All right kids. The Grand Inquisitor has to go out for a little adult fun tonight so she can have a little drink and forget about this week’s unpleasantness. Now go upstairs and put on your jammies before the sitter gets here. I expect you all to be on your best behavior. Since you have all been so good this week, you can stay up and watch a scary movie.
This is possibly the worst horror movie ever made. It is called “Blood on Satan’s Claw” and it was made in 1971. The little GI decided to watch it when she was a wee lass and her parents were out for the evening. She did not sleep well for weeks. You might want to watch it with the lights on.
I will check on you when I get home to clear the monsters out from under the bed.
Also, snark aside, one more thanks for being so understanding and downright helpful this week. Have a great night.
(Note: This is an article about some sexually explicit topics, so both this post and any sites to which I link may be considered textually NSFW.)
In the midst of the latest round of congressional attempts to criminalize abortion, the “right to choose” question has once again interjected itself into the national conversation. Does a woman have the right to choose what to do with her own pregnancy in her own body?
I’d wager that most of us here on Crosstalk would argue for a woman’s right to choose. As with the gay marriage debate, it would seem that many of us are uncomfortable with the idea of legislating morality, especially as it relates to sexuality (ironically, a classically Republican mindset ). But the “right to choose” question extends beyond the issue of abortion; for those in the poz (HIV-positive) community, a debate is raging over the ways they have sex and the necessity of “safe sex” measures.*
See, barebacking has made a comeback in the gay porn industry. Barebacking refers to sexual penetration–usually anal–without the use of a condom.” Barebacking was long a staple of gay sex, but when the AIDS crisis his America, the practice lost its glamor. Only recently has it come back into vogue, the latest thrill to seek for the most sexually adventurous (some would say careless) people. The gay community is split over whether this is a good or bad thing for the LGBT community at large. Many activists wish to require porn studios to include condom use in their feature films; after all, the best way to encourage safe sex and minimize the risk of STI transmission is by using a condom, and it’s irresponsible of some porn studios to continue to promote and profit off of bareback sex. On the other hand, proponents and producers of bareback pornography argue that porn is fantasy, not reality, and viewers understand the difference between the fantastical world that porn depicts and the realities of gay sex.
Along with the most recent rise in barebacking’s popularity has been the increasing prevalence of serosorting–sex between partners with the same STD status. A (relatively) high-profile example of this is Atlanta’s monthly Poz4Play parties, in which HIV-positive men congregate and have unregulated sex with each other. Condoms are offered, but not required; while patrons have to keep their clothes on in the space’s lobby and hallways, several private rooms are available for private, unmonitored sexual activity.
Serosorting isn’t just limited to those in the poz community, however; dating websites for people with specific STIs (such as herpes, HPV, and chlamydia) are growing increasingly popular with gay and straight singles looking to avoid the awkwardness and embarrassment that often comes with admitting one’s STD status to a disease-free partner. As you might imagine, some–but not all–of the couples matched up by these disease-specific sites eschew condom use. And for those who feel stigmatized by their STIs, it’s nice to meet people who share these problems and experiences; the burden of shame, at least between partners matched through these disease-specific websites, is lifted, and that fact alone makes the sex all the better. (A common acronym in poz personal ads is “UB2,” which stands for “you be too”–as in, “respondents must share my STI status.”)
The justification for bareback serosorting is that since both partners are already infected with a given disease, the supposed “risk” of infecting each other is rendered moot. And if people are going to bareback anyway–it’s common wisdom in the gay community that condom-free sex simply feels better, and it’s assumed that many sexually active members of the community actively search out opportunities for barebacking–then they might as well do it with those who share their disease status, so as to minimize risk to the broader (disease-free) gay community. Many “poz party” promoters emphasize this health-conscious aspect of their decision to promote serosorting:
For decades, the issue of HIV Status Disclosure was one of silence, confusion and doubt mainly created on the fear of hate, rejection and in some cases DEATH (murder or suicide) – that was in the 20th Century. Today, the 21st Century has opened the doors of opportunity, acceptance, communication, awareness and HOPE as HIV+ people (gay, straight, man, women, young or old) openly and willfully disclose their HIV Status to family, friends, loved ones, co workers and sex partners. Since the mid 1990’s, HIV Status Disclosure for both HIV+ and HIV-negative people continues to be an acceptable behavioral change that global society has understood to be vital in stopping the spread of HIV in it’s tracks. Without HIV testing and HIV Status Disclosure mankind can NOT physically break the cycle of new HIV transmissions – Serosort (HIV+ only) or Safe Sex Serosort ;(HIV+ 4 HIV+ or HIV- 4 HIV-).
So we can see how the issues of serosorting and barebacking are fraught with tension and disagreement over the limits of sexual freedom; should barebacking and HIV-positive pornography be legal? Who would be responsible for policing, say, mandatory condom use on gay porn sets? How could such requirements even be enforced in the first place? Would the policing of these kinds of sexual activities only push them underground, into dangerously unregulated situations? And is it right that, say, “bareback porn is given away as prizes at benefits for AIDS and other organizations”?
Add one more question to that unnerving list: what to do about “bug chasers“?
Bugchasing is a slang term for the practice of pursuing sex with HIV infected individuals in order to contract HIV. Bugchasers may seek HIV infection for a variety of reasons Bugchasers seek sexual partners who are HIV positive for the purpose of having unprotected sex and becoming HIV positive; giftgivers are HIV positive individuals who comply with the bugchaser’s efforts to become infected with HIV.
