Stop Using Tumblr Before Bed January 6, 2013Posted by Danjamin S. Meow in : fiction, movies , add a comment
So, last night I had a sex dream, about The Avengers. Fairly normal, yes?
We all have access to the Internet and fanfiction, and if not, then basically all you need to know is that it’s full of hulking men: the Aryan-as-fuck Thor, Tony Stark who’s funny, smart, rich and LITERALLY has abs of steel, and Scarlett Johanson playing the Sydney Bristow-esque Black Widow who I wanted to fuck and then become in high school.
Exceeeeept my dream was about a cube. A cube which allows people to traverse dimensions of the Universe.
Fair enough if you happen to find a receptive partner on an alien world, I guess. But the actuality would be more like… thrust, aaaand ITS MINUS 270 DEGREES!
Warm up your now hypothermic crotch in a bath, reroll (because I didn’t learn my lesson the first time)…
AND SOMETHING’S BITTEN IT OFF.
Win some, lose some, I guess.
Small Atonements January 2, 2013Posted by Danjamin S. Meow in : fiction, humour , add a comment
Christmas has always been a time of confession and forgiveness for my family.
That time of year has just passed again, and here’s the things I didn’t share with my kin over the bottles of Christmas spirits this year:
Those salad servers weren’t what you might call “virgins.”
I don’t think that ziploc bag was full of icing sugar – but I couldn’t find anything else to sprinkle on the cupcakes.
That “California blend” was mostly wild rosemary and lemongrass.
Aluminium, foil or otherwise, is not microwave-safe. I should not have professed otherwise.
That wasn’t artificial sweetener. Or decaf. Or, now that I really think about it, coffee.
I spiked the punch. With hand sanitiser.
Those stains were visible, and nobody thought they were mayonnaise.
Your birthday present did come in the mail. But our cat pissed on it before I donated it to St Vincent de Paul.
Some asshole in a Carolla most definitely did not hit your car in the driveway and leave without providing contact details.
And finally, I don’t think your fish died from overheating. Those very well might have been snail pellets at the bottom of its tank.
I’m sorry. Now let’s get drunk so I can pretend that I can pretend I’ve made amends. And that I won’t do the same next year.
Feyminism, or One in a Series of Love Letters to T-Fey September 8, 2011Posted by Danjamin S. Meow in : humour, idols , add a comment OK, so being an activist and an aspiring comedy writer is a hard line to straddle and I know this will probably make me a terrible activist, but I think it makes me a better comedy writer by seeing which direction Tina Fey takes when she turns Tracy Morgan’s rant about “the gays” into a 30 Rock storyline before judging her decision to do so. While positive portrayal paired with satire are quite powerful in changing attitudes, it remains to be seen how much of the plot will be damage control for the show, and how much will be legitimately progressive.
Fey wrote a beautifully composed, and extremely savvy, response to his apology for the tirade Morgan unleashed on-stage earlier this year. I literally could not have done what she accomplished with that statement, which was to distance herself from those beliefs whilst acknowledging the harm his comments could’ve caused, endorsed his apology and slipped in jokes which spoke well of his usual character AND recognised the 200 staff responsible for 30 Rock’s production, many of whom would be gay or friends with ‘mos.
I looked today to see whether she’d caved to pressure to fire Morgan when her selfish foetus finally allows the show to resume production in January 2012 – and I think I’m glad she’s keeping him on. We all make mistakes and errors in judgement, and Morgan has apologised profusely and sincerely for his. If anyone is to make Tracy Morgan telling some rough jokes into an acerbic or subversive plotline, I’m glad it’s someone with a track record of successfully creating a show that makes you laugh, whilst challenging the gender divide and poking fun at some of the more ridiculous tenets of hardcore radical feminism and modern women, whilst maintaining the surprisingly still radical stance that women should just be treated equally. And you may remember this skit which served a similar purpose?
