T.E. asks, "My Dear Miss Kitty,
Who has the cooler job, Santa or the Easter Bunny?"
Santa.
Hands down, it's Santa.
So this answer is going to be more text-y than link-y, but I think I have some pretty solid reasons why Santa has it better than the Easter Bunny, so just bear with me, if you would.
Okay, let's look at living conditions first.
Santa lives at the North Pole (horrible weather) in a sort of magical workshop where he is surrounded by his wife, elves, reindeer and bajillions of toys. It's always kind of holiday-ish at Santa's workshop, so I'm guessing there is singing and lights and probably some pretty decent grub. We all know Santa's a little on the larger side, and one doesn't get that way if the food sucks. Let's be honest.
The Easter Bunny lives...somewhere. Nobody really knows. But if he is like any other bunny, he probably lives in a hole in the ground. There may be other bunnies or there may not be. Probably not. If there were, we would have heard of Mrs. Easter Bunny, right? He's probably a bachelor who goes around procreating like, well, a bunny, but he can't be seen with all of these kids hanging about so all of his former girlfriend bunnies have scorned him and don't come around any more either. And let's be honest, if you're a bunny that looks like this, do you really want to be seen hanging around with this guy? Or worse, this one?
Point: Santa.
Next we look at job circumstances.
Santa works all year long. Making toys. He gets to build trains and dolls and iPods and drills and all kinds of fun things. If he gets tired of making tops, he can switch over to blocks for a day. And again, the work environment is filled with elves singing, people to chat with, and good food. Then, once a year, he climbs into a magical sled and takes a trip around the world where people leave cookies for him at every stop. Not too shabby, I'd say.
The Easter Bunny works one day a year. Not too bad. Until you consider that he has to steal his product (eggs) because bunnies don't lay eggs. So in the days leading up to Easter, he has to break into hen houses to try to collect enough eggs to hide for the children to find, or he has to break into various variety stories to get those brightly colored plastic eggs and then fill them with stuff. He could, at any time, be caught and dragged off to jail or shot by an angry farmer. And then he has to go hide the eggs so other people can find and consume the treats within. And he has to do this all by himself. No little worker bunnies hopping around to help with the stealing and hiding, and nobody to leave little treats for him as he does his job.
Point: Santa.
And finally, attire.
Santa gets to wear a nice, big, warm, fuzzy red suit with boots and a hat and gloves so he stays nice and toasty on his round-the-world trip. And I'm guessing he can wear whatever he wants in the workshop.
The Easter Bunny sometimes gets to wear really horrible vests or bow-ties, but that's about it. You know how dank and muddy it can be in March or April? And he doesn't even get to wear boots? Sure he's an animal, but do we have to treat him like one?
Point, set, match: Santa.
Sorry, Easter Bunny, but you just plain got screwed with your holiday. It's not even on the same day every year, for crying out loud. At least you get to hawk Cadbury Creme Eggs for a little while each year. Those things are tasty.
Thank you, T.E. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Showing posts with label hard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hard. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
Tolerance
J.M. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty:
I believe that I'm intelligent enough to know that the deeply-ingrained nature of a large chunk of the US that is "against" LGBT rights, such as same-sex marriage and elimination of DADT, is that they are not actually "homophobic," per se, in that they
literally have a "fear of homosexuals," but rather that they simply have an aversion to homosexuals or the idea of same-sex activity.
I understand that there is a religious justification to be "against" homosexuals and/or same-sex activity, but many of the folks "against" LGBTs neither "fear" them, nor use religious justification for persecution.
So my question is, what other justifications are there for the social "othering" and persecution of LGBT Americans, does sexuality and sexual attraction have a moral standard outside of religion, and why is the resistance to LGBT acceptance so intense even in secular America?"
Hi, J.M.
First of all, I don't think there are any legitimate justifications for being "against" homosexuals and/or same-sex activity.
None.
I'm saying that right out at the front so everyone knows what kind of post this will be. If you disagree with me on that point, you may want to stop reading right now because I will offend you. But that is my opinion, one I hold very dear, and I am allowed to have that opinion as much as you are allowed to disagree with it.
Now, that being said, there are a lot of people out there who still feel kind of ooky when they see two men kiss (and for those of you who have no problem with it, those are three separate links, for which I will just say, "You're welcome"). Okay, they have a hang-up. That's their business.
I think the larger issue here is that America is, really, a very sexually repressed country. We like to think we are advanced, but we're not. I would go so far to say that it is only in the last few years that the idea of heterosexual sex with the woman on top became mainstream. Prior to that, it meant she was a crazy sex-fiend lunatic and that poor man she's with had better watch out because there's no telling what she'll do to him.