It’s difficult to avoid condemning the practice of bugchasing as reckless, dangerous, and just plain stupid. But should it be banned? Defenders of the practice argue that sexual activity between consenting adults should not and cannot be legislated. Moreover, some argue, it’s hypocritical to on the one hand protect gay men’s right to engage in sodomy and a woman’s right to choose whether or not she undergoes an abortion, and on the other hand seek to criminalize other consensual sexual behavior–namely, bugchasing and barebacking.
It’s a tricky question, and I’m not going to editorialize; in truth, I myself am still trying to figure out where I stand on the issue. But even though practices like serosorting and bugchasing may only affect a small percentage of the population, the questions they raise about sexual freedom and the legislation of sexual health seem more pertinent to the national conversation than ever.
*Okay, so it seems as though some readers have taken issue with my comparing the decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy with the choice to bareback or “bug chase.” I’m not attempting to equate the two at all. For one thing, I don’t think anyone ever “wants” to get an abortion; it’s an incredibly difficult and painful decision that many people (myself included) believe is up to the pregnant woman, as opposed to a bunch of politicians in Congress. But while some young gay men feel the need to “bug chase” in order to find shelter and/or community, many testimonies from “bug chasers” I’ve found online imply that the decision to do so is voluntary and in the pursuit of what they view as erotic pleasure.
Rather, I think both abortions and activities like “bug chasing”–and the legal debates that surround them–center around the same question: “Who is in charge of <i>my</i> body?” In other words, the question as to whether it’s justified for the government to intervene in people’s personal and/or sexual decisions is common to both of these “issues.” Now, you might make the argument that whereas an abortion is a solely personal decision, activities like “bug chasing” pose a potential social health hazard. I don’t think this viewpoint is invalid. Just because I think these two things both center around the same question doesn’t mean they must have the same answer.
In any rate, if you disagree with the analogy, then you can ignore it. It’s not central to my post; I suppose I simply felt the need to “justify” the inclusion of this topic on Crasstalk, as ridiculous as that might sound, and was therefore attempting to tie serosorting and “bug chasing” to other things that have been discussed on this blog. The rather “anything-goes” nature of Crasstalk where most any topic is welcome without attempting to justify its relevancy to the blog’s audience is still a bit new to me.
La Ronde by Arthur Schnitzler Abreact Performance SpaceClosing Night: February 26: 8pm Tickets: Free but Donations Welcome Cast (Order of Appearance) Caroline Price: The Prostitute, The Young Wife and The ActressStephen Blackwell: The Soldier, The Husband and The CountKristen Knisley: The Maid, The Sweet Young ThingMartin Turner Shelton: The Young Master, The Poet
Last night, after venturing into Corktown, Detroit’s historic Irish district filled with great food and great buildings, I arrived at The Abreact Performance Space inside the Lafayette Lofts on the corner of West Lafayette and Brooklyn. I was there early to speak with the powers that be about a one act regarding alcoholic misanthropes as well as to make sure I scored a prime seat (I did, in the front row) for the night’s show: La Ronde: Arthur Schnitzler’s controversial play about sex that was initially banned in Germany, but hailed by Sigmund Freud and which eventually found major followings in the United Kingdom and, not surprisingly, France. The house filled up quickly and a few minutes before the play started, it had reached capacity as The Abreact rushed to accommodate those who had made reservations prior to the performance.
After everything had been taken care of, the lights began to dim and a card on the mantle of a fireplace alerted us that the first (of ten) dialogues would be between the prostitute and the soldier and I was swept away into early 20th century Vienna (well, with British accents). The prostitute tried to pick up the soldier who gruffly and forcefully told her that not only did he have no money, but that he had to get back to barracks. They joked around for a bit before heading down to a secluded area to have sex since the soldier refused to go to the prostitute’s apartment. The house went black as the characters simulated sex, the lights raising again to showcase them half dressed and the prostitute trying to get money out of the soldier, despite having offered her services to him free of charge.
The rest of the show went through this general formula amongst different social classes to showcase how what we want out of love and sex is exactly the same, even if the way we deal with it is different and also reaffirmed the notion that everyone sleeps with everyone. To make a long story short:
The Prostitute slept with The Soldier
The Soldier slept with The Maid
The Maid with the Young Master
The Young Master with The Young Wife
The Young Wife with her Husband
The Husband with the Sweet Young Thing
The Sweet Young Thing with The Poet
The Poet with The Actress
The Actress with The Count
and, finally, to complete the circle, The Count with The Prostitute.
I, and the rest of the audience, spent the two hours (excluding the intermission wherein we all grabbed either cans of PBR or a glass of wine from the kitchen which were also free (everyone donated a couple bucks to offset costs, however)) in uproarious laughter as people teased, snarled and made outrageous noises and comments during sex (my favorite was the monotone “Oh, cricket. Oh, cricket” during the Poet/Actress scene). The show was a triumph, and, while the entire cast was sublime, the strongest was Matthew Shelton as The Young Master trust fund kid who seduced The Maid and The Young Wife (despite both of their protestations. I’d say that it could be seriously considered that some of the characters in the show were raped) and as The Poet/Playwright Robert/Biebitz who lived in squalor while seducing The Sweet Young Thing and The Actress who wouldn’t shut up about an ex-lover named Fritz. His anger at The Maid for falling in love with him during sex, at The Young Wife for teasing him when he couldn’t maintain an erection and his shock that The Sweet Young thing had no idea who Biebitz was felt like some of the most authentic dialogue in a piece filled with incredibly believable words. The sets were spartan, but the space was small and they worked with the vibe of the show.
Overall, I haven’t a bad word to say, which is odd. It’s just a well-written, well acted piece and I urge you to see it. If however, you miss the final performance tonight or live outside of the Detroit area, the French filmed a well-received version of La Ronde in 1950. I haven’t seen it, but, if it sticks close to the script, it should be pretty quality.