While his “jokes” were sissyphobic, harmful and insensitive, and sent a clear message that it was OK to be, I get the impression from his later actions that he is not. The best satire is clear in its derision of the beliefs it makes fun of; merely mimicking them is not only un-fucking-funny but seriously harmful. While his statements about stabbing his son should he hypothetically come to Morgan to say he was gay in an effeminate voice were clearly beyond the realms of good taste, let alone beyond funny (I mean, they made Chris Rock and Wanda Sykes blanch at his right to say them…) I guess I’m glad that we still live in a world where there are checks and balances in place. That freedom of speech doesn’t entitle someone to an audience but it grants them the right to say what they want if they can find one with what they have to say. That when someone says something out-and-out harmful, their peers have the right of response, to call them on the bullshit and thereby minimise the harm they can inflict. After all, to survive in this world you have to have a sense of humour and to paraphrase Tracy Morgan, if I can take a dick up my ass… I can take a fucking joke.
Rip ‘em a new one, roll back the ad embargo June 2, 2011Posted by Danjamin S. Meow in : Uncategorized , add a comment
I love this picture so much: two people in love, sending a message about protecting ourselves that’s not overly sexualised or offensive. Right?
Yesterday Australian Christian Lobby/Family First’s Wendy Francis gloated about coordinating a campaign to have these ads taken off bus shelters for her usual gripes (promoting homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, being too sexual, not wanting to have to explain to her children what condoms are). Not disclosed: successfully removing positive portrayals of healthy homosexual relationships reinforces homophobia, instead of the gentle but positive impact on reducing it that such an image can have when social acceptance of same-sex attraction, if not marriage, is almost complete.
Her gloating, combined with an overnight response of 7,000 ‘attendees’ to a letterwriting campaign on facebook and a rally outside the Adshel offices of Brisbane saw the ads reinstated. They were down for less than 24 hours.
ACL’s short sightedness is astounding. I don’t care what people believe, but when they try to push harmful and wrong beliefs like homosexual relationships are unhealthy for those within them, they put others at risk. Rate of LGBTI suicides correlates to homo/transphobia (as measured by illegality of same-sex marriage).
Denying access to a safe sex campaign when HIV infection rates are the highest they’ve ever been, because of misguided opinion and laziness (seriously? Not wanting to spend two minutes or less talking to your child about a condom at a level acceptable to their age?), is going to harm more lives than even they could think they were going to save with their “stop promoting gay love, it’ll turn the kids gay. Or worse, make the public realise that gay people are human too, and maybe they’ll make the connection that their rights are no different from mine” rhetoric. THAT’s what I think society should find offensive.
Facebook event page: Homophobia – NOT HERE – Adshel Caves to Homophobic Pressure
Less than 50, total, public complaints about the ads, mostly incited by the Australian Christian Lobby if Francis can be believed (or written or coached by, if you look at the similar writing style and repetition of phrases)
QAHC press release on: http://www.qahc.org.au/
Further coverage by Brendan Maclean on Mama Mia
Queenslander Benjamin Law’s complaint email to Adshel
My complaint email to Adshel:
To Whom It May Concern,
I would like to petition to have the “Rip & Roll” advertisement reinstated in Queensland bus shelters. As a youth sexual health education worker, I have seen many Australian ads promoting sexual health which are far more sexual than those paid for by The Queensland Association for Healthy Communities.
To claim that the ad is indecent because of its sexual subtext can only be a lie on the part of the Australian Christian Lobby, whose leader Wendy Francis has owned up to and been made to apologise for homophobic comments in the past.
This is a lobby group who wrongly believe that a homosexual relationship is damaging for those within one, and on this ground fight against the right for gay people to marry. (In fact homophobia itself is measurably more damaging to the LGBTI community than individuals entering into a relationship – far more LGBTI suicides occur in regions in which gay marriages are illegal).
The ACL would therefore stand to win ground by having representations of healthy homosexual relationships removed from the public eye; since their arguments themselves do not hold water they rely on homophobic tactics to maintain the status quo. May I ask (or allow you to ask yourselves) how many advertisements of straight couples in a similar context as the two fully clothed men in the QAHC ads they have lobbied against? Or how many clients’ advertising space they have lobbied against for sexualising young women, for example?
Whilst Family First (the political party with whom Francis has previously run, unsuccessfully) would like to see only child-friendly rated ads publicly displayed, currently no ad-rating standard exists, this has not been enforced by legislation and I doubt that most parents would find these ads violate this non-existent standard as both men are fully clothed, and no sexual act is explicitly displayed.
