Random Rants from an Insane Butch Bunny

ARGHABLAGHNDEARFDAJEAAARGHLGARJKLLL!!!!!!!!!

Okay.  Now I've got THAT out of my system...

Go here.  Go take a look, then do what I just did, then come back here and we can have a little talk.

Now, obviously we don't have the full story. here.  The young girl, the victim, has the right (or SHOULD do to have her privacy protected, so we shouldn't have her life story in print unless she decides to publish it herself, later in life.

However, as someone who was sexually abused as a child (thankfully my family are wonderful and supportive people who had the brains to know where the real fault lay) I can... infer, if you will, from the story, what may have happened.

Mummy gets a boyfriend.
At, or shortly prior, to age 11, he makes sexual advances towards the child, most certainly in secret, and plants into the child's head the notion that this is okay,  This is what people do.  This is love.  But that for some reason the government doesn't understand, so if she ever tells then her mummy and mummy's boyfriend will get taken away.  At some point, this turns to actual penetrative sex.
Abused, confused, and with a now seriously messed-up understanding ofhow sex, love, relationships and family works, the girl acts out sexually, as well as misbehaving.  Hence the fact that she is mentioned as being a trouble child.  She probably initiates or acquiesces to sexual advances, and vents her frustrations, confusion, fear and hurt out by being a bit naughty. Could be any sort of misbehaviour, really.
Mummy catches wind of this.  Maybe her daughter tries to tell her, maybe she catches her daughter "at it" with Boyfriend or some one else.  Either way, mummy is horrified.
Mummy is horrified at her daughter for being such a little hussy.
Mummy doesn't talk to her daughter about it, find out why some one so young woudl act out in this way.  No, she knows that her daughter is a slutty little slutface boyfriend stealer and Boyfriend, bless his heart, just took what was on offer in a moment fo weakness (or several).  Mummy tells off daughter, demands that she stop.
Boyfriend keeps on raping daughter.  Or, as Mummy puts it, daughter keeps on seducing mummy's boyfriend.
Mummy shaves her daughter's head.
"There!  Now, you little slut, you won't be able to seduce my man again!"
Boyfriend continues raping the girl.
Mummy has her daughter held down and has her genitals pierced, specifically, so that sex will be painful for her daughter, so she won't want to do it.

Now, I don't need to be drawn a picture.  I can state that, if the purpose of the piercing was to prevent sex due to pain, we aren't talking about the sort of piercings you can get from a tattoo parlour.  We're talking something moresimilar to FGM, where labia are sewn or pierced shut, or some other effort is made to make the area too small to penetrate, or raw, or otherwise scarred and damaged.

So, daughter spends her formative years of puberty believing thatshe is a bad, bad girl and a slut who must be punished, and that it's all her fault.  She is a slut, and she must be because look, just look at how she acts out!  She's only giving Boyfriend love, and those other people, but it must be bad because Mummy hurt her.

The piercing becomes infected, and thus Child Services become aware of the act.

The case goes to court.

Court finds the mother... INNOCENT of abusing, torturing and assaulting her child.  Court still recognises that the child was a victim of statutory rape, since they are, apparently, on the look out for Boyfriend, and sends the piercer to prison, but thinks that Mummy, at most, acted innappropriately in a moment of weakness, although she was surely looking out for her daughter's best interests.

I'll say it again.

ARGHABLAGHNDEARFDAJEAAARGHLGARJKLLL!!!!!!!!!

I just hope the girl gets help, counselling, and some one to turn to who she can actually trust.

So, over at Feministing we have a brief post covering some Craigslist rant or other.  And our Troll of The Day turns out to be a least as amusing as the original rant.  Let's take a looksie, shall we?

Starting first, with the Craigslist rant.

 Women are not actually attracted to men. There is a vague idea of what a man is physically, and some are better than others aesthetically speaking, but the purely physical appearance of a man is almost inconsequential unless he is horribly ugly or outrageously attractive.

Women are attracted to status, money, how much a man smiles and laughs, how many friends and resources a man has, how full a man's life is--how many "cool," "exciting" and prestigious things he is doing or connected to.

 Hmmm... well, I can see how a man might look at the variety of men considered "sexy" in popular culture, compared to the women considered "sexy" and think that.  Pop-culture sexy women are, for the most part, expected to be white, very slim or slight-of-frame, preferably with generously proportioned breasts (but ony so long as they are pert), with perfect teeth, as few age lines as possible, long and slender legs, glossy and long hair, a small nose, generous lips, trimmed eyebrows.  So there is, in popular culture, a fairly standard ideal for beauty.  Just take a look here, for example.

In the top 10, we have...

Jessica Alba
Keeley Hazel
Eva Longoria
Adriana Lima
Scarlett Johanneson
Hayden Panettiere
Cheryl Tweedy
Angelina Jolie
Emily Scott
Elisha Cuthbert

The first black woman?  Beyonce Knowles at number 18.  The first "chubby" woman?  Charlotte Church at number 65, and she only counts if you use Hollywood's yardstick for measuring weight.

Compare to this list of top 100 sexiest men...
Or this list...
Or this list...
You'' find plenty of women will say that George Clooney, Sean Connery, Viggo Mortensen, Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp are the sexiest men alive,  You'll find men who are considered overweight, or old, or who have "character" as opposed to being "handsome".

So, from a male persepective, women may seem to pick men who aren't physically attractive as the ideal mate, because some men are taugh that physical beauty and attractiveness, from pop-culture's perspective, requires aperfect body, perfect hair, perfect skin, perfect health, perfect teeth.  It could seem that we are attracted to men who have status, like Sean Connery.  He is older now, but he is surely rich and well-to-do.  Many women seem to fall head-over-hills for politicians, despite their tendency to look like melting fish.

But you know what?

Most of the men I have met; my friends, lovers, family members, elders, acquaintances... they all seem to like women who look more "real".  I've knownmen who loved chubby girls, who thought shaved women looked odd, who like big noses, or thin lips, or crooked teeth, or boyish girls, or body-building girls, or older women, or who generally just love women of all sorts.  The difference is that in pop culture, women are expected tbe perfect and so men become accustomed to seeing perfect women as beautiful.  In contrast, men are allowed much more breathing space in terms of looks, so us women are moreused to seeing more realistic men.

Personally I love deep, commanding voices.  Voices which sound strong, and imposing.  I like broad, bulky, stocky men.  I like dirty men with long hair and face fuzz that don't BSC themselves.  I like men with lines around their eyes, a booming laugh and rough hands.  These things are sexy to me.  Some of them maybe things common in men with power; a commanding voice is likely to win over voters more than a reedy one, for instance.  Booming laugher can be a sign of confidence, and confidence is necessary in order to get ahead.  Older men are more likely to have been promoted or be higher up the career ladder, purely due to the time spent working.  But does that mean that I am attracted to these things because they suggest wealth and power?  Or do men with these attributes get wealth and power due because they are considered attractive?  When a beautiful woman gets ahead, we are likely to say "oh, she only got there because of her looks", but we don't say that about men.  Instead, we take their competence as read and then claim that those attracted to them are only after their money and power.