The Abreact Performance Space is located at 1301 W. Lafayette Street at Brooklyn. Performances start at 8 with doors opening at 730. The Abreact will begin a production of Waiting For Godot on April 15, which will also star Stephen Blackwell. Tickets, as mentioned, are free, but The Abreact is funded solely by donation. Arrive early! If you decide to get a bite before the show, I highly recommend going to Mudgie’s Deli on Porter and Brooklyn, three blocks north of The Abreact. It’s my favorite place to get sandwiches in Detroit. Go there. Seriously.
A recent chance encounter with an old friend led to nostalgic gossiping, as it often does. This included remembering an affair among former mutual colleagues, which prompted reflection. Not so much about the well-worn themes of “Why People Cheat?” – I’ve watched enough of that to think I get the various motivations. More specifically we wondered about the role of the third party, and how he or she fits in. How she or he thinks, and how she or he is viewed by others involved.
Assumptions
I want to separate out some of the common themes that come up when thinking about affairs. So I’d ask you to assume (or at least trust me about) three things:
I’d like to take gender off the table, if that is ever possible. There are plenty of important and interesting gendered themes when discussing affairs, but that isn’t what captivates me in this particular case. In fact, it is relevant to this point that, with my former colleagues, the individual having the affair was the wife. Or, even more to the point, that it is not relevant.
Assume that we do not need to care about the “injured” party. How the affair impacts that individual is off the table. This husband was an ass; and one could make a case that he simply didn’t care. You can imagine him as abusive or withdrawn or also cheating or whatever. I promise I’m not asking for this assumption so that we can feel sympathy for “home-wreckers,” but to get beyond thinking about affairs from the perspective of the other spouse, and try to make sense of the relationship between those involved in the affair.
Assume that the two married individuals either can not or at least will not divorce. Whether this is due to religion, money, children. Again, it doesn’t matter what specifically the reason is, just that this is the circumstance. Long-term changes are unlikely.
The Third Party on the Third Party
So in this situation, what motivates the third party to be involved in such a scenario? If this were a friend, we would tend to tell them that this is simply not a good idea, wouldn’t we? Haven’t most of us had this conversation? Or, let’s be honest, listened to someone else have it with us? Certainly the individual could just be interested in short-term sex, but does that ever really work? (Have romantic comedies taught us nothing?) Are they holding out irrational hope for a future? In a short life, are they not worried that they are spending limited time and emotional capital on an ultimately unavailable partner? Is that the point?
The third party that I knew, I knew well, but not that well. He knew that this was a mistake but couldn’t pull himself out of it. He ignored other possible relationships because they might interfere with his availability. Ultimately, his motivations were not that different from any motivations for a relationship: he enjoyed the human contact, comfort, and energy that came from this woman. The long-term was too vague to interfere with the short-term glow that he had. And, don’t we all understand, the downsides were easily rationalized away. The highs of the roller coaster imprinting much more clearly than the lows.
The First Party on the Third Party
And this leads to what is particularly interesting to me. Given the above, how does this person having the affair rationalize it? Not rationalize what she or he is doing to the spouse, but what she or he is doing to the third party? In theory, this is someone that the first party has developed a strong emotional and physical bond with. A friend, a colleague, a lover. And yet, unlike the close friend who is saying “run away” this person does everything possible to pull the third party in closer. To actively limit the third party’s ability to grow and develop long-term meaningful relationships. I think of this in terms of spouses left behind during war as well. The spouse at home is lonely and needs support, but they must know that ultimately, even if the other spouse returns and never finds out, that in exchange for months of love and support, the paramour will receive nothing more than emotional pain. (If you just realized that this is the second time I’ve made a point that can be illustrated by a Natalie Portman film, bonus points to you.)
It is no new interpretation to say the story of Dracula is ultimately a story about sex. An old man’s thirst for the young that is so overpowering that it literally drains the life out of her. And it is true that there is a Vampiric quality to so many affairs. (And this is also why the apparently mostly-sexless Vampire-lead of Twilight is so stupid.) Perhaps the first party’s needs simply require fundamentally ignoring the life of the third party. Blocking it out. Having just finished Gary Shteyngart’s Super Sad Love Story – which, like all of his books, I do not recommend – the main (unmarried) character’s internal need to provide provide oral sex for his much younger girlfriend was viscerally representative. It is not alone.
But people are not all vampires; are not all narcissists. It can’t be that everyone in an affair simply lives this disjointed life, psychologically ignoring yet attempting to satisfy the third party. How does the first party explain away the incredibly difficult and untenable position they are placing this other person in, someone they care about, often deeply? Is this why, in fact, so few affairs are true “love affairs” and why so many involve other benefits for the third party?
Distance and benefit?
The old, profoundly lame, joke is that men don’t sleep with prostitutes for the sex, but to get them to leave. I wonder if there isn’t something slightly deeper occurring here. Perhaps, the going away actually stands for limiting emotional connection in a way that helps the man rationalize his ultimate lack of availability to the third party. The first party feels that affection is being shown in the only ways possible. We see this in mistress or cicisbeo culture as well. Or in terms of “sleeping ones way to the top.” Or so many celebrity affairs that are so well-publicized. The married individual can not provide the standard promises of a relationship, so other forms of benefit are substituted. Benefits that the first party can rationalize as a potentially fair substitute for a real relationship, either explicitly or implicitly. And in these cases, the third party can also sleep a little more soundly (on those nights when he or she is alone), knowing that the benefits are either a signal of promise or at least something that makes it all explainable, worth it.