The children this lobby group alleges to protect would most likely be unable to identify a condom until they are at an age deemed appropriate for sex education and thus the message if not the entire “sexual subtext” would be lost on them. Thus I fail to see how you have found it less damaging to remove an advertisement which targets the spread of a deadly sexually transmitted infection (which has an infection rate higher than it has ever been) than to leave it in place and risk offending a misguided minority group determined to not only remain uninformed themselves, but to deny the rest of the community an important public health announcement.
Thank you for reading, and in advance for your support.
Thank God for Glenn Beck May 13, 2011Posted by Danjamin S. Meow in : Uncategorized , add a comment
OINTMENT. It’s topical. May 7, 2011Posted by Danjamin S. Meow in : OINTMENT , add a comment
Until he released his Hawa’ii birth certificate there was a significant group of “birthers” who still doubted that Obama was born in the U.S., despite the fact that you’d think the White House would be slightly more stringent than the golden arches in its background checks…
Donald Trump is still not convinced that there’s no box that you can just falsely tick when you run for office that indicates you were born in the U.S. and the rest of Congress will just take your word for it.
Our other biggest news items this week also rhymes with ‘Obama’*: The Royal Wedding.
You know, that thing where a girl who’d always dreamt of wearing a McQueen and becoming one got half of her wish when she married Prince William. The following is a stock image doctored to incorporate both of Kate Middleton’s dreams, which were realised shortly after watching Alexander McQueen win British Designer of the Year and The Great Escape back to back :
(*: if you’re dyslexic.)
Osama bin Laden, of World’s Biggest Hide and Seek Game Ever fame, was found after ten years, killed and buried at sea. Which just leaves Carmen Sandiego at large after 20. We’d give her a medal, but she can’t be found.
A man airquotes-accidentally-endquote ran over some ducks in a Hummer. And got busted for it. Then got some hate mail. Then his attorney got some hate mail. The only thing remaining to do is to send some badly-spelled hate mail with no grammar to the journalist who covered the story sympathetically:
David Thorne, a less than 50 year old graphic designer with at least one website has made the New York Times bestseller list this week. This proves the long-held belief of many on the Internet that everyone only hates unfunny trolls. After showing the Internet that it’s his playground, Thorne intends to make the whole world is his bridge, and teach seminars on responding to badly-written emails leaving their senders open to abuse.
Silence must end March 13, 2011Posted by Danjamin S. Meow in : relationships, serious business , add a comment
“The Kwinana Courier” (via boyinterrupted-)
AGAIN the majority are being besieged by a .5% minority aided by the well meaning same-sex “marriage”.
“We love each other, so it must be right and we demand that our love be formalized as marriage and blessed.” Unfortunately, the facts say it isn’t right.
For example, straight and gay US colleagues Young and Nathanson approve of gay relationships but not same-sex “marriage”. They identify 20 compelling reasons why it’s harmful.
Every society throughout history that has undermined marriage has declined.
Marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman voluntarily entered into for life.
Long-term same-sex relationships are rarely monogamous.
They experience more physical and mental health problems, higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, violence and a shorter life span than married or even de facto couples.
Are we really prepared to legitimize such coupling with legal sanction, public approval and adoption?
Will our sympathy for their sexual persuasion override our compassion for their children and ours?
Will we falsely and compulsorily teach all children from preschool that these unions are equal to marriage and jail parents who disagree, as in now happening in Massachusetts since same-sex “marriage” was legalized?
If we approve same-sex “marriage”, how can we discriminate against polygamy for Muslims, incest between siblings who “can’t help” loving each other or the growing demand or group marriage of consensual parties, which will inevitably lead to a lowering of the age of consent to eight years as is already recommended by some homosexual activists and those with the cultural practice of child brides.
Are we really prepared for the painful personal and societal consequences of this great social experiment of same-sex “marriage”?
If not, we can’t remain a silent majority.
– Glenice Vladich, Waikiki.
Glenice, your approval is neither desired nor required, and your views are actually in the minority. Several polls now show majority support – as much as 60% – for changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples (remember not so long ago, when marriage by definition was between those of the same race?).