So, point one.  Women do find men sexy.  We get jolted in the crotch and get wet at the sight/sound/smell of a rough, manly man just as men get hard in the presence of sultry, seductive women.

Point two.  So, lesbians don't find other women sexy?

 A woman's attraction to a man is a function of her jealousy at the thought of another woman having that man. She doesn't care who he actually is or EXACTLY what he looks like physically, she only cares about the VALUE of the life he has constructed around himself.

A woman basically is a greedy materialistic prostitute. Although that sounds vulgar, it's true. She trades her physical self to buy into the success a man has created for himself.

 
Strange.  My partner was homeless when I met him.  Not the most "prestigous" of lifestyles, and I didn't exactly have to compete for him.  My father-in-law, my dad, was a train driver still recovering financially froma messy break-up when he met my mum.  If what this guy has saidis true, then how do so many working-class men, with low-status jobs, get laid?  What about all the unemployed men?  Or the men who otherwise lack "status" in the usual sense?  Surely, not because they happen to be witty, loveable, sexy, caring, funny, intelligent, strong or have other positive characteristics?  Why aren't there hoardes of single women, all desparately holding out for the most prestigious of men, and hoardes of single, low-prestige men, bemoaning the fact that rich, powerful men these days all have harems of their own?

 As a man, I fall in love with how a woman is physically. I fall in love with simple parts of a woman. Like the way her hair falls around her face, the line of her neck, her shoulders. They way her ears might peek from her hair. Her eyelashes. The size and shape of her hands, her fingernails. The way she walks, the way she looks when she is tired or annoyed, the sound she makes when she sneezes, coughs, or cries. The way she sits in a chair. The way she breathes while experiencing different emotions. The way her lips move. A million little things.

Sure, a huge part of my attraction is mental, but the powerful seed of love that builds within me and crystallizes is based greatly on visual things that set off torrents of emotion and need.

It seems to me that women almost cannot think for themselves. Their estimates of worth are based on other peoples' estimates of worth. They don't really find an object beautiful on their own. The object becomes beautiful when other people let her know that it is beautiful.

 
Newsflash.  Women do the same thing, to.  I love my partner's eyes.  I love his lips, the way they part and his brow furrows when he's concentrating.  Ilove the roughness of his hands.  I love how his beard tickles me when we kiss.  I love how vulnerable and yet strong he looks when he's about to cum.  I love how his arse look sin jeans when he's crouched over one ofour PCs, doing repairs.  I love the few greyhairs he's already getting at 25, and the way the lines on his face crease up when he smiles,  I love his mannerisms, the way he physically behaves androgenously, rather than acting out overt masculine actions.  I love his big nose.  I love the way he laughs when he's completely lost it over some joke.  I love the way he smells after a day at work.

How is that not physical?

 And how am I not thinking for myself, here?

To this guy, women aren't independent human beings, they are robots.  With incomplete programming.  Tell the robot to love something, and it will.  Tell it to value money, and it will.  Instructions go in, and it acts.  It does not react.  Merely acts.

How can any woman ever feel truly loved by a man who thinks of her as a machine?  Perhaps that is the problem, here.  Perhaps, and I am entirely projecting here, I'm not a mind reader.  Perhaps, this man has been jilted.  He has seen women leave him for men who, in his eyes, are more successful, more prestigious.  Perhaps he thinks these women only used him, that he was a rung on the ladder to the top.  Perhaps it never occurred to him that seeing women as lumps of meat, aloveable only for their looks, with badly-wired computer parts installed that are programmed to seek out wealth, made the women who tried to love him back away in favour of some one more loving?

*

And next, we get some guy who calls himself "Yes Master".  Now, as a sub, I have to saythat his opinion of women leaves me cold.  I can think of few self-respecting subs who genuinely want to feel like a creature of less worth than their dom.  We may worship those we call Master, but we expect to be valued in return, and respected.  I'll call this guy "YM" for now.

Now, from his post, I'm pretty sure that YM didn't actually read ANY of the Craigslist article, nor did he read the breif article on Feministing.  He saw the "pussy envy" picture and reacted to it, alone.

 To envy something that has a such a short shelf life is inconceivable! Just plain stoopid too. A man to want to envy a pussy, is truly not the point here.

 
Short shelf life?  So, wait, when does MINE expire?  Shit, I'm 23!  Even longlife milk doesn't last that long!  Oh noes!

 Penis Envy is the great female paradox. Women just want goddess status to allow for the same behavior patterns of men. The freedom to Slut it up without judgement in a negative light. The proof is in pudding. Today's drugs to knock back their period, to not become pregnant, to be all the slut they can be without having the anchor's of responsibility of childbearing, and to achieve what men have had and will always have.

 
Yeah, because contrlling childbirth has nothing to do with, say, not wanting to have another child.  Or not being able to afford another child.  Or not wanting to catch a sexual disease.  Or not wanting to get pregnant if we are raped.  Or not wanting to die in childbirth because we have a condition that results in a high risk of this.  Or not wanting to die because we have tried to have a child and now have an entopic pregnancy.  Or not wanting to suffer yet another miscarriage due to a condition we have.  Trying to get rid of our periods has nothing to do with the crippling stomach cramps, shooting pains in the crotch, stomach, kidneys, thighs, spine, the migraines, the cost of prescription pain killers, the bloating, the mess of a thick, gloopy period, the knotted and bunged-up pubes, the cost of sanitary devices, the smell that some women suffer from.  Nah, we just want to "slutit up".

Ummm... after that ge just stops making sense altogether.  Go read it and see.  I'm not completey sure, but I think what he is trying to say could be boiled down to this:

I think women are all sluts and it is their purpose to be objects for men and to cook and clean and have babies and be obedient, but now all these "feminazis" have turned up who want to be sluts and not get the telling off they rightfully deserve, so they've invented this idea of being a Goddess or of being important and equal to men and they try to push it by having men's jobs and having sex like men.  They fail, and then they get raped and abused because they don't know what's best for them, because they have no accountability.  So only a few "freaks" manage to do it successfully.

Yeah, that was about the most sense I could make out of what he was trying to say.

Except...

 Accept what you are and stop making your selves and other females look bad or even worse for some. Men love you women just the way you are, so "Don't go changing" what you are. It's time you women start loving yourselves finally, I mean, damn it's 2007 already, how long you going to wait? And one more word of advice, Stop playing the "POOR US" card it's really unattractive.