Equally Unattainable
And perhaps this is why so many affairs involve situations where both couples are married or equally unattainable. Or why our shared anecdotes reference uncommon yet re-occurring events – reunions, conferences, etc. In these situations, life frames the expectations so narrowly that no one can have them. Or at least have fewer of them. Both parties are in both roles or the time-frame is so limited that the impact on the other’s emotional life is inherently limited. It’s a vacation from life instead of a part of one’s life.
In the story of my colleagues, the third party ultimately moved to another job across the country. The practical distance gave him the emotional distance he needed. He started a new life, a new emotional life. He is married now. Happily, last I heard.
The culture of childbirth has changed significantly since I was I was born (back when God was a boy and dinosaurs roamed the earth). There have been many movements concerning more natural approaches to childbirth. Homebirth has become more popular as women feel more confident about controlling their birth experience.
When it comes to having a baby, you have several options that are well-known: Standard birth in the hospital with drugs, Standard birth in the hospital without drugs, c—sections (I hope no one attempts these without drugs), and home birth. You can have an obstetrician or a midwife attend your birth. Some women elect to have a doula who helps advocate for the mother during the birth. This seems like a reasonable number of choices.
But there is one more choice you may not know about. It’s called Freebirth – natural childbirth without a medical attendant. No doctors, no midwives, nothing. It’s not emergency childbirth. It’s a planned event. Homebirths are usually not legally restricted if a certified nurse midwife attends. However, laws vary widely by state. There are some restrictions against unassisted childbirth, but they are few and are rarely enforced. As you might guess, many medical societies in the U.S. and abroad have come out strongly against Freebirth.
Unassisted childbirth advocates claim that a woman knows her own body best and should be making all the decisions. They make the valid point that a woman should be supported emotionally during childbirth. Many advocates believe that interventions from doctors are more dangerous than the risks of childbirth and interventions can interfere with maternal bonding. They believe that the best way to support a woman is to leave her alone – no drugs, no fetal monitors or other medical equipment. They say that women should not fear childbirth but embrace it. The women typically don’t receive prenatal care but do research on their own.
This is all well and good, but I, of course, have an opinion about this (I have an opinion about everything). I would be terrified to give birth without a medical professional nearby. That would definitely increase my fear and would make me feel very unsupported. I don’t think doctors are always right, but the “natural” mortality rate of childbirth—no interventions – has been estimated as being 1500 deaths per 100,000 births. In the US, the current rate of deaths is 10 per 100,000. Those are pretty different death rates.
Homebirth, free or not, was never an option for me. I didn’t want to have to do the cleaning afterwards and neither did my husband. The food in the hospital sucks but they have a janitorial staff there. We didn’t have to worry about scooping the goop out of the tub with a slotted spoon. Also, I dislike pain. I try to seek remedies for it whenever possible.
I found a quote by one advocate that said: “Birth is sexual and spiritual, magical and miraculous”. I think she might be over idealizing things a smidge, but I only really take issue with the word “sexual.” For those of you who haven’t been involved in a birth, I should let you know that there are a lot of things about birth that you don’t learn until you’re pregnant. Once you start reading in-depth about birth, you find out some icky things. That’s why the word “sexual” amuses me. So, which part is sexual? The pooping on yourself? The blood? The vernix? The baby? I don’t know about you but in my mind, the presence of a baby takes all the sensuality out of any situation.
The community of people who want to make birth as natural as possible are always coming up with new ideas. In addition to Freebirth, there are some other fun ideas:
There is a whole set of people who don’t believe in cutting the umbilical cord. They leave it on until it falls off on its own. That means the placenta hangs around for a few days after the birth. It’s called Lotus Birth and I totally didn’t make it up. Gah!. You either wrap the baby and the cord and the placenta up together. You can also keep a bowl beside the baby to hold the placenta. The corn will dry up and detach naturally within a few days. Then you can have a ceremonial burial for the placenta or make a stuffed animal out of it or whatever floats your boat.
There’s a thing called orgasmic birth which is exactly what it sounds like. I think you have to get to a certain level of Zen to achieve it. Here’s a quote: “If conception feels good, why not childbirth?” There are women who have claimed to experience it. It hasn’t happened to anyone I know. However, here are some quotes from women it actually had this experience:
If you want to see videos and share thoughts with the members of this community, here is a good website: http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/. I saw the woman who runs this site in a documentary. The film was about unusual birth decisions and WHEW DOGGIES did she stand out as a crazy.
The Oscars are three days away tomorrow and there’s not a carbohydrate in sight in Hollywood. Luckily we don’t have to squeeze into an Armani Prive because, yes, alcohol counts as a carb and we’re already drunk with anticipation. Or maybe we’re drunk with gin. Either way, we’re drunk.
You are invited to get drunk with us on Sunday, February 27th, for a liveblog of Oscar night, starting with the red carpet arrivals on E! (6 ET/3 PT) and switching over to ABC when the Academy Awards ceremony begins (8 ET/5 PT). We’re dying to see what Sandra Bullock wears on the red carpet and whether her hair stylist is smart enough to lose the heavy bangs. We’ll save that discussion for our fashion rundown, coming soon. In the meantime, you know the drill: we’re handicapping the nominees.
Today’s category: Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side
Last year, Sandra Bullock won for The Blind Side, which we still cannot believe, because that was some Lifetime Movie bullshit, but whatever. We don’t hold it against her: that girl needed some validation to get her through the complete tabloid clusterfuck that exploded days after the 2010 Oscars.
Nominee: Annette Bening for The Kids Are All Right
Annette Bening in The Kids Are All Right
Advantage: Wouldn’t she be fun to get drunk with? We love Bening and have been disappointed to see her lose – twice – to Hilary Swank. We have a thing against chipmunk teeth. That’s one of the many reasons why we detest Miley Cyrus so much, but we digress. This is about real actresses. Bening is always terrific and we felt she turned in the best performance in this mediocre movie.
