniss. This isn't an issue with the film itself--since Lawrence was very good in the role--so much as a prior-to-the-film problem, but it bears repeating. Katniss' ethnicity is never stated in the books and based on her physical appearance (black hair, olive skin, grey eyes), it is entirely possible that she is of color. I think it would have been pretty great to see an actress of color in that role.

So yes! A good time was had by all. Very much looking forward to the second two movies (please please PLEASE cast Finnick soon. Hell, I'll save you the trouble: Armie Hammer).

Wonder Woman #7 (spoilers)

So, Wonder Woman. I talk about her every now and then. The seventh issue in her new title came out this week and lots of people are discussing it, so I might as well add my voice to the chatter. Warning: this is going to be looooong.

WW #7 is an incredibly well-written comic. Brian Azzarello is one of the most talented writers working for DC (or any comics company), and I was very glad to see Cliff Chiang back for the art too. There is quite a lot about it that I loved--the updating of Eros and Hephaestus, the continuing interaction between Diana, Hermes, and Lennox (though I already miss Zola!). It is also a problematic issue, one that I read twice and have been picking over in my brain for some time. I'm a mythology nut, and when I was a kid I was all Greek myth, all the time. Those are the myths I know best. I still love them, but as I've gotten older, read analyses of them and retellings, and considered them in their own time, I have naturally begun to view them with a more critical eye, because they are largely male-centered. Goddesses and women do not come off well in Greek myth. Unsurprising. And I have been disappointed to see Wonder Woman fall back on the trope of Hera as Queen Vengeful Nag, with no updating or changes at all, especially in light of how very interestingly Hermes, Eris, and other deities have been written.

Amazons are a feature of a few Greek myths, and an idealized form of them is found in the Wonder Woman mythos as a community of immortal women living on a paradisaical island. Other writers have reworked the Amazons as well (Xena comes to mind); when I was reading WW#7, the portions wherein Hephaestus explains the "real story" of the Amazons reminded me of The Firebrand, a retelling of the story of Troy by Marion Zimmer Bradley. In this book the Amazons are a tribe of women who meet once or twice a year with a male tribe, the Kentaurs, to get busy and further the people. If the babies produced from these meetings are female, they stay with the Amazons. If they are male, they go with the Kentaurs. For all the problems with The Firebrand, this still seems like the best possible way of formulating such a sex-segregated tribal structure. In WW#7, something similar happens, but in this case, the Amazons seduce male sailors and then kill them; if male babies are born, the Amazon women throw them into the ocean, as Hera threw Hephaestus into the ocean. Having strong feelings about this sort of thing, Hephaestus rescues the boys and raises them to work in his forge.

Now. Seeing the Amazons portrayed as heartless succubi and infanticidal, uncaring mothers bothers me...a lot. I felt for Hephaestus, as I always have (and LOVED the way he was drawn!), and I liked that the men of his forge were happy to be there and felt that their lives had purpose. I loved that Diana embraced her legions of newfound brothers and cousins as family and tried to help them. I didn't even particularly mind that the Amazons occasionally had sex with men and sometimes produced male children (although I still have fiery feels about Diana's own birth story). I do mind that the Amazons are recast in a nightmare role, the role which history has always accused and suspected us of: as soul-sucking succubi, as man-eaters only interested in sperm donors, as lethal temptresses who literally get away with murder. There are also undertones of rape in the way that the Amazons deal with the male sailors. Perhaps if I were reading this story in a vacuum, I would not be as bothered, but I'm not. I'm reading this story after weeks--hell, years--of hearing that I am a slut and a prostitute, that my body is not mine to make decisions about, that men far removed from me will continue to make decisions for me. I'm reading this story after hearing about more of the pernicious racism and cruelty which continues to murder innocents in our country. I am a female reader in a world which wars on women and sexual and ethnic "others" constantly and with intent. I am a woman in a country where a serious candidate for president is actively attempting to bring about a theocracy.