 Ah, so that;s it!  He thinks we hate ourselves, and that we're trying to be "as good as men" so that we will be attractive to men!

But, seriously.  So, you like us just as we are/were when we are/were submissive andobedient housewives?  Good or you.  And?  What?  Oh, you want a cookie?  I know I didn't make my life choices to make men happy.  I wanted to be an astrophysicist because I love science, because Ilove the elegance of mathematics and the joy of obscure scientific principles.  What men wanted never entered into the equation.  Men can like me or loathe me just as I am.  So long as I like me.

*

Okay, that was a long and serious response, consideringthat my initial, visceral reaction was to laugh so hard t'other 'alf asked me if I was okay.  Serioualy, go there with a light heart and giggle away, like  did.  Hopefullyyou'll be less of a gek than me and will be able to enjoy it without the need to dissemble every word!

I consider myself to be a Neopagan.

This year, Samhain falls on a weekday.  Wednesday, in fact.  This means, fortunately, that the fun, Westernised Halloween parties will all be taking place the weekend before and after (I'm currently still recovering from Friday!), and it means that I have Samhain itself free to enjoy in my own way.

Traditionally, of course, Samhain lasts 3 days, but Pagan festivals tend to be long, anyway, and I'd be selfish to take multiple days off on each of the 8 main festivals, so I'll stick with just celebrating on the day.

But what to do?

I'll be working until 5pm, limiting the size of the feast I can prepare.  The butcher I use is able to provide whole, stripped and gutted sheep for anyone who wants to try their hand at a spitroast, but I don't have many Pagan friends and, in either case, only have a small, bricked-over garden outside my flat.  So I'll probably just ask him for a rabbit or two, maybe a poussin, perhaps venison if he has any.  I could light a little fire in the garden- we have a little kettle stove- but I would feel a little.... exposed... with the other tenants watching us from the floors above, and the main road passing by our house.  My religion is personal and private, to be shared only with close friends and relatives.

I didn't plan very well, this year.  I usually make up some meade, real ale and wines, and a few sorts of chutney, but this year it looks as though I'll only have time to prepare some nice kornigou bread.  Once I have a place large enough, of course, I'll be making my own cheeses and smoked meats as well.

So a feast will probably be the best way to go.  With perhaps a little fire in the garden.  I've never really celebrated my festivals properly, before, so I'm not sure what to do beyond that.  Singin and dancing will undoubtedly happen once I've had some more to drink, but the more traditional aspects, like setting an extra place for relatives passed, telling stories, purification and divination rituals, might feel a little forced if it's just the Mistah and me, and I want it all to feel natural.  I could play with my pendulum a bit, although I won't be using my card, since my partner has had negative experiences with them.

I'd like to decorate the house or garden with ash and yew branches, but don't have anywhere nearby to get them.

Any suggestions would be welcome, from both Pagans and non-Pagans.  I'd love to hear your ideas for decorating my home, dishes to add to the feast, and activities for the night.

Sorry for the lack of regular updates, recently. In between mourning the loss of WCC I've been fiddling with making a costume fr this year's Halloween party. I just spent an hour and a half on the next-to-last part only to realise afterwards that I'd sewn on the sleeves upside-down.

So yeah... updates will resume once my costume is finished.

And once they release plushie WCC so I can at least some small comfort from that...

RIP WCC!

P.S... I may be going a little too far in my love of Portal.

Back over at Feministe again, I found myself reading a string of posts abourt abortion and contraception.  And it got me thinking, as I looked back at older posts and responses from trolls, about the whole concept of "pro life".

Let me lay it out like this.

What does the term "pro life" make you think of?  If you take this phrase, and excise from it all the political implications and knowledge you have of the group the term actually applies to?

If I remove those known connotations, and use the phrase "pro-life" on it's own, I find that I could consider myself "pro life".   I like life.  I support the idea of aiding life.

I support access to education for all people, regardless of income. 
Because having access to education allows people to protect themselves, to anticipate danger and to react in a more informedmanner to situations that could cause harm.  For example, thanks to my education I know that replacing a lightbulb whilst the light is switched on is dangerous.  The lightbulb may be hot, the new one may pop as it goes in.  This may surprise me and I may fall to the ground and injure myself.  I may get shocked by the electricity.  Thanks to my education, I know that injuries can become infected if they are not cleaned, and I know the consequences of infection.  So, I switch off the light at the wall before changing the bulb, and if I cut myself when gardening I wash the injury and dress it.

I support access to healthcare for all people, both preventative and curative. 
A person who has dangerously high blood pressure and cholesterol would be better off taking medication to control this, thereby reducing the risk of suffering heart or circulatory problems later in life.  If someone gets cancer, they are better off receiving the treatment prescribed, whether surgery, medication, radiotherapy or a combination of choices.

I support the benefits system, for people on low incomes, those out of work and those without a home. 
The benefits system works, in its way, as both a preventative masure and treatment for a problem.  The problem is people having too little income to support themselves.  The solution is assisting their income, so that they are able to support themselves and, perhaps, even save up for more education, to provide a better paying job, so they no longer require benefits to survive.  This also prevents people in more precarious situations from having to choose between food and heating in the Winter, or from becoming homeless, or from starving to death on the streets.

I support offering counselling, therapy and assistance to drug addicts.
And providing safe houses with clean needles and purer versions of the drugs to those who do not respond well to the therapy, so that those who cannot control their addictions can at least be protected from dying due to infected needles, used and dirty needles, contaminated drugs and the violent crime associated with illegal drug use.  I would legalise, then heavily regulate, recreational drug use.

If I was "pro life" and I believed that, from the moment sperm and egg touch, the result is a baby or an underdeveloped human being, I would want to reduce the abortion rate as much as possible.
I would want to provide people with access to safe, affordable, effective contraception of all sorts, so that fewer accidental or unwanted pregnancies occur.  After all, the sperm and egg separate aren't a human being.  I would work to challenge the perceptions of entitlement men have, and work to reduce rape and sexual abuse.  I would work to teach men that there is no excuse for refusing to use contraception unless you want a pregnancy to occur.  I would provide education for all that taught the truth about sex, sexuality, love and the myriad complexities of human relationships and their consequences.  I would give young girls self-defence classes, to protect them from rape, and would provide 24-hour helplines for those who have been assaulted, or who just need advice.

I would also want to work on the miscarriage rate. 
Over at Feministe they mentioned the miscarriage rate in America is something like 70%.  If I truly was "pro life" and I believed that blastocysts are people, I would be advocating seriously for medical research into the causes and prevention of miscarriages.  In fact, I would find that a far morepressing issue than the small number of women who have abortions.