Disadvantage: She has no chance. Zero. This is not an Oscar-worthy performance, nor is it an Oscar-worthy film. We hope she gets drunk at the Vanity Fair party after the ceremony and tells Jack Nicholson to stop mugging for the cameras from his front-row seat.
Nominee: Nicole Kidman for Rabbit Hole
Nicole Kidman in The Rabbit Hole
Advantage: Kidman’s performance was nuanced: as a grieving mother, she was neither sappily sympathetic nor acidic and abrasive, but moved between emotional extremes with ease. She’s making a gradual career comeback by choosing smaller movies and roles (almost always playing a tormented mother). By laying off the Botox and lip filler and ditching the harsh blonde hair for a more natural red (please write this down, LiLo), Kidman seems poised to once again dazzle us with her abilities instead of distract us with her other “work.”
Disadvantage: This film barely registered on the radar. Kidman is a capable actress, but is sometimes better known for generating Oscar buzz for her couture than her performances. The Academy does love a depressing film and performances fraught with pain and angst, but this movie has little traction and we suspect voters want to wait for a bigger film to reward Kidman with another Oscar.
Nominee: Jennifer Lawrence for Winter’s Bone
Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone
Advantage: Winter’s Bone is the little meth-fueled engine that could, chugging through awards ceremonies and generating a lot of buzz along the way. Lawrence buried her sexpot body under layers of dirty clothes and backwoods depression, delivering a raw, understated performance in a country film noir that might have won her an Oscar in a non-Swan year. She learned how to fight and skin squirrels for the role – can you see prissy Portman doing that? We raise our glasses to you, Jennifer Lawrence.
Disadvantage: Say it with us, Jennifer: “It is an honor just to be nominated, especially among such talented actors.” We hope Lawrence doesn’t get too commercial, a real worry given that she’s appearing in the next installment of the X-Men series. She’s proven she can handle tougher roles – if she makes good choices, she might be back at the Oscars again.
Nominee: Natalie Portman for Black Swan
Natalie Portman in Black Swan
Advantage: This bitch has it locked down and she knows it. Pregnancy glow? We think not. That’s pure superiority shine, with a touch of gloating gleam. Portman is insufferable and self-aggrandizing, which makes her our idol, but her year of preparation for this role served her well. Her performance was more than physically demanding: Portman was able to maintain the emotional tension and uncertainty of a ballerina struggling with her grasp of reality in this psychological thriller. Bitch deserves it and we’ll have a celebratory drink for her pregnant, tiny ass.
Disadvantage: Portman is insufferable and self-aggrandizing. Did we already mention that? Her Golden Globes acceptance speech gave us a preview of Oscars night and this new equation: self-centered actress + self-satisified pregnant lady + award recognition = awkward celebratory ego masturbation on live television. We don’t want to see that again. But we will watch one of our favorite memes again:
Nominee: Michelle Williams for Blue Valentine
Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine
Advantage: If you ever see Michelle Williams in a zombie-alien-superhero-save-the-earth summer blockbuster, stock up on pork-n-beans because the end days are nigh. Her delicate beauty and easy smile belie the raw emotion she brings to each role. If you’ve ever loved someone passionately, only to have that love erode over time while still clinging to the shell of the relationship and the memories of what was (as in, have you ever been married?), Williams’ performance in Blue Valentine may be hard to watch.
Disadvantage: Williams has made her film career by choosing tough roles in smaller pictures and, as we cautioned for Geoffrey Rush for Best Supporting Actor, being consistently good can be bad at the Oscars. Blue Valentine lost some traction in a prolonged fight with the Motion Picture Association of America over an NC-17 rating. Williams will be back, though probably not for her next role as Marilyn Monroe. We’re not drunk enough to see that working.
Our pick: Natalie Portman for Black Swan. She deserves it for her excellent work. Being both insufferable and in possession of an annoying laugh doesn’t hurt one’s chances at the Oscars. Just ask Julia Roberts.
What do you think? Is Portman for Best Actress the most obvious “lock” this year? Might there be an upset? Would Portman give the naming rights to her child for an Oscar?
Well my friends, we are struggling to get ourselves back to normal, and I think we are doing pretty well. Glad to see all of you and hope we won’t ever be separated like that again.
The Grand Inquisitor needs to take a nap now, but she will leave you a channel of cute animal vids to delight you while she is resting.
Have a great evening, and thank you all for your incredible support and patience the last couple of days.
So America, it seems that you’ve officially broken up with NBC. There’s no more “trying to work it out” or “going to therapy.” It’s kind of done. At this point not much else happens except maybe a Community drunken hook up, or meeting at 30 Rock for coffee to discuss “closure,” and well, you’ll always have that thing that happened in the Office supply closet during the Christmas party.
Now, though, you’ve moved on to “seeing other people.”
Ratings for NBC last week were in the toilet. No preamble, no sugar coating it, just swirling in the bowl hoping for a courtesy flush.
Just what the hell has happened here? Remember all those great shows of the 1990’s, when “Must See TV” meant something in the world of television? Jerry Seinfeld ruled the airwaves. Phil Hartman was still alive. Ross and Rachel were Ross and Rachel, George Clooney and his House of Batiatus hairdo made us all swoon, and well, Paul Reiser did that married people show with his Oscar winning on-screen wife who now lives in a cave. But now, well now, NBC is a dried husk surviving off the writing talent of Tina Fey and the waning appeal of Steve Carell. What else is even on this channel? Nowadays when I careen by NBC at 90mph, on days not showing Law & Order: SVU, Guy Fieri, that sandwich-man from the Food Network, is making people stack cups and flip quarters into a jar! This is entertainment on NBC? I guess so. Well, that sucks, because really NBC — CBS the land of addicts and NCIS spin-offs — is just kicking your cape-wearing, event-stalling, outsourced ass all over the ratings chart. Never would have happened in the Seinfeld years.