I like reading about the possibilities of a peaceful society. I like reading about relationships between women which are good and helpful and positive and healing. I like reading about powerful women, and quite frankly, I occasionally like to read about women who have absolutely no male influence in their lives. So to see the Amazons brought down to the same old bloodthirstiness, to see them saddled with the sins of using male bodies and discarding them (something which has been done to women throughout history and continues to be done), was disheartening. What is DC afraid of? Why is the idea of a women's society so threatening? Are we really still in a time where the concept of women thriving without male approval and input is terrifying? Most of the news bulletins and congressional blathering these days say a resounding YES. The white men are scared and it reflects in our art and culture. Maybe that's why on Earth-2, in a few of DC's new upcoming titles, the Amazons are all dead. Maybe that's why in the recent Flashpoint event, the Amazons were castrating, murdering harpies.

I continue to think that there is editorial fiat at work here. I do think that DC's top people have a real problem with unfettered greatness around their female characters. I think that DC would never even consider changing Batman or Superman's histories so radically and in a canon, flagship title. I think that DC has never cared much for Wonder Woman, period (especially given the wildly varying levels of time and devotion in terms of creative teams and promotion they've given her). I think DC thought Diana needed to be made "cooler." Well, news for you, bigwigs: she was already cool. She was already inspirational and amazing, smart, strong, powerful, and complex. She will continue to be so no matter what you throw at her, and make no mistake: I will not stop reading this book. I will support this book because she's mine and no one can take her from me. I continue to hold out hope and trust for this creative team and I hope--exercising naivete like only nerds can--that I'll be rewarded for that. I think Wonder Woman will rise above her new origins; I think she will understand that it is how we were raised and the choices that we make, not our biology or our family history, that shapes us. But that doesn't mean that I have to like these changes that have been made to her family and her people.

(Now, Moon Knight #10, the other comic I alluded to in an earlier post this week...that's just classic fridging, nothing complex or noteworthy about it.)

On fire

Yes, I am going to The Hunger Games this weekend.

Yes, I will be wearing gold eyeliner.

Yes, I will have cried all said eyeliner off by the time I leave the theatre.

Non, je ne regrette rien.

I have some catching up to do on a couple of notable comics titles. Expect a post about one or more of them this weekend.

Holy shit SEASONS!

Say what you will about public transportation, but if I drove a car I'd probably be missing the glory that is new buds on trees and misty sunrises and deer flirting their white flags in the woods outside work.

Friday sexytimes

In her latest post, Sulli at We Were Going To Be Queens talks about sex and the (LDS) church, including a quotation for discussion from Alison Bechdel to kick things off: "Sexual shame is in itself a kind of death."

I think this is an elegant summation of one of US society's most trenchant issues. Being raised in the Mormon church, I found that this broader perennial problem was percolated to a fine brew of feverish guilt Kool-Aid. It's probably the same in other churches, but as ever I can only speak to my own experience. As Sulli points out, in LDS doctrine sexual sin is second only to murder in God's Litany of Bad Things; in this case, "sexual sin" covers everything from cheating on a spouse to non-standard relationships--such as polyamory, ironically enough--to homosexuality to sexual abuse to masturbation to French kissing your boyfriend and possibly even oral sex within the bounds of marriage, depending on who you talk to.