If I was pro life, I would see no problem with providing abortions in the case of medical necessity, where the pregnancy would cause death or harm to the mother. 
I would also review the statistics of abortion worldwide, which show that, in countries where abortion as illegalized, the main effect had was that more unsafe, illegal, back-alley abortion occurred, resultingin the deaths of the foetuses and pregnant women.  I would, considering everything else Ihad done, conclude that it is less harmful to ensure that abortion is accessible, safe and affordable, than to leave women to mutilate themselves.

*

Let's look at the above, and compare that to what "pro life" really seems to mean.

Pro-lifers do not care about born children.
Pro-life groups refuse to support or back programmes aimed at providing education and healthcare for children.

Pro-lifers do not care about women
Pro-life groups usually do not advocate for wider access to contraception, which would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Pro-lifers do not care about reducing the abortion rate
Pro-life groups tend to support abstinence-only programmes, leaving young girls and women uninformed, and sometimes even misinformed, about sex, contraception nd the risks involved.

Pro-lifers do not care about saving lives
Many pro-life advocates would not allow abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancies, or other life-threatening circumstances.  They also ignore the fact that countries in which abortion is illegal suffer heavily from death and mutilation of women due to illegal and unsafe abortions.

*

And finally...

If I was pro-life, and I truly believed that life begins at conception, then I would see abortion as premeditated murder.  Miscarriage, if it can be attributed to a woman acting irresponsibly whilst pregnant, such as drinking o smoking or taking illegal drugs, would be manslaughter.

And I would want women punished equal to that.

Pro-lifers, however, seem to have real difficulty with that concept.  So, maybe, they don't really see abortion as murder.  And don't really see foetuses and blastocysts as people, or babies.

***

In conclusion.

Pro-lifers do not care about the wellbeing or health of children or adults once theyr are born.  They don't really consider foetuses or blastocysts as "pre-born children" and don't actually care about life.

Theonly time pro-lifers congregate in force to speak out about something is when a woman tries to exercise control over her own body by trying to access abortion or birth control.

So, is it really just about wanting to control women's bodies?  But, of course, being "pro-control" doesn't have a nice ring to it.  You can't use pictures of dead babies and wave them in people's faces to derail and hijack arguments, avoiding all the issues, if your only reason for trying to stop abortions is because you don't want the dirty women having dirty sex, and you want to punish them when they do.

Overall, I think I prefer being pro-choice.  Pro-choice means that I support access to all the things I listed above, but have no problem with abortions and I would not seek to punish women for having miscarriages.

Note!
I realise that many people who consider themselves pro-life may well support the things I mentioned, and many others simply don't think their stance through, so derailed are they by the pictures of dead babies.  I am talking, here, about the ones running the pro-life side of things.

The larger, mainstream Comics Publishers could learn a large amount from the Gaming Community and Developers.  So, too, could the Movie Industry.

I have been playing Portal now since the day it was released on Steam.  My partner was playing the game, too.  A friend of ours, whom we often engage in online games, plays Portal.  Some of my female colleagues, invited to my home, played Portal on my PC.  My mother tried Portal, and enjoyed it.  My male, PC-geek work colleague and I discuss Portal regularly at work, and we are both enthusiastic about the possibilities involved in user-created levels.  We both have ideas we would like to see implemented. 

Portal is a game that is enjoyed by hardcore gamers.  It has in-jokes concerning the universe it inhabits, cute geeky momentsand a neat interface. 

Portal is a game that is enjoyed by casual gamers.  The levels can be tackled one at a time, and although the general plot works best in one run, one does not need to memorise plot to enjoy the game.  The levels can also be loaded separately and played at leisure. 

Portal is a game that is enjoyed by those who are inexperienced, or new to gaming.  The interface is simple and, whilst the levels increase in complexity to become quite challenging, the entire game operates as an extended tutorial, in its own way, as the player learns to test the boundaries of the simple, single tool they must learn to use.

Portal is enjoyed by people that like action.  There are gun turrets and challenging, active moments.  Your character uses apertures in space to manipulate momentum.  What is more exciting than leaping off of a precipice, openin a portal the second before you hit the floor, leaping through i to find yourself soaring horizontally through space across the very canyon you just fell down?

Portal is enjoyed by those who enjoy logic puzzles.  The levels are, of themselves, massive puzzles where one must think abstractly in order to find solutions to problems.

Portal is enjoyed by those who do not enjoy logic puzzles, or any puzzles in games.  The levels are so far removed from annoying "puzzle sequences" that appear in so many games.

Portal is enjoyed by men.  Portal is enjoyed by women.

Portal is age-neutral.  It is race-neutral.  It is gender-neutral.

*

In Portal, you play a woman.  You wake in your cubicle to the sound of a soothing, female-oriented, robotic voice.  The game is beautiful, albeit linear, and the "landscape" (you're indoors) is clear, clean and neat.  You don't see your own face or body, nor do you hear your own voice.  But obviously, as soon as you obtain access to the Portal gun, the first thing you do is set up 2 portals at 90 degrees to each other so that you can see yourself.

You are a woman.  You are neither plain, not sexy.  You are average.  You are not white, blonde and busty.  You are wearing overalls, and you have metal supports on your calves; the sort that replace missing lower-legs on athletes who have lost their legs.  Those neat, simple, strong metal items that look so well-engineered and dependable.  That is how you know that you cannot die from falling, in this game.  You do not need to fear accidentally misplacing a portal during your fall.  You can play, and experiment, safely.

You are an average-looking, sensibly dressed and protected woman.  You feel secure.  You feel safe using the aperture gun.  The principles of the manner in which you use apertures is clear at each stage, and it always makes sense.  You do not feel vulnerable.  You do not feel weak, or exposed.

The objects in the game do not look overtly masculine.  The gun turrets are not huge, beefy items with gears and chains that PUMP PUMP PUMP their bullets in phallic style, but neat and compact laser turrets that call softly to you.  Their voices are meant to lure oyu, but there is nothing sexy inthem.  The most you could say is that the voices project a certain innocent playfulness, as they try to convince you to come within range.  They also sweetly cry "No! Don't shoot!" when another turret glances them, and they make sure to let you know that they harbour no resentment to you when you upend them, hurl them through portals, knock them over or otherwise incapacitate them to make your passage safe.  The "companion cube" is neat and clean but is differentiated from he other cubes by the simple, pink hearts in the centre of each face.  I noticed and appreciated this.  Not for the pink, which is a colour I can live without, but for the fact that such attention to detail went in to making such a simple object.

At no point in the game, save one, did I fear for my character's life.  The rest of the time, I felt exhilerated, challenged, intrigued, satisfied, proud and vindicated.  Never did I find myself retreating in on myself physically, curling my legs under, leaning back from the screen and wanting to just GET THIS BIT OVER WITH.  The entire game is fun, without being wacky.  Never did I feel like throwingthe keyboard across the room in frustration.  Oh, there were frustrating elements, but they were challenging, invogorating and any frustration I felt was down to my own mistakes, not game elements.