Fox, however, reigned supreme last week with juggernaut American Idol and edged slightly ahead of CBS to top the broadcast primetime adult 18-49 ratings. CBS was followed closely by ABC, and the network held together by Alec Baldwin and chewing gum came in last of the mighty four, again.
Furthering NBC’s descent into obscurity, in the list of top 25 shows for last week, only one NBC show placed. It was The Office — at number fourteen, yeah, not even in the top ten. American Idol held on to the top two spots, followed by Modern Family at number three, One Junkie, A Has Been, and The Kid Caught in the Middle came in at number four, Glee took the fifth spot, Mike & Molly landed at number six, and Grey’s Anatomy (This show is still on?! NBC, this is like being beaten by Trapper John M.D. in 1982) made it to number seven. The awesome Big Bang Theory was able to squeak by at number eight, How I Had Sex With All These Chicks And Then Met Your Mother slutted its way to number nine, and Head Slappers with Mark Harmon rounded out the top ten. [TV By the Numbers]
Should we talk about what’s on the “to be jettisoned on an ice floe” cancellation list for NBC while we’re remarking on how terrible a network it is? Sure. Already cancelled this season, Outlaw, Undercovers, and Chase. Well, what did we expect? What were these shows even about? Spies, outlaws, and law enforcement types also chasing outlaws? Sounds like this should have been one show called Law & Order: LA! This show is on indefinite hiatus! This makes complete sense.
Two shows currently bleeding out on the emergency room floor like a Sarah Palin television fiasco are; Perfect Couples (Olivia Munn, HA! You can’t act.) and The Cape (Naturally). Three others, Outsourced, Chuck, and Harry’s Law are still breathing, but I’m thinking if someone knocked out a plug, all the machines would start whirring, and Trapper John would come running in frantically with his hair and bedroom eyes screaming about “Codes” and “O2 STAT!”.
But here’s one thing NBC has accomplished — its tied with Fox for the number of cancellations this season, each have three, so that means something! Something bad. But really this is horrible since we mostly expect Fox to have several cancellations. They have a habit of producing jaunty little sitcoms and other random filler crap that just seem like fodder anyway. It’s a kinda “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” philosophy.
NBC, well, the viewing public expects better. Mostly, right?
The Sheen Effect:
Do you know what happens when you have a mind-swelling coke rant and say rabid shit about your boss?
Well, you get fired, and your inexplicable hit television show stops production. Apparently stuffing his face with cocaine and hookers wasn’t enough to make CBS pull the plug on Charlie, Duckie, and the Teenage Fart Joke (#4 in ratings!), no, Carlos Estevez was fired after a full-blown narcissistic, anti-Semitic tinged, mini-Mel rant on the Alex Jones radio show wherein he stated this about his boss, executive producer, Chuck Lorre:
“There’s something this side of deplorable that a certain Chaim Levine – yeah, that’s Chuck’s real name – mistook this rock star for his own selfish exit strategy, bro. Check it, Alex: I embarrassed him in front of his children and the world by healing at a pace that his unevolved mind cannot process.”
“Last I checked, Chaim, I spent close to the last decade effortlessly and magically converting your tin cans into pure gold. And the gratitude I get is this charlatan chose not to do his job, which is to write.”
He made it clear during the interview that he doesn’t believe the show can survive without him, telling Jones, “Watch your ratings, dudes. Watch your stupid ratings.” Sheen followed his statements with a letter sent to TMZ where he called Lorre, a “contaminated little maggot” and wished the producer “nothing but pain.” He’s also urging “all my beautiful and loyal fans who embraced this show for almost a decade to walk with me side-by-side as we march up the steps of justice to right this unconscionable wrong.”
Yawr, okay, Carlos. Whatever. Here’s the continuing thing if you want instant nausea. Is it possible CBS could face a significant dip without its bread and butter ratings hauler? Likely. We’ll see.
So, that’s it for this week. Charlie Sheen is a Mel Gibson impersonator with some acute Gary Busey tendencies! Fantastic. American Idol‘s Seacrest monster still has your attention, since Fox is celebrating the blond teacup yorkie and his bevy of misfits; the stringy rocker, the crying J.Lo., and Yo Dawg Tito Jackson, who apparently still make all your thighs sweat and voice boxes tingle. This is sad. I need a cape.
You thought I was done yammering about abortion laws? HA. You are so naïve.
Welcome to Part Two of Chipping Away At Roe, or I Can’t Believe We Still Have To Protest This Crap. Today we’re going to look at a (very) small sampling of state laws and bills relating to abortion and reproductive rights.
We’ll start with my home state, Iowa. According to theGuttmacher Institute, Iowa had 11 abortion providers in 2008 in 9% of Iowa counties. They also have like a million crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). NOTE: Crisis pregnancy centers do not offer abortion, and in general will try their damnedest to keep you from getting one. A lot of them will also try to give you information that is either debatable or that they’ve just plain made up, like that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer (yes!no!yes!no!), or that Post-Abortion Syndrome exists and is common (Nope. It’s not recognized by the APA or American Psychiatric Association, though emotions after abortion vary widely), or that abortion providers will lie to you to get your money (highly illogical, Captain; they’d make more money off prenatal care). So don’t visit them unless you’re just looking to score some free baby clothes and cookies. If you want information, go to your doctor or Planned Parenthood. You can get free condoms for more baby-free sex, too!