We are taught from a very young age to be ashamed of our bodies. Keep everything hidden. Don't touch anyone or let anyone touch you because it might lead to something bad. And certainly don't let anyone that you like know that you like them because that means opening yourself up to someone which means you will get hurt and oh dear god, we should never ever ever allow ourselves to get hurt!
But even when they try to be open about it and teach us about sex in school, it is done from a very sterile, clinical perspective. "When the man becomes aroused, he experiences increased blood flow to the penis, which then becomes hard." There is absolutely no discussion about what happens to make him become aroused. And all of those poor little boys running around wearing corduroy pants that just feel so good start to think they are crazy because their own pants turned them on. There is nobody to tell them that this is normal, and that it doesn't mean they are in love with corduroy pants and need to marry corduroy pants someday to have little half-human half-pants children, that it's all just a matter of their hormones going ape shit at the moment. And, of course, since he's too embarrassed to say anything, it becomes a shameful secret, which (oddly) then makes him get more turned on by his own pants and it becomes this vicious cycle wherein he asks all of his adult sexual partners to invest in corduroy undergarments. All because we were taught only the mechanics of heterosexual sex in school, but none of the other physical, spiritual, or emotional components of intimacy.
So we're weird about sex in general. It's how we are. I'm not saying that's good and I'm not saying that's bad. It is the state of our culture right now. Americans are weird about sex. We're fine with watching people blow one another up in movies and video games, but as soon as there is intimacy involved, that shit gets an NC-17 rating and your friends and colleagues look at you funny if you express any interest in seeing that film or playing that video game.
What makes this so hard for the LGBT community, then, is that for people who are not LGBT, that is a completely foreign kind of sex. Completely. A lot of them can't even figure out the mechanics of it. Yes, it is true that a lot of people out there are also unfamiliar with things like bondage, but they can at least try it on a smaller scale in the comfort of their own bedroom and they get to feel all naughty for using silk scarves in their basically missionary sex. It is close to the realm of the imaginable. For men who are sexually repressed, the idea of things going into or coming out of certain orifices is just not imaginable. Therefore anyone who likes that sort of thing must be really friggin' weird. And seeing as the man in question is really repressed in the first place, he's not too keen on being anywhere near anyone who is really friggin' weird. Which is probably better for us weirdos. He just happens to be really loud, too, which is annoying.
I think that that same sexually repressed man is also weirded out by people with fetishes, exhibitionists, any person whose sexual experience isn't exactly like his. He thinks he knows what sex is and what sex is supposed to be and anyone who does anything else is wrong. Because if there is the possibility that they are right in what they are doing, then he must be wrong and a deviant and all of that stuff, which just really doesn't fit in with his world view.
The thing is, people with fetishes and exhibitionists and the like aren't as vocal as the LGBT community. I'm not saying that if the LGBT community would just shut up that things would be fine - I am not advocating that AT ALL. If anything, I'm saying the exhibitionists should speak up more. Sex is a very personal thing. A VERY personal thing. I might even go so far as to say that people's sexual preferences are like snowflakes - no two people are turned on by exactly the same thing. And maybe if as a society, we were more aware of just how diverse everyone's tastes are, we'd be more accepting of all of them. And more accepting of ourselves.
I kind of have to thank the LGBT community for being the trailblazers here. It's not easy to be the first to say, "We like something that is different to what you like," so thank you for doing that. Hopefully someday we'll all be able to talk openly about sex and preferences and such without anyone getting hurt.
Thank you, J.M. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
I believe that I'm intelligent enough to know that the deeply-ingrained nature of a large chunk of the US that is "against" LGBT rights, such as same-sex marriage and elimination of DADT, is that they are not actually "homophobic," per se, in that they
literally have a "fear of homosexuals," but rather that they simply have an aversion to homosexuals or the idea of same-sex activity.
I understand that there is a religious justification to be "against" homosexuals and/or same-sex activity, but many of the folks "against" LGBTs neither "fear" them, nor use religious justification for persecution.
So my question is, what other justifications are there for the social "othering" and persecution of LGBT Americans, does sexuality and sexual attraction have a moral standard outside of religion, and why is the resistance to LGBT acceptance so intense even in secular America?"
Hi, J.M.
First of all, I don't think there are any legitimate justifications for being "against" homosexuals and/or same-sex activity.
None.
I'm saying that right out at the front so everyone knows what kind of post this will be. If you disagree with me on that point, you may want to stop reading right now because I will offend you. But that is my opinion, one I hold very dear, and I am allowed to have that opinion as much as you are allowed to disagree with it.
Now, that being said, there are a lot of people out there who still feel kind of ooky when they see two men kiss (and for those of you who have no problem with it, those are three separate links, for which I will just say, "You're welcome"). Okay, they have a hang-up. That's their business.