*

More and more games are coming out which pander to neither gender.  Oh, there are still the Girly McPinkerton shopping-and-boys fests and the Chunk-Hardmeat-Shoots-Everyone games, but more often now games are coming out whicheveryone can enjoy.

Warhammer, Dawn of War.
The Sims.
Second Life.
Guildwars.
Morrowind/Oblivion.
Medieval Total War II.
Resident Evil.
Portal.
And dozens more.

These games don't seem to say "how can we make girls like us?" and, if they do, then some of them are very good at hiding that (not so much Sims, but the others...).  These games also don;t say "how can we keep the fanboys happy?".

Games like Portal prove that one does NOT need to pander to "fanservice" to be successful.  Games don't need leather-clad, soaped-up boobies to increase their market.  Because they are good, pure and simple.  The premise is good.  The plot is good.  The interface is good.  The design and appearance is good.  The game is balanced.

So why do Comics and Movie developers have such a hard time acheiving the same thing?

I love movies, and I love comics.  I want them to be good, and I want them to become more widely enjoyed so that I can gush about them to my friends, instead of just getting weird looks.

I don't need "Minx".  I don't need "romantic comedies".  I don't need "manga".  And themen I know don't need pornography in all of their media in order to enjoy it.

We need good characterisation.  Good art/scenery.  Good editors, writers and directors.  Content which follows canon and previously established characterisation andplot.  Plots that make sense and are worth reading.  We need comics and movies that do not condescend to us, do not make fun of or belittle either gender, sexuality or race.

The Gaming Industry has proven that this is possible, and acheivable.  They have proven hat you can discard overt pornography and misogyny while still pleasing everyone.  The Indie comics community has also shown that this is possible.

Why to DC, Marvel and WB find it so hard to understand?

I've just been browsing one of my favourite sites, Feministe, and for the first time there I found myself disagreeing, in principle, with the other feminists.

Now, I know we're no Hive Vagina, nor should we be, but generally I've found myself agreeing with the sentiments and the solutions posed, and when I do disagree it's generally when the debate has stirred up mixed feelings on all sides, so this was something of a new experience for me.  Especially since reading Feministe is one of the things that made me finally realise that I'm a feminist.

Basically, the post was about some men's rights movement that, when examined in detail, seemed to be all about "I don't want to have to pay child support and, if I must, I want to pay less and want complete control over my ex' life".  The comments, as usual, diverted into a series of debates on related topics, and one commentor mentioned their ideal of equal rights regarding parenthood.

The idea is this.

Disclaimer!  The below section is a simplification.  I know things are often more complicated, but I don't want this blog post to be all that massive.  Please take as read that, whilst I have not experienced child support as a parent, I do know how it pans out in real life.

Once a child is born, both parents have a legal responsibility to that child.  If the parents are separated, then one gains custody, and the other must pay towards the living costs for the child.  If either parent neglects the child, whether financially, physically or emotionally, they are taken to task.  If you have the child, then you are responsible for it's wellbeing and upbringing until adulthood.

But what about before the child is born?

If you've read my previous posts you'll know that I am a strong believer in a woman's right to choose.  No woman should ever be forced to carry to term a child she does not want, nor should she be forced to abort a child she wants to keep.  A woman who chooses to have an abortion or keep a child should not need permission from the father in order to take whichever action she has decided upon.  She should not even need to tell the man that she is pregnant and is going to abort, if that is what she feels is best for her. 

But when a woman chooses to keep a child that the father does not want, did not want, and took reasonable precautions to prevent, why should he be left with the responsibilities against his will?  Why is forced or coerced parenthood wrong and bad and evil when applied to one gender, but not the other?

Perhaps, when a woman admits that she is pregnant, if she and the man involved cannot agree on a course of action and are no longer together, the man should have the right to sign away his rights to the child, and his responsibilities, and this should be legally binding.

Now, when this was suggested by another commentor, there was enthusiastic disagreement.  However, I wasn't particularly satisfied by any of the reasons given.

His "right to choose" is when he chooses to have sex/not pull out/not use protection
I cannot, simply cannot, accept this argument.  Anti-choice advocates use this argument themselves so often.  "If she didn't want to get pregnant she should have kept her damn legs closed".  Sounds disgusting, doesn't it?  So why is it okay to push that sort of choice on men?  And what if he did use protection, but the protection failed?  I've known people who used pills and condoms, and the morning after pill when the condom broke, and still found themselves pregnant.

Women can't choose to sign away their responsibilities to the child, why should the man?
Because this is about forming an equal balance of rights.  Obviously, since only women carry children, we can never fully equate the rights of men and women.  A woman can choose, or should be able to choose, the right to abort if she does not want to get pregnant.  She cannot be forced, or should not be able to be forced, to carry to term by the man involved.  A man cannot choose to abort.  Not if the woman wants to keep the child.  But if he really does not want anything to do with the child, he should have the choice to take some action to avoid being saddled with a responsibility he does not want.  In this case, the right to deny parenthood, prior to birth, is there to replace a man's right to abort.

But then the woman would be forced to have a child she can't support!
No she wouldn't.  Not if the signing away of rights must be done with both potential parents present, and within the timeframe in which the woman can choose to have an abortion.  If you were pregnant, and you knew that the father had no interest in the child, wanted nothing to do with it, and would not support you, then any decision to keep the child is a decision you make freely, willingly and in full knowledge of the burden that will be placed upon you.  It may be a shitty decision to make, and women may not have equal rights, but we are capable of making our own, informed, decisions, and we are not children that need to be coddled.

But what if the woman has pro-life beliefs?
That factors in how, exactly?  If a pro-life man impregnates a pro-choice woman, and the woman chooses to abort, should the man get any say in whether or not she gets to do this?  If a pro-life woman and a pro-choice man have sex, and the woman gets pregnant, should she get to force the man to support a family?  At the end of the day, we all choose our political and personal beliefs and value systems, and choose to act upon them or to deny them when circumstances arise which challenge these beliefs.  In any case, that sort of thing really should be discussed beforehand.

...

Put simply, in an ideal world things would work out like this...

Two people hook up.  They discuss, prior to intercourse, possible outcomes and their stances.  They discuss what protection each typically uses, and agree on a level of protection both are comfortable with.  They discuss the likelihood of accidental pregnancy, and whether or not they would each want to terminate or carry to term, and then whether to adopt or keep the child.  If no agreement can be met, they do not have sex and go their separate ways.  If an agreement is met, they have sex.  If pregnancy occurs, both parties maintain the stance they agreed upon at the outset and act accordingly.  No one changes their mind.  No one lies.

How close this actually fits in with reality is, however, another question entirely.