Iowa requires parental/relative consent if a minor wants an abortion, except in a medical emergency or cases of abuse, incest and neglect. Some people may think that it’s only fair to let parents know what their child is up to, especially when it concerns something as serious as abortion. However, forcing children to notify their parents is harmful. It’s my firm belief that parents need to foster an environment where their kids will feel comfortable telling them they are pregnant and what they plan to do about it. If your daughter isn’t coming to you about this, she probably feels she has a good reason, whether she’s afraid you’ll be angry or disappointed or knows she might be kicked out of the house or even killed. Luckily, some states’ Planned Parenthoods offer volunteer attorneys to help with judicial bypass, which allows minors to get an abortion without telling their parents.
Here’s something cool about Iowa, though: we have the first telemedicine program for abortion. That’s right: abortion on demand (in a clinic with a nurse who does all the usual examinations, tests, counseling and ultrasound). This makes it much easier for those harlots to frivolously abort their precious pre-borns whenever they want, as they are wont to do. No, wait, sorry. It makes it easier for women hours away from the nearest abortion provider (quite common in Iowa; shocking, for a state that’s 86% farmland!) to get abortion pills, which induce abortions within the first nine weeks of pregnancy. This means they don’t have to take time off work, arrange transportation, find someone to take care of their kids, explain their absence, and deal with protestors outside the clinic. It’s also much less invasive than surgical abortion and allows women to exert more control over the prodecure. Go Hawks!
Oh, by the way: if you insist on calling fetuses pre-borns so they can have all the rights that born babies have, I’m going to go ahead and call myself a “pre-senior” so I can start getting all those sweet discounts.
I'm looking forward to it
Some current legislation that sucks:
HJR 3, or House Joint Resolution 3: Man, this right-to-life thing is a pain in the ass. Thanks a lot, Thomas Jefferson! This bill states that personhood begins from the moment of conception. They can’t even wait until the damn thing attaches to the uterine wall. Defining an embryo/fetus as a person is the beginning of giving them rights accorded to people, including the right to life.
But you know, I don’t really care about the whole is-a-fetus-a-human-life or is-a-fetus-a-person argument. Totally played out. Besides, two sets of rights can’t logically exist in one body. Eventually one set of rights will have to trump the other, as in the case of the previously mentioned Angela Carder. Even then, the woman’s rights will need to be prioritized over the fetus’. After all, she’s carrying the damn thing, and has all those pesky responsibilities to her family and career and school and whatnot. The fetus isn’t even autonomous, the lazy bastard. Look at it, just twiddling its little webby thumbs in the amniotic sac, mooching off Mom’s blood.
GET A JOB
HF 153: Here’s where the trouble starts with that whole “personhood” thing. This would propose that life and personhood begin at conception, which means NO ABORTIONS, EVER. Well, it doesn’t really say that, in so many words. It says “life is valued and protected from the moment of conception and each life is accorded the same rights and protections guaranteed to all persons.” This is a bit sticky. Obviously, it would ban all abortions, something the state can’t legally do because of Roe v. Wade (though the purpose of the bill is probably to challenge Roe v. Wade anyways).
If someone takes my birth control pill from me, I will cut a bitch
However, some are concerned that it would also ban certain forms of birth control that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. This means contraception that contains progesterone, which prevents the endometrium from thickening enough to support an embryo, could be banned. This includes birth control pills, some IUDs, Implanon (implanted birth control), the patch, Depo-Provera….you get the picture. No hormonal birth control.
Moving on!
I know a lot of you are from New York, so next stop: Big Apple.
New York’s basically the best place to live if you need an abortion. The Guttmacher Institute says there were 249 abortion providers in 61% of counties in 2008. Remember kids: don’t go to crisis pregnancy centers! New York also doesn’t have any of the usual abortion restrictions like waiting periods, parental notification and required ultrasounds (the clinics do ultrasounds in the first place to discover how far along a pregnancy is, so this would be yet another cost added to the bill), and allows Medicaid to pay for abortions.
They have a few bills chilling out in the state assembly (largely pro-choice) right now. They don’t seem to be going anywhere, but here they are. I’m going to go ahead and apologize now for not having many details on the bills I mention here. It’s really f’ing hard to get information unless someone’s kicking up a fuss about them. A couple I found were A02128, which would require parental notice, and we’ve got A02244, or a right to know bill, which looks like it might require clinics to provide women with “full information and reflection time.” (24 hours)
Giving women alternatives to abortion, as well as full information on how the procedure works, what to expect, and how to take care of themselves afterward is important, and most clinics, especially Planned Parenthood, do a pretty good job with it on their own. Regulating abortion, making sure it’s safe, is also crucial. You’ll just have to understand that I’m a bit wary of bills like these when they come from anti-abortion legislators. The issue, then, is that they’re often biasedagainst abortion, which increases the risk of false information being given and puts more pressure on women not to get abortions. Dudes. That decision is hard enough without making her feel like shit about it. And adoption is an alternative to parenthood, not pregnancy, and is therefore not always a valid argument.
The rest of the bills I found were all good stuff, like requiring CPCs to disclose they don’t perform abortions, aren’t medically licensed or a medical facility, and that pregnancy tests can be purchased over the counter and self-administered. Four for you, New York.
Let’s stop briefly in California, home of the courageous Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), who spoke of her own 2nd-trimester abortion during the debate on HR 217 to strip Planned Parenthood of funding. The Guttmacher Institute puts the number of abortion providers at 522 in 78% of counties in 2008. They, like New York, don’t have any of the usual restrictions, and 2nd-trimester abortions are legal. I couldn’t find any current bills pertaining to abortion, so we’ll move on.
