H.J. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
I recently read that Hugh Heffner announced via Twitter his preparations to marry for a third time. Aren't there laws against this?
H.J."
Which part? Getting married, being Hugh Heffner, or announcing things via Twitter?
Actually, in all three cases, the answer is "no."
Unfortunately, the only thing that could stop Hugh Heffner from getting married would be if he announced his plans to marry the houseboy, instead of the housebunny, and even that would only stop him in certain states. No, while Harry cannot have one husband, Liz is allowed eight. It's sad, but it is good protest sign fodder.
There is also no law against being Hugh Heffner. Unless you are not Hugh Heffner and you run around telling people that you are him. Especially if you take his credit cards and social security card and stuff and buy all sorts of things. Which he could totally afford, but still. That might land you in jail, but will most likely not get him in a whole load of trouble.
And Twitter...well, there should be laws against Twitter but there aren't. Nor are there laws preventing people from announcing things there. There is a sort of unwritten rule of douchebaggery that states "If the party of the first part is unaware of the happenings in the life of the party of the second part, the party of the second part retains all rights and privileges associated with being put out that the party of the first part could not be bothered to read the Twitter account of the party of the second part. The party of the second part will not be held liable for the party of the first part missing out on any super groovy social activities due to the general disinterest of the party of the first part in not reading Twitter because, dude, I only posted it up there, like, ten times between 2 and 3am after we hit the burrito stand. What do you mean you went home and went to sleep? It's not my fault you're a wus. If you want to know what's going on, you have to read my Twitter - I'm not going to tell you otherwise, because then what would be the point of posting it on Twitter?"
Or something like that.
So, as there are no laws to prevent it, I wish Heff and his new wife all sorts of joy as they embark on this lifelong journey together. And no, she is not a gold digger.
Thank you, H.J. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Monday, January 10, 2011
![douchebaggery](http://img1.tvloop.com/img/showpics/0d/57/l33c16eec0001_2_23265.jpg"){kind=link}
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Peas and Carrots
M.O. asks, "Miss Kitty,
Those who know me in my public life know that I have never maligned a carrot in any way, shape or form. As a person exercising individual choice, I merely happen to prefer to consume peas. Why is it, then, that I am constantly assaulted on a daily basis by groupings of peas and carrot pieces mixed together? Is it the colors? Is it some sort of socialist propoganda? Is it an attempt by the failing carrot industry to take over the world?
M. O."
Dude, I want to live where you're living so I can be assaulted by vegetables on a daily basis. I would love that. No more of that silly "going to grocery stores" business; I could just walk down the street and be bombarded with dinner. That would rock!
If it turns out, though, that you are exercising your right to hyperbole (which is actually in the Constitution, right after life and liberty, but before the pursuit of happiness) and you're not pelted with veggies as you walk down the street but are instead talking about the selection in your local grocery store, I have one very simple solution for you.
Shop somewhere else.
I know that my local Trader Joe's and my local Whole Foods both have packages of peas, and packages of carrots that you can buy separately. And I have. On many occasions. At farmer's markets, peas and carrots are usually on separate tables, so you could try that, too.
It is true that peas and carrots look good together - orange and green are lovely complimentary colors. There is also the texture factor - peas are small and kind of squishy and are therefore nicely complimented by a larger, firmer, crunchier vegetable like a carrot. And don't forget Forrest Gump's influence on the popularity of the vegetables. That movie won Oscars, you know.
If you want to get Freudian about it, think about one carrot with two peas. Yes, the male ego has penetrated every aspect of our society.
Peas and carrots also contain lots of vitamins and minerals in common, so you can reach your RDA without overdosing on green things - it's good to have variety in your diet. But I can understand the desire for just peas. When I make mac 'n cheese, I don't want to add peas and carrots, just peas. It is important to be able to purchase them separately and plenty of locations will offer you that choice.
Or perhaps you'd rather try these?
Thank you, M.O. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Those who know me in my public life know that I have never maligned a carrot in any way, shape or form. As a person exercising individual choice, I merely happen to prefer to consume peas. Why is it, then, that I am constantly assaulted on a daily basis by groupings of peas and carrot pieces mixed together? Is it the colors? Is it some sort of socialist propoganda? Is it an attempt by the failing carrot industry to take over the world?
M. O."
Dude, I want to live where you're living so I can be assaulted by vegetables on a daily basis. I would love that. No more of that silly "going to grocery stores" business; I could just walk down the street and be bombarded with dinner. That would rock!
If it turns out, though, that you are exercising your right to hyperbole (which is actually in the Constitution, right after life and liberty, but before the pursuit of happiness) and you're not pelted with veggies as you walk down the street but are instead talking about the selection in your local grocery store, I have one very simple solution for you.
Shop somewhere else.
I know that my local Trader Joe's and my local Whole Foods both have packages of peas, and packages of carrots that you can buy separately. And I have. On many occasions. At farmer's markets, peas and carrots are usually on separate tables, so you could try that, too.