No one is aiming to “undermine marriage” by allowing people of the same sex to marry. The “homosexual agenda” as it’s been labelled in the past isn’t about bringing down the institution of marriage from within. We’d actually see an increase in potential marriages, many of which would be lifelong and monogamous. Given that the trend in Australia is to enter into marriage at a later age than even 20 years ago you’d think that people are being wiser about their choices to get married but divorce rates continue rise. I think straight marriage is doing plenty to undermine marriage without gay marriage sticking its nose in.
Denying people of the same sex the right to marry is another of those everyday, unconscious discriminations that highlights the differences between the LGBTI community and everybody else. Driving a wedge, like ohidon’tknow not having their relationship deemed worthy of recognition by the state, on the basis of sexual orientation could be part of the reason for most of the social troubles that gay couples are plagued with.
Further, examination of plenty of demographics within existing married or de facto couples experience greater than average incidences of “physical and mental health problems, higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, violence” and also enjoy a decreased life span. Do you propose we also stop rural Aboriginal people from poor socio-economic backgrounds getting married? Since geographic location, race, poverty or sexual orientation can not preclude someone from entering into a consensual relationship I fail to see why these people should be ‘protected from themselves’ by denying them the chance to have any relationships they may enter into given that magical word ‘marriage’ that entitles them to things like their partner’s pension when they’ve passed (which, as you’ve kindly pointed out, is statistically likely to happen earlier than for their straight counterparts). Denying any of the other groups the right to marry would be a human rights violation, as is continuing to deny that right to people of the same sex to. In fact I’d go so far as to say that since most governments recognise the others as disadvantages and offer extra state-provided support to those who happen to be born that way, your letter makes a strong point for the same support to be provided for LGBTI people.
As an addendum, I’d like to ask what harm to the community relationships of more than two committed partners pose, and point out that it’s been shown that experimental subjects find it hard to maintain a logical moral argument against two healthy, stable, consenting, related adults having protected sex in circumstances where their actions do not harm the rest of the family (such as where their parents have passed on or in secret).
Same-sex adoption is already recognised as beneficial to children in certain circumstances and has been made legal in WA, TAS, NSW and ACT so far. That means that as a state we have already given our “public approval” for two loving parents of either sex to foster and then adopt children of incapable or unwilling straight parents, where it benefits the child in question (as with any adoption, the interests of the child are still given more bearing than the “right to adopt”). With SA now allowing two women to be listed on the birth certificate, they could be close behind: this is the move NSW took in 2009 before passing legislation allowing same-sex adoption in 2010. Please don’t confuse the two issues; although linked they are two separate, divisive issues.
TL;DR – being gay puts me at a disadvantage in life. I want a handout and the right to marry who I want.
homo homo sapiens sapiens: evolving views of homosexuality October 5, 2010Posted by Danjamin S. Meow in : idols, relationships, religion , 1 comment so far
Same-sex mating seems at first to be detrimental to the furtherment of any species. When you think about it, two male zebra finches bunking down together seems like a pretty selfish act. I won’t go into where they get the bunk from, but they’re not going to procreate to further their own species. From a narrow view of natural selection, the “homosexual finch” gene seems pretty doomed. After all, only individuals carrying genes which promote their chances of a) survival, or b) reproduction survive to reproduce and pass on their set of genes. At first glance, homosexuality seems to fulfil neither of these requirements. Often though, nature works in ways that would’ve blown Darwin’s mind. Like finches getting down with each other just to prove to human scientists that homosexuality is not “unnatural.”
Darwinian trade-offs are common in nature: take, for example, the peacock’s tail. The prescence of a flamboyant, conspicuous tail might be an attractor for peahens (who exert sexual selection on males, “choosing” partners with genes coding for attractive tails, and thus producing male offspring with flamboyant tails). There’s something to be said for subtlety and camouflage when it comes to avoiding predators, though. The term “survival of the fittest” is something of a misnomer, since Darwinian fitness doesn’t necessarily mean most likely to survive and live to a ripe old age. Sometimes it means fit enough to survive to maturity and reproduce and that’s it.