I'll take my own example.  I do not want children.  Ever.  Neither does my partner.  We both decided upon this, separately, when we were teenagers.  When we met, we had both previously tried to obtain the snip/tube-tying and had failed, as we were too young for the doctors to even be willing to consider it.  I am unable to take the pill and, due to post-surgery scar tissue and deformities, my partner cannot use condoms.  When we met, condoms were the only contraception I had ever used before, although I was on the list for the implant.  We did discuss our personal stances on childhood and abortion, and were pleased to see that we agreed.  Unable to use condoms, and with no currently available alternative (that sponge thing doesn't exist over here), we settled for anal/oral until my implant was fitted.  We were pretty responsible about the whole thing and planned it as best we could.  Obviously, once my implant was finally in, we were at it like rabbits. 

But what if I had become pregnant at some point, and then changed my mind?  I was 18, just starting university, and my partner was 21 and homeless.  What if I had decided that I wanted to keep the child, after all?  With no right to opt-out, my partner would have been forced to become a father, something he never wanted to do.  It can happen.  The reality of pregnancy and parenthood is very different to the fantasy, and maybe I'd find I just couldn't go through with an abortion, after all.  I should not be forced to terminate, but neither should my partner be forced to become a father.

At the end of the day, we have to look at equal rights, not special rights.  And if we state that women are not mental children, that we are capable of making our own decisions, then we need to accept the responsibilities that come with that, as well.  Choosing to have an abortion is taking responsibility for your actions, just as choosing to keep an unexpected child is.

If you have the opportunity to have sex with a man, and you want to, but you cannot agree on a keep/abort/adopt scenario, then perhaps you shouldn't have sex.  And if you do have sex, then you do so with eyes open, knowing fully that you will not be supported by this person if you keep the child.

And if you choose to have sex with someone without first discussing matters like this, then that really is your own fault.  I've had my fair share of one-night stands and brief encounters, and I admit that I didn't always discuss matters fully with my partners, especially when I was younger.  But I fully accepted that, in choosing to behave that way, I would need to be prepared to accept the consequences if things went wrong.  This was, admittedly, possibly easier for me who always knew she would choose not to carry to term should that choice ever be necesarry.

IMPORTANT NOTE
The entire post above is based on the premise of consensual sex between informed adults.  Rape is an entirely different kettle of fish and, if the woman is given no right to choose through the act of rape, neither should the man.  In addition, one issue I do have trouble factoring in is the right of a child to know their own parents.  In the UK, children that were conceived through sperm donation do have the right to track down their biological father.  It's resulted in a bit of a nighmare as, unsurprisingly, thousands of men stopped donating semen, suddenly faced with the idea that, in years to come, dozens of children from different women could start turning up, calling them "daddy".  Nevertheless, obviously a child has every right to know who their parents are, so even with the opt-out above, where a man sacrifices his parental rights in return for also relinquishing parental responsibilities, may in later life be faced with meeting the child he abandoned.  I realise that the issue is vastly more complex, but I don't see why the above is something so terrible that it can't even be considered or discussed, instead of discarded outright.

I realise that a lot of people are going to disagree with me, and I accept that.  If anyone can provide me with a fair and reasonable reason why the choice toopt-out of parenthood prior to birth should not be given to men, I really would like to hear it and welcome comments.

I mean, seriously!
So much science and all such fun thought processes and puzzles!

And that song!  My new bestest SCIENCE! song ever!
Warning, the song lyric below may be slightly spoilerish!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This was a triumph,
I'm making a note here
Huge Success
It's hard to overstate
My satisfaction

Aperture science,
We do what we must
Because we can
For the good of all of us
Except the ones who are dead

But there's no sense crying
Over every mistake
You just keep on trying
Till you run out of cake
So the science gets done
And you make a neat gun
For the people who are still alive

I'm not even angry
I'm being so
Sincere right now
Even though you broke my heart
And killed me

And tore me to pieces
And threw every piece
Into a fire
As they burned it hurt because
I was so happy for you

Now these points of data
Make a beautiful line
And we're out of beta
We're releasing on time
So I'm glad I got burned
Think of all the things we learned
For the people who are still alive

Go ahead and leave me
I think I'd rather
stay inside
Maybe you'll find someone else
To help you

Maybe Black Mesa
That was a joke,
HAHA fat chance
Any way
This cake is great
It's so delicious and moist

Look at me still talking
When there's science to do
When I look out there
It makes me glad I'm not you
I've experiments to run
There is research to be done
On the people who are still alive

Believe me
I am still alive
I feel fantastic
and I'm still alive...

Seriously, I just played that song 8 times before I finished my breakfast coffee and now I've been forbidden from playin it again fo rthe next week on pain of no-more-coffee!

I come from a big family.  My Grandad was the youngest of 12.  Until I was 3 years old my grandparents, my mother, my aunt and uncle all lived in the same house.  Then, when mum and I found our own place, auntie met a man and uncle met a woman, we all lived in the same town, within 10 minutes walk of each other.  Our extended family, until I was about 13-14 years old, all lived within 30 minutes drive from one another.  I had relatives that lived 2 hours away, and relatives up North, but even then we'd all get together at least 2-3 times a year for random parties, and always at Christmas.

My mum wanted a big family of her own when she got married.  She envisioned a little tribe of children all scampering about at the family get-togethers, and all hers.  Sadly, my dad died shortly after  was born.  I was my mums first child and, so distraught was she, that she didn't meet another man for 15 years.  She'd spent so long under the assumption that she'd be alone from then on and wouldn't have any more children that by the time they were married, she felt she was too old to have any more children and raise them the way she wanted.  If she wouldn't live long enough to see them have children of their own then she felt like she'd be doing her babies a disservice.

It was, therefore, always a given, as far as everyone seemed to be concerned, that I would have children.  Lots, probably.  Of course, it was also a given that I would go to university and have an amazing career.  I'd fit children in somewhere and, obviously, my husband would be happy to work as a stay-at-home-dad.  Mum might not get any children of her own, but surely I'd give her plenty of grandchildren to dote over.

And I always went along with the idea.  I was going to complete a degree in Astrophysics and move to Russia and do amazing research.  Then I'd have some children, 2 girls and a boy.  The girls would be called Una, after my great-grandmother, and Autumn, and the boy would be called Aiden.

But when I actually started going through puberty, I wasn't so sure.

Oh, I was interested in sex, but I certainly didn't seem to have any gender preference.  In fact, I've always been somewhat genderblind.  I recognise people as their gender, but I just don't apply any baggage with that.  What if I fell in love with a girl, I thought?  Well, I could always adopt.

But once I started thinking about it that way, I wasn't sure whether or not I wanted children.

Oh, sure, my body wants children.  Various parts of my body ping when I see a cute toddler, or tiny booties, or baby animals.  But what my body basically craves is the almost-certainly-nothing-like-reality idea I have of what being pregnant feels like, and the joy of breastfeeding.