It is true that peas and carrots look good together - orange and green are lovely complimentary colors. There is also the texture factor - peas are small and kind of squishy and are therefore nicely complimented by a larger, firmer, crunchier vegetable like a carrot. And don't forget Forrest Gump's influence on the popularity of the vegetables. That movie won Oscars, you know.
If you want to get Freudian about it, think about one carrot with two peas. Yes, the male ego has penetrated every aspect of our society.
Peas and carrots also contain lots of vitamins and minerals in common, so you can reach your RDA without overdosing on green things - it's good to have variety in your diet. But I can understand the desire for just peas. When I make mac 'n cheese, I don't want to add peas and carrots, just peas. It is important to be able to purchase them separately and plenty of locations will offer you that choice.
Or perhaps you'd rather try these?
Thank you, M.O. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
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
Smart Phones
iP.L. asks, "Miss Kitty,
What would be the potential implications if there was a movement to legalize marriage between humans and their smart phones?
Sincerely,
iPhone Lover
I think if the day comes wherein people feel the need to marry inanimate bits of technology, I will officially resign from the human race and go live in a cave somewhere among the bats. Because bats are friggin' cool.
I don't mean to discriminate - I think people should be allowed to marry whomever they want, as long as both parties are cool with it. Thing about marrying a smart phone is, how do you know the smart phone wants to marry you? Seriously, think about it. You bought that smart phone. You filled it with phone numbers and apps to make your life easier. You stuff it in pockets and leather carrying cases and purses and laptop bags. You drop it on the floor repeatedly and curse the high heavens when it drops a call or is two seconds slower than you'd like it to be. You say you love it but really, it is your slave. And you treat it badly. Did anyone ever stop to ask their iPhone if it would like that Justin Bieber ring tone generator to be installed? Did anyone bother to thank their Blackberry for reminding them when their anniversary is?
No.
We treat our smart phones like shit and then you expect them to want to marry you?
I would also have to ask what the benefits of marrying a bit of technology would be. See, the main points of contention in the gay marriage debate are equal rights for spouses of the same gender - hospital visitation rights, inheritance issues, insurance things, etc. When you are hospitalized, you take your phone with you and are allowed to put it on the bedside table. Nobody is going to bar your smart phone from the room. The only rooms the phones are not allowed in are the ones where it would probably do a lot of damage to the phone to have it in there (i.e. MRI and x-ray rooms). And do you really want to leave your life savings to your smart phone? Wouldn't you rather leave it to your kids so they can go to college, or to some charity if you really don't like your kids? Okay, what if it is the smart phone that gets sick? You take it to the Apple Genius Bar and they poke around in there - while you still have full visitation rights - and when they come back and tell you that it's a software glitch that will cost $500 to fix, or you could buy a new phone for $99, what do you do? You throw away your original phone for a newer, younger, sleeker model.
So I guess what I'm saying is that if a movement does start to allow humans to marry their smart phones, I will instantly start a campaign for Smart Phone Rights. Crackberries Unite!
Thank you, iP.L. for your question! Keep 'em coming guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
What would be the potential implications if there was a movement to legalize marriage between humans and their smart phones?
Sincerely,
iPhone Lover
I think if the day comes wherein people feel the need to marry inanimate bits of technology, I will officially resign from the human race and go live in a cave somewhere among the bats. Because bats are friggin' cool.
I don't mean to discriminate - I think people should be allowed to marry whomever they want, as long as both parties are cool with it. Thing about marrying a smart phone is, how do you know the smart phone wants to marry you? Seriously, think about it. You bought that smart phone. You filled it with phone numbers and apps to make your life easier. You stuff it in pockets and leather carrying cases and purses and laptop bags. You drop it on the floor repeatedly and curse the high heavens when it drops a call or is two seconds slower than you'd like it to be. You say you love it but really, it is your slave. And you treat it badly. Did anyone ever stop to ask their iPhone if it would like that Justin Bieber ring tone generator to be installed? Did anyone bother to thank their Blackberry for reminding them when their anniversary is?
No.
We treat our smart phones like shit and then you expect them to want to marry you?
I would also have to ask what the benefits of marrying a bit of technology would be. See, the main points of contention in the gay marriage debate are equal rights for spouses of the same gender - hospital visitation rights, inheritance issues, insurance things, etc. When you are hospitalized, you take your phone with you and are allowed to put it on the bedside table. Nobody is going to bar your smart phone from the room. The only rooms the phones are not allowed in are the ones where it would probably do a lot of damage to the phone to have it in there (i.e. MRI and x-ray rooms). And do you really want to leave your life savings to your smart phone? Wouldn't you rather leave it to your kids so they can go to college, or to some charity if you really don't like your kids? Okay, what if it is the smart phone that gets sick? You take it to the Apple Genius Bar and they poke around in there - while you still have full visitation rights - and when they come back and tell you that it's a software glitch that will cost $500 to fix, or you could buy a new phone for $99, what do you do? You throw away your original phone for a newer, younger, sleeker model.
So I guess what I'm saying is that if a movement does start to allow humans to marry their smart phones, I will instantly start a campaign for Smart Phone Rights. Crackberries Unite!
Thank you, iP.L. for your question! Keep 'em coming guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)