I think the larger issue here is that America is, really, a very sexually repressed country. We like to think we are advanced, but we're not. I would go so far to say that it is only in the last few years that the idea of heterosexual sex with the woman on top became mainstream. Prior to that, it meant she was a crazy sex-fiend lunatic and that poor man she's with had better watch out because there's no telling what she'll do to him.
We are taught from a very young age to be ashamed of our bodies. Keep everything hidden. Don't touch anyone or let anyone touch you because it might lead to something bad. And certainly don't let anyone that you like know that you like them because that means opening yourself up to someone which means you will get hurt and oh dear god, we should never ever ever allow ourselves to get hurt!
But even when they try to be open about it and teach us about sex in school, it is done from a very sterile, clinical perspective. "When the man becomes aroused, he experiences increased blood flow to the penis, which then becomes hard." There is absolutely no discussion about what happens to make him become aroused. And all of those poor little boys running around wearing corduroy pants that just feel so good start to think they are crazy because their own pants turned them on. There is nobody to tell them that this is normal, and that it doesn't mean they are in love with corduroy pants and need to marry corduroy pants someday to have little half-human half-pants children, that it's all just a matter of their hormones going ape shit at the moment. And, of course, since he's too embarrassed to say anything, it becomes a shameful secret, which (oddly) then makes him get more turned on by his own pants and it becomes this vicious cycle wherein he asks all of his adult sexual partners to invest in corduroy undergarments. All because we were taught only the mechanics of heterosexual sex in school, but none of the other physical, spiritual, or emotional components of intimacy.
So we're weird about sex in general. It's how we are. I'm not saying that's good and I'm not saying that's bad. It is the state of our culture right now. Americans are weird about sex. We're fine with watching people blow one another up in movies and video games, but as soon as there is intimacy involved, that shit gets an NC-17 rating and your friends and colleagues look at you funny if you express any interest in seeing that film or playing that video game.
What makes this so hard for the LGBT community, then, is that for people who are not LGBT, that is a completely foreign kind of sex. Completely. A lot of them can't even figure out the mechanics of it. Yes, it is true that a lot of people out there are also unfamiliar with things like bondage, but they can at least try it on a smaller scale in the comfort of their own bedroom and they get to feel all naughty for using silk scarves in their basically missionary sex. It is close to the realm of the imaginable. For men who are sexually repressed, the idea of things going into or coming out of certain orifices is just not imaginable. Therefore anyone who likes that sort of thing must be really friggin' weird. And seeing as the man in question is really repressed in the first place, he's not too keen on being anywhere near anyone who is really friggin' weird. Which is probably better for us weirdos. He just happens to be really loud, too, which is annoying.
I think that that same sexually repressed man is also weirded out by people with fetishes, exhibitionists, any person whose sexual experience isn't exactly like his. He thinks he knows what sex is and what sex is supposed to be and anyone who does anything else is wrong. Because if there is the possibility that they are right in what they are doing, then he must be wrong and a deviant and all of that stuff, which just really doesn't fit in with his world view.
The thing is, people with fetishes and exhibitionists and the like aren't as vocal as the LGBT community. I'm not saying that if the LGBT community would just shut up that things would be fine - I am not advocating that AT ALL. If anything, I'm saying the exhibitionists should speak up more. Sex is a very personal thing. A VERY personal thing. I might even go so far as to say that people's sexual preferences are like snowflakes - no two people are turned on by exactly the same thing. And maybe if as a society, we were more aware of just how diverse everyone's tastes are, we'd be more accepting of all of them. And more accepting of ourselves.
I kind of have to thank the LGBT community for being the trailblazers here. It's not easy to be the first to say, "We like something that is different to what you like," so thank you for doing that. Hopefully someday we'll all be able to talk openly about sex and preferences and such without anyone getting hurt.
Thank you, J.M. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Adult Education
J.R. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
Why is it so difficult to apply to graduate school at UCLA? I spent 12 hours at my computer and $120 dollars today!
Bonus question: Do you like the Hall & Oates song referenced in the subject line?
Cheers,
JR"
Hi, J.R.
I think your problem is that you are applying to the school that everyone in the known universe wants to attend. I mean, really, think about it. What city is more glamorous than Los Angeles? From the outsider perspective, anyway. If you've never been, you think it's all glitz and fancy cars and famous people and it's always sunny and warm and nothing bad ever happens in LA that can't be solved in 30-55 minutes. Sure there is traffic and smog, but those things seem so minor compared to the chance that you might meet your hero while walking down the street.
True, those of us who have been there a while know it is expensive and overdone and very cliquish (and I was only there for three months) and it can feel heartless and sterile if you don't have millions of dollars to spend, but they don't show you that in the movies. They show you the hooker who meets the filthy rich guy who saves her in a limo.