But breastfeeding =/ motherhood.

The more I thought about it, the more I realised.  I don't actually have much of a love for children, not the way I'm apparently supposed to.  I tend to feel awkward around babies, I never know how to talk to children and I find baby drool really quite gross.  I'm also a little paranoid, and I would be terribly overprotective.  I'd worry lots and probably pass on some phobias, just as all women in my family have caught the worry-wart bug and the scared-of-allsorts bug.  I'd feel disappointed if I had a boy, rather than a girl, and I know this is terribly wrong and shallow.  Plus, I just can't imagine myself with a family.  My political leanings, as they developed, made me feel that choosing not to have children was a good choice to make, freeing up more space for those who really do want babies, and leaving more resources spare for the next generation.  I also have had a lot of little emotional problems over the years, including self harm, and I worry about what might happen if my emotional state takes a battering while I'm pregnant.  Even without that, all the women in my family are miscarriage-prone.  Remember how mygrandad was the youngest of 12?  His mother, my great grandmother, had more miscarriages, stillbirths and cotdeaths than children.  My nan has had several miscarriages.  My aunt, 4 or 5.  My mum, 1 shortly before she conceived me, and she was only trying for me for 3 months.

Eventually I realised I didn't want children.  So, at 16, I told my mum this.

Now, throughout my childhood I was bombarded with breeding training.  My family were actually pretty good at giving me gender-neutral toys and treating me like a "child" rather than a "little girl".  But I still had a toy hoover, and an ironing board and cooker in my playhouse.  I had dollies that really wee and a feeding table and bed for them.  Granted, these things generally were turned into the secret base for my Hulk Hogan and He-man toys, and the dollies were pretty much ignored, but whenever a family friend came over they would try to get me to play "house" or "families" with them.

"Awww, is that your baby?"

"No.  It's a giant monster mutant baby.  It's destroying the city so Hulk Hogan is going to have to go in and kill it."

"Oh.  That's not a very nice game.  Don't you want to play with your little baby properly?  Look, let me show you how to feed her..."

I thought that, by finally being honest about my desire not to have children, that this sort of thing would stop.  But it didn't.  At work, the daycare centre is in the same building as the canteen, so at lunch there's usually about 20 3-5 year olds tottering about the place.  Often, after oohing and aahing the children (something I don't feel any desire to do), everyone will start talking about their family planning.

Soon-to-be-married girl; "Oh, I want lots of babies.  I'm going to get started as soon as the wedding is over.  I want children as soon as possible."

Happily-single girl; "I don't want any for a while, but I'm definitely going to.  I've already picked their names."

Already-a-mother girl; "I only ever wanted 1, but she's growing up so fast, now.  I'm thinking about having another.  I miss having a little baby to cuddle."

The few times the issue has come up and I've been asked, it's taken a while to get everyone to understand what I really mean.

"Oh, well not yet, obviously.  You're still young.  I suppose you've got plenty of time left."

"No, you don't understand.  I don't want any.  Ever."

"Oh, you'll change your mind one day."

"I decided this almost 10 years ago and my mind hasn't changed, yet."

"Well, you will change your mind.  And if you don't, you'll regret it."

"No, no I won't.  I don't actually like children very much."

"Sure you do!  Just look at all those cuties over there!  Don't you want one of your own?"

Eventually, I find myself having to resort to awful over-the-top "I eat babies" statements to try and get people to stop hassling me over it.  And then they look at me all funny.

At home, I'm told that "but you and N would make such cute babies!" or "You know, N would make an excellent father" (he also decided at an early age that breeding was not for him).

My mum has even resorted to "Just pop one out and give it straight to me; I'll take care of it for you!".

Whenever I openly voice my desire not to breed, unless I'm in the company of other non-breeders, I get told that I'm wrong.  I don't know what I want.  I'm too young to have really decided yet (I'm 23).  I'll change my mind.  I'll regret it if I don't.  I must want children, really.  I'm just going along with what N wants.  N is just pretending to agree with me, and really wants babies, an I'm hurting him by keeping up this pretence.  I'll want one when the time comes, whatever that means.

I actually feel guilty about this.  My family name is extremely rare, and has a special history.  My genetic line and my partners are both good, strong lines full of the best parts of people from all over the world, and should be continued.  My mum wants so much to have a big family, and sacrificed so much for me.  The traditions and little ways of my family (when your family is as big as mine you rapidly go tribal!) will be lost, since I'm the only one in my generation that cares about that sort of thing.  N might really be just going along with what I want, since he does about everything else, even when what I wanted was something that might hurt him, and he just didn't tell me.

I feel guilty.  About wanting control over my own body.  And sometimes I do wonder if I'll change my mind.  My body does really want to be pregnant and to breastfeed.  Instincts are kicking in and my body keeps telling me to breed.  I have to keep reminding myself that I am not a slave tocmy own body, and that the physical desire for pregnancy, whilst strong, is not quite like the desire for air or food.  I can sate this desire with kittens and nieces and nephews, whereas when you're thirsty only liquid will do.  But wouldn't it be easier to just give in?  Give in to the instincts that are so at odds with what I really desire?

No.

What is so wrong about wanting to remain childless?

But, you know what?  How's this for justification that you cannot beat...

N and I are going to get our bits tied off, just as soon as we find a doctor who isn't a complete idiot (I could tell you some stories about our GP).  We'll have reversible procedures, where possible.  If we do change our minds, we will have children.  But they will be wanted, planned-for children, not mistakes.  I don't want to feel any resentment towards said potential child.  If we change our mind, but complications occur, we'll adopt.  There are too many children out there in need of a home and, since breeding was never important for us anyway, adopting won't carry any oh-no-not-my-dna issues.  But if we don't change our minds, we won't ever be left with the difficult position of having an abortion, or finding out too late and being stuck with a child we don't want.

Happy?

DISCLAIMER TO TROLLS
The entry below is intended as an exercise in mental rambling only.  I do not think we should remove sex from comics.  I am happy for there to be sex in comics and my only wish with regards to altering this is to provide more variety for those of us who like something other than the standard model.  Comments on "don't take the sexy away" will be replaced with "wee wee wee" noises and smilies.  Debate I am interested in.  Utterly failing to actually read my comments and then ranting away I am not.

Okay, so I've had a couple of posts now, regarding sexiness in comics, and the comments that I received got me to thinking.  When people defend the sexiness, what justification could they provide that sex and titillation needs to be in so many comics, anyway?

One of the arguments used against including a wider variety of sexiness in comics that I've come across was "just because there is a market for it, doesn't mean it should be catered for".  My understanding is that this refers either to immoral acts being catered for or to a market of interest that is so small it doesn't justify production just for that market.

But this can also be used against the presence of sex, generally, in comics.