This doesn't mean that church members in good standing never ever do these things (I recall overhearing gossip among the married women in my ward back home which singed my precious teenage ears). It certainly doesn't mean that sexual abuse never occurs or that Mormon babies are never born out of wedlock. What it did mean for me was that a disconnect grew between how I thought about sex on an everyday basis and what I expected would occur once I got married. Mormon youth are bombarded with messages about how their sexuality should manifest and express itself and what should be done about sexual urges. Effectively a good Mormon has no erogenous zones until a wedding ring appears on the left hand. Body shame is instilled early and reinforced often, and LDS members are expected to bounce from "sin second only to murder" to participating in and enjoying conjugal activities once married. I can't provide any real insight on Mormon marriages and sex lives, since I skedaddled before that happened--not that it was likely to. But I did get to go through the process of learning about my body and sexuality outside the confines of LDS doctrine. Thankfully, I had libraries and Internets full of health information to guide me, because no mistake, one of the most real consequences of the LDS attitude toward sex is teenage mothers. As I recall from my ward growing up, there were three teenage girls who became pregnant while I was nearing teenagehood myself. THIS CAN BE AVOIDED. It is frankly criminal negligence to lie to children about sex and the facts of life in the twenty-first century modern world. I was lucky in that I managed to rip out most of the shame I associated with sex all by myself, though sometimes remnants of it still surface. I was not ashamed enough to not find out everything I could about the way my body worked; I read tons of books, surfed Scarleteen, and talked to my more experienced friends. But what about the young men and women who are overwhelmed by that shame, who are afraid to ask questions or have no one to ask?

Doctrines of shame do no service to anyone save those in power. The death which stems from sexual shame is the death of part of a person's self. Shame is inherently about hating yourself; guilt is about the things that you do--it's easy to see where the two intertwine. A church that teaches its children, youth, and adults to hate themselves does not come from a place of divinity. Another death is that of a person's sex drive, for how are we to repress a thing for many years (many, many years depending on when a church member gets married) and then suddenly expect it to flourish? I recall a woman in my ward who was single and had never been married; I remember my mother saying that she was "angry"; and now I think to myself, Of course she was angry! She was in her forties and probably had never gotten any! Had I kept on in that church, I likely also would have become angry and depressed, since by the age of twenty no right-thinking LDS man had shown any interest. I mean, sweet Zombie Jesus, I was practically an old maid! Another death resulting from sexual shame is in the realm of self-love, and I don't even mean the Divinyls kind, although let us be clear: jerking it occasionally is important for most people. Self-love here refers to love and reverence for ourselves as humans. My experience as an LDS youth was a cycle of perceived sin and repentance, and apparently this is how it should be; keep in mind that I never actually had the opportunity to do anything tragically bad--I never dated anyone, let alone got close enough to do some sinnin'. I never masturbated. I didn't read or look at porn (except on accident, like when I discovered the novelization of The Wicker Man. O was that ever a night for repenting!). But that shame was there, always. I knew even thinking about kissing the cute guy in physics class was wrong. We are not whole humans if we can't acknowledge all parts of ourselves. Shame leads to fear, fear leads to hate...we know where this goes. So much hate manifests in the LDS church from the shame associated with sex: hate of homosexual people, hate of interracial marriages, hate of those who choose to marry outside the church.

Body and sexual shame forces bodies to be battlegrounds, and though I might joke about it, it's serious business. Sexual shame demonizes bodies, both male and female bodies. It lays blame for rape at the feet of victims. It places the onus of responsibility on women while creating men as animalistic and out of control ("You should dress more modestly to help men's thoughts remain pure"). Once upon a time I refused to be ashamed any longer and though it is a continual process of reworking and relearning, I will never look back. I am not ashamed of my breasts or my legs or my ass or my hair. I am not ashamed of my desires. I am not ashamed of my opinions and beliefs and morals. I am not ashamed of how my face and body look when I'm getting busy. I am not ashamed to embrace myself, to tell my gentleman that he's sexy and I want him, right now. I am not ashamed to bring a basket of condoms to the CVS checkout counter, and frankly I hope someday to be utterly shameless.

Once upon a time in Tampa

O Tampa! It's not my hometown, but it's where I spent six of my most interesting formative years, and despite myself I'm very fond of the place--indeed I miss it much, much more than I anticipated since moving to Cleveland.