I imagine it's something like Mexico's Island of the Dolls, but less creepy
I hear a few of you are from Illinois, mostly hailing from The Only Part of Illinois That Matters. Illinois is also known as “an island of abortion in the Midwest.” Abortion Island has 37 abortion providers that practice in only 8% of Abortion Island counties, which seems a bit sparse, considering its nickname. It’s also got some anti-choice language in the state code that declares Illinois’ commitment to protecting the unborn and that, should Roe v. Wade be reversed, they will reinstate the abortion ban, with exceptions for the health of the woman. Illinois also doesn’t have most of the common restrictions, though the fight for parental notice has been going on since the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 was enacted, then put under permanent injunction, which is now being appealed. Whoof.
So, you’ve made it this far, have you? Good on you. The last state I’ll go into detail about is Arizona. Arizona legislature is pretty much completely anti-choice; the House, Senate and Governor Jan Brewer all support anti-abortion laws. In 2008, there were 19 abortion providers in 13% of Arizona counties. Restrictions include parental consent, not just notification, as well as counseling designed to discourage her from having an abortion, and a 24-hour wait. There are a couple of bills getting some press right now. HB 2443 (sorry about the blinding text color) would charge those who perform abortions knowing they are based on sex- or race-selection with a Class 3 felony. Oh, Arizona! It’s a little late to convince people you care about racism. There hasn’t really been any evidence that race-selection is the cause of some abortions, and most abortions happen before the sex is able to be most accurately determined, which is around the end of the first trimester. These bills aren’t about protecting disenfranchised fetuses, but creating more obstacles to abortion.
The other bill (it really needs to be easier to find bill names)would require that clinics that provide medication abortions be under the same state regulations regarding staffing and facilities of clinics that provide surgical abortions. This would also apply to satellite clinics that provide telemed abortions, which would be banned. Since only 13% of Arizona counties have abortion providers, this makes it much harder for women outside of those counties to get an abortion.
To wrap up, a quick word on trigger laws. Trigger laws are laws that, while currently unenforceable, would be automatically enforceable should other legislation change. Many states have trigger laws pertaining to abortion in case Roe v. Wade was someday overturned. Louisiana’s former governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco signed a trigger law in 2006 permitting abortion only when a woman’s life was threatened by pregnancy, and Mississippi’s governor Haley Barbour signed a similar one in 2007.
I wish I could go into greater detail, but we’d be here all week. I’m linking to some helpful sites at the end of this post. The Guttmacher Institute is a great resource for information on state laws and abortion in general. I got a lot of my information from the Media Center and State Center on their website.
Back to the federal level: Here are the ten Democrats who sponsored HR 3, which codifies the Hyde Amendment. They are, uh, not favorable reviews.
I didn’t add this at the end of my last post, but I should have. Guys, the reason I’m writing about this stuff isn’t just to work up some righteous outrage on your end. There’s enough of that out there already. I’m writing about this as a call to action. Look up your state’s legislation. They should have bills listed on their website, as well as your representatives’ information. Find out what’s going on in your state, and start calling people. Email, if you can’t call. Organize protests. Do something to remind your representatives who they work for.
If you do, there's a sugar glider bee in it for ya.
By now many of you are already aware of what happened when our site went down for about a day and a half. On Thursday afternoon Gizmodo linked to one of our posts, and we instantly got a huge spike in traffic. And while I had previously predicted the need to move to a better hosting solution, we couldn’t have predicted that this would happen. Because we were still using an inexpensive shared hosting plan, when all that Gizmodo traffic came our way we suddenly exceeded our allotted percentage of the server’s resources and they suspended our account.
Right away we moved to a much better (and more expensive) virtual server, but unfortunately our old host’s backup of our database was badly corrupted. Thanks to the legendary heroism of your fellow Crasstalker Bens, we were able to save all the data and get the site back up. From now on we should have a much faster website with fewer annoying bugs and less downtime. This will be a big improvement in how Crasstalk performs.
We think this is a huge opportunity for us to continue growing this community. Here’s what you can do to help us do that:
Share Crasstalk links on Facebook, Twitter, StumbleUpon, etc. All you have to do is hit one of the social media buttons at the bottom of each article.
If you haven’t already, make a donation to our site fund. See the button on the right? Yeah, that one.
If you’re an author, start writing new articles again. We’re going to need them!
Go find articles mentioning the Gawker redesign and post comments with links to the site in them. That’s how many of you found this place, so keep spreading the word.
I’ll tell you right now, DogsOfWar, GrandInquisitor and I have big plans for this place. We’re working on improving the quality level of the articles. We’re making the site faster. And we’re working on adding new features like PMs, Gawker-style reply notifications and chat. This recent setback has made us more, not less, committed to improving the site.
It is no new interpretation to say the story of Dracula is ultimately a story about sex. An old man’s thirst for the young that is so overpowering that it literally drains the life out of her. And it is true that there is a Vampiric quality to so many affairs. (And this is also why the apparently mostly-sexless Vampire-lead of Twilight is so stupid.) Perhaps the first party’s needs simply require fundamentally ignoring the life of the third party. Blocking it out. Having just finished Gary Shteyngart’s Super Sad Love Story – which, like all of his books, I do not recommend – the main (unmarried) character’s internal need to provide provide oral sex for his much younger girlfriend was viscerally representative. It is not alone.
We see this in mistress or cicisbeo culture as well. Or in terms of “sleeping ones way to the top.” Or so many celebrity affairs that are so well-publicized. The married individual can not provide the standard promises of a relationship, so other forms of benefit are substituted. Benefits that the first party can rationalize as a potentially fair substitute for a real relationship, either explicitly or implicitly. And in these cases, the third party can also sleep a little more soundly (on those nights when he or she is alone), knowing that the benefits are either a signal of promise or at least something that makes it all explainable, worth it.