Sex in comics is nice.  Everyone enjoys eye candy.  But how many people buy comics just for the sex, or even mainly for the sex?  How many people, if given the choice between a poor artist who draws lots of boobs and an excellent artist who draws less boob, or no boob, would choose the artist with the most boobs?  How many people, given the choice between a deep, involving and moving plot, written competently, and a mediocre plot filled with sex, would choose the mediocre plot?

How many people will sit through a poor run of a comic, because the art in it is pants-wettingly gorgeous?  And how many people will sit through a poor run of a comic, because Wondie gets her knockers out once an issue and rubs her arse up against Batman's thigh?

There are people for whom sex is the priority, but these people already have access to far better and more dedicated sources of sex.  If it is, specifically, cartoon or comic sex that the person is interested in, there are dozens of publications, websites, fansites and so on that cater specifically to graphic novels, cartoons and comics that are, in fact, pornographic, or erotica.  There is even comic porn specifically making use of famous characters, for those who specifically have a crush on one character.

Shit, there's even porn for people who want cartoon dragons having sex with cars!

If you want a skin magazine, why would you go out and buy a Batman comic?

How many people buy an X-men comic just in the off-chance that they might get to see Storm's nipple?

Now, I have to admit, as I was typing this, I immediately started thinking that the only people who would do this are those who are unable to obtain access to actual pornographic items.  Namely, those who are underage.  But this is an oversimplification, and plays into the whole "comics are wankmags for spotty preteen boys" idiocy.

Nevertheless, whilst I accept that there are almost certainly adults out there who buy DC or Marvel comics primarily for pornographic use, or general titillation, I suspect that these people are very much in the minority of comics fans.

I'll even go right out on a limb here and say that there may be fewer hairy-palmed comics readers than there are female comics readers.  If this is true, then comics producers could, at the loss of a small minority of readers, improve sales in a larger proportion of readers.  A net gain for them, overall.

 And if we are going to insist on having sex in comics, why insist on limiting it only to sex for white, straight men who specifically enjoy mainstream porn and find mainstream porn actresses attractive?  Why say "you can't take the porn away, but you can't have any porn for you, either.  My porn!  All mine!", when more variety of porn could just mean more porn overall, not less porn for you.

If anyone can provide me with an actual, concrete, good reason for sex to be kept in comics generally, I would really love to read it. 

Extra points if you can show why specifically only women should be shown as sexualised in comics.  Extra arsehat points if you can prove that implied rape, racism and sexism are an essential part of sex in comics.  (But seriously, ignoring these last sentences, I really would like to hear a good reason for keeping sex in comics).

Now, I consider myself to be a reasonably healthy person.

I don't get as much exercise as I should, because I work in an office and because most of my hobbies are PC-based.  But I exercise as much as possible- walking to and from work instead of taking the free courtesy bus, I live near the coast so can swim and take long gravelly walks fairly regularly, I enjoy heavy lifting.  I also cook everything from scratch, including bread and pasta, and buy my fresh produce from small local outlets, so I have pretty good control over what goes into my body.  I medicate only when necessarry, I don't smoke, drink only occassionally and try to listen to my body when it tells me it is lacking something.

I also happen to be a bit of a fatty.

I'm a UK size 14, overall, although this differs slightly based on which body part we're talking about, differs a fair bit based on what sort of clothing we're considering and then varies wildly when I consider the clothing at a specific shop.

I wobble around this weight- my smallest weight was a size 10, which lasted a month.  My largest was a top-end size 18, which also lasted about a month.

Now, I have female friends and acquaintances of all different shapes and sizes, and all different lifestyles.  Quite a few of them do seem to be on perpetual diets, and they keep on talking about "reaching their healthy weight".

This got me to thinking.

What is my healthy weight?  If I acheive this weight, whatever it is, will my general health suddenly improve?  Has all thehealthsomeness of my home-cooked, locally grown meals, my exercise, all been piling up in my arse waiting for me to drop a few pounds before it will actually start doing something?

I checked on the charts.  Apparently, I should be anywhere from 7.5-9.5 stone, ideally in the middle at about 8.5.  This would pit me in at a BMI of 21, give or take a bit, which is also considered ideal.

But when I was a size 10 I was 10 stone.  And I had visible hip bones and flat cheeks.  I'm a naturally stock girl, you see.  So at 8.5 stone I would be what, a size 6?  That is supposed to be healthy for me?

And what about my two pretty young skinny friends?  Tall girls, figures that a supermodel would envy (think long and slender without the boniness).  They are a size 6 and a size 4 respectively.  And they eat junk food, spend their evenings slobbing in front of a TV, drive to work or get lifts and drink regularly.  Are they at their healthy weight?  Does this mean that they are healthier than I am?

How about my larger friend, who has spent her entire life trying to lose weight and is continuously either taking a break from, or starting up a new diet?  Despite leading a healthy lifestyle, as soon as she stops actively trying to lose wieght she seems to put it back on again.  If she ever reaches her healthy weight, will she suddenly be more healthy?  If her body desperately tries to pump more body fat into her, does that mean her body wants to be unhealthy?  Or does it mean that she has become underweight for her body type and her body is in starvation mode?

It is true that, for most people, our bodies do tend to increase in weight when we lead an unhealthy, indulgent lifestyle, and decrease in weight when we lead a more spartan and healthy lifestyle.  But saying that does not necessarily mean that we should all aim for the same weight/height ratio.  Even if we ignore issues of athletes and the fat/muscle weight issues, there is still a wide variation in weight and size across the board.  Some women are a different shape to others.  Some gather weight mostly in the hips, or the breasts, or the stomach.  I know one young lady who has a size 8 weight, chest and hips but whose legs and arms are thicker than mine were at size 18.  I know another who has skinny legs and a pot belly.  I carry most of my weight in my breasts and arse. 

Just because a person loses weight if they increase their exercise levels does not mean "if you exercise enough you will be a size 0".  We all have a natural, default weight, around which our bodies will try to orbit.  When I was a size 18 and started dieting, I lost a stone in under a fortnight, then the rest of the weight took a good 3-4 months to get off.  At size 10 I gained half a stone in a week, and the rest of the weight took almost a year to put back on.

So fuck "healthy wieght" and "BMI normal" and "perfect 10".

I'm going to follow the philosophy of my 72 year old, chain-smoking, alcoholic, cake-loving, riotous and flirtatious grandfather who, by the way, may be overweight but has perfect blood pressure and cholesterol and tests negative for diabetes, heart disease, lung problems, circulation problems and nerve problems.  And who also regularly passes for 50.  And still has all his own teeth and hair.

I'm going to enjoy life, and avoid stressing out over every little thing.

I already live a healthy lifestyle and, if that doesn't make me a healthy person, I don't how losing a stone will.