This longing for a sometimes boring, often frustrating, wickedly humid patchwork city was further intensified a few weeks ago when I watched the 2004 Punisher for the first time since the film came out. In case you weren't aware, the film was partially set and completely shot in the Tampa Bay area. This is one of the only times that my fair city has been committed to film in a reasonably major way (the others being Lutz featuring in Edward Scissorhands, the Lowry Park Zoo used in Goodfellas, and one of the area racetracks in Ocean's Eleven), and watching it was a bizarre, weirdly moving experience for me as a former Tampon. Is this how New Yorkers and Vancouverites feel when they see the thousands of films and TV shows which feature their home cities? Is this how longtime Clevelanders will feel when they view Avengers in the spring and recognize portions of our downtown? Because it is strange, very strange, to see long shots of Tampa's business and club districts, to see Fort DeSoto masquerading as Puerto Rico, to see John Travolta holding court next to a tall downtown building which goes by the local vulgarity "The Beer Can." I even got a little maudlin when a scene happened to take place in a location which looks a lot different now (the old ampitheatre behind the art museum, if you're following along).

(aforementioned Beer Can and the "Saints and Sinners" club)

That paltry night skyline! The neighborhood where my sister and I owned a house! The beautiful mosaics of the Columbia! The bridge to Davis Island! The spires of UT! 2001 Nude Odyssey! That's me: that's my city: a glorious sprawl of strip joints and mansions and tawdry apartment complexes and rotting cigar factories which could be historic if someone would just give a damn. So, Thomas Jane and company: thanks for this, at least.

Happy birthday, Cully Hamner!

Yes, it's true, today marks the birth of one of my favorite comics creators: Cully Hamner. You might know him and aren't aware of it--the movie RED (yes, that magical vehicle of Helen Mirren shooting things) was adapted from his book with Warren Ellis of the same title, and its sequel is currently in production. Hamner has also drawn my favorite nonpowered DC heroine, Renee Montoya, in her guise as The Question for an amazing run of Detective Comics (with writer Greg Rucka, featured in the picture below...and of course I am also lucky enough to have an original Hamner Question sketch!), drew the first three issues of the excellent limited series The Shade, and designed the Jaime Reyes incarnation of the Blue Beetle.

Have a wonderful birthday, Cully! Thank you for all the amazing art.

Body Appreciation Monday: #problematicvaginas

I'm actually not feeling real appreciative of my body today, since I have a cold/weird new allergies/something that is causing my head to be cotton-woolly and my nose to run like a tap, but whatevs, because the best recent hashtag on Twitter, #problematicvaginas (courtesy of Elon James White), encapsulates something I do love about my body, all the time: it pisses people off.

Just by existing! Man. Talk about making the personal political.

And I was thinking...if all these old white dudes are really interested in my problematic vagina * (because, rest assured, it is QUITE problematic. Why, just a few days ago I allowed a man I'm not married to into the vicinity of my lady parts for reasons unrelated to procreative sex!), if they want to nose up in its business, are they entirely sure what that entails? Somehow I think not. I get the impression that none of them actually know anything about female anatomy. So in a way, it's a good thing that my problematic vagina will be here to teach them! Oh, they'll get to learn all sorts of interesting things about cervical mucus, why Excedrin is actually the best painkiller on the market, what to say to the TSA people when they insinuate that you're storing drugs in your junk after seeing a strange little item on the backscatter image, how often you need to shave your bits (and how often is too often? Old white dudes, ingrown hairs are no joking matter!), the exact quantity and quality of dead uterine lining which exits via my problematic vagina with reasonable regularity...

Are you ready to LEARN, old white dudes? 'Cause if you want to legislate my problematic vagina and the various things attached to it, you best know what the hell you're talking about.

*vagina vagina vagina vagina vagina vagina vagina vagina

Bloody policy-makers

A brief note on my lunch break: I was surprised and pleased to read these posts on Feminist Mormon Housewives regarding the issue, har har, of menstruation and temple visits. As I have posted about in the past, my experience as a teenager and young adult in the Orlando, FL area was that menstruating women were not allowed to perform baptisms for the dead. I was unsurprised and displeased to see that the Orlando temple remains among the LDS temples which restrict women in this manner.

At any rate, I encourage anyone interested to take a look at the Google Doc linked in the fMh posts and see how the temple in your area fares.