So how does this explain the fitness of homosexuality? Back up a minute, buster, you’re jumping the gun a bit. Firstly, the gene(s) coding for homosexuality are not 100% penetrative or deterministic. In 56 sets of identical twins within which one member was gay, approximately half of the other twins were gay also (Adler, 1992). This suggests a strong but not determinative genetic component, or that the set of genes you carry in your jeans do not tell the whole story of your sexuality. (Before you claim that in half of those households there may have been an overbearing mother and an absent father consider that of three cases of identical twins separated from their gay twin at birth, the other twin was homosexual in two cases (Bouchard, 1990). Scientists studying heredity and the genetic components of phenotypes like homosexuality often study sets of identical twins adopted out or otherwise raised in different households, never seeing their twin during childhood and thus allowing for differing environments in the expression of their genes.)
Richard Dawkins calls one aspect of the non-penetrative characteristic the sneaky fucker theory – a bisexual individual or one whose primary attraction is to the same sex can still mate with members of the opposite sex. The probability that the offspring of such a mating have any one of the same-sex attracted parent’s genes is 50% for each of those “gay” genes; genes which may be beneficial for other reasons. For example, the allele coding for sickle-cell anaemia causes abnormal, rigid, sickle shaped red blood cells. The shape and lack of flexibility results in a greater risk of various complications but also offers a trade-off in offering greater protection from malaria in those carrying one copy of the gene. Not to suggest that homosexuality is a disease, but the resultant decrease in the likelihood of reproduction can have other benefits.
Early humans (and many of our primate cousins) lived in tribes or communities of related individuals, and we’re not alone in this respect. Lions, for example, are unusually social for members of the feline family. Solitary animals have to hunt, gather, find shelter and protect themselves from prey all by themselves. Humans and other species exhibiting altruism share food and shelter and protect each other because it expends less energy in doing so, and is thus a more efficient way of ensuring your genes survive. Having your own offspring is only one way of ensuring your genes survive. Non-breeders are also helping to spread their genes by contributing to the survival of their family (you share half of your genes with your siblings, after all). Not having children of your own means that you have more time to spend doting on your siblings, nieces and nephews, which increases their Darwinian fitness and long-term chances of survival.
Moving from early humans to the greater social communities modern humanity has created – cities, nations and continental unions – brings our world view up to date to focus sharply on a planet containing finite resources and populated with seven billion people. Under these circumstances, creating an understanding of our diverse differences seems necessary to foster tolerance and accept each other to aid the survival of our own species as well as those we share the planet with. Capitalism encourages population growth because it increases revenue by increasing the number of workers, creates jobs in the expansion of infrastructure and places more demand on the resources sectore. But since sharing resources, like land or raw materials, and preservation of biological diversity by protecting endangered species from the expansion of humanity are things that we haven’t really done so well in the past any trait decreasing our rapid proliferation should probably be encouraged, rather than ridiculed, discriminated against, and singled out for punishment.
Twittereview Tuesday Edition Two September 14, 2010Posted by Danjamin S. Meow in : Uncategorized , add a comment
It’s not late if there’s no set schedule.
Birthday cards: over priced, over expressive reminders that you’re a year closer to being put in a home.
LUSH Goth Juice: If this is made from Robert Smith’s tears then he cries medium hold hairspray into unwashed underwear.
The Serious Business of Being Unfunny July 15, 2010Posted by Danjamin S. Meow in : humour, serious business , 2comments Someone once told me I’m only ever 9 months away from making “Dad” jokes constantly – we all know a dork who happened to have a child or three, thinks they’re hilarious and enforces their humour on their poor kids’ friends. This would be true of me if I were a breeder and told terrible jokes ALL the time. Raised by three parents of mixed backgrounds has made awkward situational humour my first language, and sometimes I can’t resist telling an intentionally bad joke. Some of these jokes have survived and been passed down through several generations. Like “You’ve lost your job? Where did you see it last?” or “What are you getting Grandpa this year? Something memorable?!” (The second one was passed around, more than down, when we thought he might have Alzheimer’s). Our humour wasn’t always so distasteful; I just don’t remember the “before” times. I don’t even remember the change; it was gradual. I just remember putting off coming out to my parents so I wouldn’t have to hear my stepfather’s jokes about Perth’s gay bars again.* Then when I did, my mother said she was renaming me “Gav” : her gay, atheist vegan. At the time I thought, this would make a great Singles’ column acronym. If only other GAVs read singles columns.