So you've just graduated high school, or you've just graduated college, or you've been out of college for a while and are frustrated with your life so you think the best course of action is to go back to school and learn more so you can get a better job and make more money and hopefully be happy someday. And while you're building up this super happy future, you try to picture yourself in some super happy place that is always warm and sunny and it's clean and glamorous and there are exciting people all around you and...UCLA! You're going to apply to UCLA! They have a fun campus and great sports teams and it's a beautiful location and hey, people actually learn things there, too! What more could you want in a school?
The sad thing is, everyone else thinks that way, too, so poor UCLA gets approximately 8,750,342,976 applications per year for 39 spaces (actually, it's closer to 58,000 applications for 4,000 spaces, but you get my point). That is a lot of application materials to wade through, my friend. So they have to make the process difficult. That is the first test you have to pass - can you complete the application? I'm sure more than 58,000 people start the application process, but only 58,000 finish it. That's the first cut. So if it took you 12 hours and $120, you're 12 hours and $120 closer to the second cut. You've already beaten out those lazy bastards who couldn't think of a good reason why they wanted to apply there in the first place and gave up writing their essays after, "Since I was seven years old, my dream has been to live in California..."
So hang in there. It's tough. I know. And now you get to play the waiting game, which sucks even more. But I have my fingers crossed for you. If for no reason because I'm still hoping you write that sequel someday (but starring Zoe and Dean this time).
Bonus answer: I honestly didn't know there was a Hall & Oates song called "Adult Education," so I had to go look it up on YouTube. I'm guessing that if it had been on the radio in about 1986, I might have listened. I am a little bit confused by the half-naked Egyptian style wedding/sacrifice ceremony with a mentally challenged janitor and dudes in masks in the video. And I'm kind of scared by Oates' high-waisted pants. It's not a bad song. Probably not one I'm going to rush out to buy, though. But I do have to give you credit for random pop-culture references in your question. Kudos for that.
Thank you, J.R. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Why is it so difficult to apply to graduate school at UCLA? I spent 12 hours at my computer and $120 dollars today!
Bonus question: Do you like the Hall & Oates song referenced in the subject line?
Cheers,
JR"
Hi, J.R.
I think your problem is that you are applying to the school that everyone in the known universe wants to attend. I mean, really, think about it. What city is more glamorous than Los Angeles? From the outsider perspective, anyway. If you've never been, you think it's all glitz and fancy cars and famous people and it's always sunny and warm and nothing bad ever happens in LA that can't be solved in 30-55 minutes. Sure there is traffic and smog, but those things seem so minor compared to the chance that you might meet your hero while walking down the street.
True, those of us who have been there a while know it is expensive and overdone and very cliquish (and I was only there for three months) and it can feel heartless and sterile if you don't have millions of dollars to spend, but they don't show you that in the movies. They show you the hooker who meets the filthy rich guy who saves her in a limo.
So you've just graduated high school, or you've just graduated college, or you've been out of college for a while and are frustrated with your life so you think the best course of action is to go back to school and learn more so you can get a better job and make more money and hopefully be happy someday. And while you're building up this super happy future, you try to picture yourself in some super happy place that is always warm and sunny and it's clean and glamorous and there are exciting people all around you and...UCLA! You're going to apply to UCLA! They have a fun campus and great sports teams and it's a beautiful location and hey, people actually learn things there, too! What more could you want in a school?
The sad thing is, everyone else thinks that way, too, so poor UCLA gets approximately 8,750,342,976 applications per year for 39 spaces (actually, it's closer to 58,000 applications for 4,000 spaces, but you get my point). That is a lot of application materials to wade through, my friend. So they have to make the process difficult. That is the first test you have to pass - can you complete the application? I'm sure more than 58,000 people start the application process, but only 58,000 finish it. That's the first cut. So if it took you 12 hours and $120, you're 12 hours and $120 closer to the second cut. You've already beaten out those lazy bastards who couldn't think of a good reason why they wanted to apply there in the first place and gave up writing their essays after, "Since I was seven years old, my dream has been to live in California..."
So hang in there. It's tough. I know. And now you get to play the waiting game, which sucks even more. But I have my fingers crossed for you. If for no reason because I'm still hoping you write that sequel someday (but starring Zoe and Dean this time).
Bonus answer: I honestly didn't know there was a Hall & Oates song called "Adult Education," so I had to go look it up on YouTube. I'm guessing that if it had been on the radio in about 1986, I might have listened. I am a little bit confused by the half-naked Egyptian style wedding/sacrifice ceremony with a mentally challenged janitor and dudes in masks in the video. And I'm kind of scared by Oates' high-waisted pants. It's not a bad song. Probably not one I'm going to rush out to buy, though. But I do have to give you credit for random pop-culture references in your question. Kudos for that.
Thank you, J.R. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)