If sense of humour is genetic, I’d like to think I’m here I because the sperm cell that won the race to the right Fallopian tube killed the competition with laughter. It certainly wasn’t because he was fast at swimming. But there definitely is an environmental conditioning required to hone your jokabillity, as I like to call it. I also like to make up words for fun and laughs. If your childhood wasn’t spent with wisecracking parents in front of The Simpsons, Seinfeld and The Glass House, surround yourself with funny friends who will give you honest feedback about your jokes. Blank stares may be brutal but they’re a good sign you’re on the wrong track. You might want to try another tack and install a laugh track. That way, when you make a joke and finish with an expectant grin, you don’t hear crickets. Your friends will have their cue to laugh politely then say things like “Too far. But good one about redheads in power. Next time you tell it you can change Julia Gillard to Pauline Hanson so it won’t sound like you’re trying too hard to be topical.”
Your third option is to teach yourself to tell jokes. Late nights watching 30 Rock or Eddie Izzard’s stand up comedy alone will get you started. As will DVDs of Margaret Cho’s or Wil Anderson’s standup if you’d rather nail the “inapropriate” jokes. Once you can remember a whole series’ (or DVD’s) worth of quotes to interject into conversation, you’ll have absorbed enough of your chosen comic’s genius to steer you through most conversations. But it’s important to understand why a joke is funny before trying observational humour. Dissecting jokes often kills them (or that might just be frogs) but it gives a good understanding of how they work. Puns are the foundation of many “Dad” jokes as well as many funny ones. Taking a word (A) that sounds like another word (B) and substituting A for B in a sentence is the first step in many, many jokes. Alternatively, when you mishear what someone says, repeating back what you think you heard is an off-beat way to score cheap laughs without much work. Amongst my circle of friends this is known as a “Cuban Dinosaur.” No one knows why, and attempts to reverse engineer the original term have failed.
Often jokes will be based on an expectation being built up, and then deliberately going against the buildup. The rule of three is a nice example of this type of humour: You set up, confirm and then destroy in the name of humour. Describing a cooking show where the host looks like he’s spent too many years on drugs? His technique might involve being broiling, lightly oiling and then rolling the dish in pure crack. This works on two levels, because both “broiling” and “oiling” are common steps in food preparation, and they both rhyme. Having the host roll a chicken breast in crack after doing the first two breaks the set-up you’ve created for the third. Which might have had to be “soiling” the chicken. Good thing he chose the crack.
Observational requires pointing out how something (a current news topic, deeply-held belief system or Justin Bieber) is already funny, or taking a premise to its logical but absurd conclusion and then speaking as if everybody else believes this conclusion. Not for amateurs is the kind of paranoid schizophrenic conversation based on Jesus watching you from an air vent on the train (God is “everywhere” and sees everything, after all). Another use for generally understood stereotypes or a “pre-existing” buildup is to contradict them. Quite often a joke in my house will involve nothing more than a healthy dose of irony. My housemate and I once left a ridiculously bad painting of a matador up in our lounge, which obviously clashed without our ethical vegetarianism and sense of aesthetics, and told people that came to visit we chose it because it matched our lounge’s colour scheme. Thankfully we didn’t buy the painting, we found it discraded outside a picture framing business. (This housemate and I had progressed to the stage where one-word references to in-jokes and puns would have us in tears from the effort of trying to laugh.)
Once you settle into your funny groove, you can then purposely disregard the rules of funny humour and move into “Dad joke” territory with an audience knowing that you do have a finely-tuned sense of humour and are stepping outside the bounds of taste to make a bad joke. Until then, it’s best to leave bad jokes in the category of things you know better than to try. A category I’m only ever borrowing from the natural hypocrites: Dads.
* For those that have had the great fortune of avoiding jokes like these, he used to say that he’d have to walk backwards into Connections so that everyone would recognise him.
And never failed to bring up the following list when something “gay” entered conversation – things a straight man should never say in a gay bar include:
“Can I bum a fag?”, “Can you push my stool in?”, “Let’s blow this joint!”, “Toss you for the next round.” and “Bottoms up!”