Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Like a virgin...

New surgery to restore hymen

You've got to be kidding. Its things like people who waste $5,000 to have their hymens restored only to have them broken again that make me hate plastic surgery even more.

Now, I can rationalize, even empathize, with being overweight and seeing no viable escape (though I found a way by not eating so damn much), and I've read tons of research about body image and self-esteem and the deleteirous psychological effects of having small breasts, being overweight, or having a cosmetic physical defect can have on people, especially women, and I sympathize.

But this is just too damn much. Let's look at some choide excerpts from this lovely article:

Women have resorted to backstreet hymen repair for centuries in religions and cultures in which marrying as a virgin is sacred and losing your “maidenhead” before matrimony can mean shame, or even being put to death. But an increasing number of women such as Mrs Yarborough are now electing to be “revirginised” using modern techniques as a purely cosmetic or lifestyle choice, to “put the sparkle” back into their marriage or give their husband a surprise on the second honeymoon. They usually opt also to have one of the new “designer vagina” procedures, such as tightening up of the vaginal canal slackened by childbirth, or the cosmetic trimming of enlarged labia.

That's a good reason to waste $5,000, either to decieve your religious authorities (no to mention the person you supposedly love and intend to marry) whom you've openly defied, or to give what has to be the most transitory of presents that I can possibly think of.

And I absolutely love the notion of "designer vaginas." Since when did the everyday vagina become banal? Call me a traditionalist, but I get creeped out by funny shaving designs; I don't know what to think about a "designer vagina."

“I have affluent upper-class ladies coming in from Manhattan, getting ready for a second-honeymoon cruise or something like that. Or some women had a disappointing time the first time they were deflowered and now they have found someone special they would really like to give it up to,” says Dr Marco Pelosi, a gynaecologist and plastic surgeon who has a specialist clinic in Bayonne, New Jersey. He performs ten hymenoplasties a month. “Ninety per cent of them are for women who are in big trouble if they do not appear to be a virgin when they get married. Then there are the small number who just want it done,” he says. For six to 12 weeks after the operation the woman cannot have sex or exercise vigorously while she heals up. Then she is ready to return, in a flash of additional pain, to her deflowered state. “Thousands of dollars, and it lasts a few seconds. People think it’s crazy but to my patients it does not matter. It means such a lot to them,” says Pelosi.

I love the word. "Hymenoplasties." I've got another word to describe the procedure: "Mutilation." Tattoos can be attractive, piercings are, and they are often described with similar terminology. But at least people with these "mutilations" don't hide them. This procedure is all about deception - being something you arent.

"Thousands of dollars, and it lasts a few seconds."

Exactly. That same thousands of dollars could feed or clothe someone stricken by poverty for months, but no, lets have a hymenoplasty instead.

One doctor in Connecticut markets extensively in magazines and on the internet to British clients, offering international vaginal makeover packages that include flight, limousine transfer, hotel — and hymenoplasty. Most clients are Latin Americans, Saudi brides-to-be or British Muslims who fly in to be surreptitiously revirginised before marriage. But there is also a growing demand for “recreational” hymenoplasty. Indeed, it ’s now so common at two New York clinics that the price has dropped to $1,800 (£1,029).

Talk about Extreme Makeover. Here's a proposition: if you can't live up to your religious ideals, then you probably don't need to be a member of that religion. There's a reason I don't practice institutionalized religion.

Hymenoplasty is not licensed by any official plastic surgery or gynaecological association, it is not officially taught and it is so new and on the fringe that there are only anecdotal statistics. All the operations are done privately and paid for in full by the individual.
...
Dr Leonore Tiefer, a New York sexologist, has a different concern — that women are allowing surgeons to dive in with intimate surgery that has not been officially researched or tested, either physically or psychologically. “When it is ‘the new thing’ with very little data available, how do people know it is OK? No approval is needed, such as is required for a new drug. To do a novel surgery you just have to have the idea. We are now seeing people who had other “novelties” such as Botox and penis enlargement surgery coming in with irreversible damage,” she said.

Mmm, safe and fun for the whole family.

“Sometimes their husband left them for someone younger, prettier and tighter,” he (a male gunecologist and plastic surgeon who performs the procedure) says.

How fucking shallow can this guy get? If a man leaves a woman because she's not young or as sexually attractive as she used to be (i.e. she aged like every other person on the planet, heaven forbid), then is that someone that woman really wants to be involved with?

I feel bad for these women. I feel bad in general that women are socialized in such a way that they feel they must do everything possible to be physically attractive, even to the point of self-mutilation. This type of surgery just reinforces the same body image problems that cause anoerxia, bulimia, teenage depression, anxiety, and a host of other psychological traumas.

It's tragic, and it's getting scary.

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Have they no shame?

It seems that there truly is no rationality at Fox News. There is no sense of human decency or humility in the dank, infested waters where Bill O'Reilley gathers the waste and decay of the media and burrows inside the long-dead carcass of objective reporting where he and his compatriots nest.

Yesterday, I posted that civil war in Iraq would be the worst possible outcome for the US intervention force. It would epitomize an absolute failure on our part to stabilize a post-war country, provide a free and democratic government, and provide for the safety of those whom we were supposedly liberating from oppression.

But yesterday, in an unprecented, unfathomable dedication to toeing the party line, Fox News argued that an Iraqi civil war could be a good thing!

I can only assume that "good thing" in Fox News's mind is that everyone over there will be dead and not plague our deific President any longer.

Have they no shame?

-Hat tip to
R.Neal

Friday, February 24, 2006

We did the right thing...right?

I've tried to restrain from talking about this story, hoping it might improve. But things don't look good.

New Iraq on the verge of civil war

Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator. He did horrible things to his people and his country.

But now I just don't see how anyone can justify our intervention in Iraq anymore. The country went from relative peace and stability, to bombing and streetfighting, to daily terror attacks, and now to the verge of mutually-assured self-destruction.

Going to Iraq was wrong. It could have been defended legitimately by some before now. But not anymore. Anyone who still argues that the Iraq war was the right thing to do is just deluding themselves by ignoring the facts.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

If there's one thing that can make Republicans and Democrats work together...

It's George W. Bush's policies. And its usually working against him

So Bush tried to sneak the transfer of major east coast port management to a Middle Eastern business past Congress, and Congress isn't happy about it.

There are some, the White House included, that accuse opponents to the deal of being prejudiced and saying that because they're a Middle Eastern company people are opposing on terms of racial intolerance.

That's just stupid.

Now, I wouldn't put it past Bill Frist and Tom DeLay to use that as their motivation for opposition, but I think the real reason both parties in Congress are openly condemning this move is because of Bush's prediliction toward eshewing the checks and balances in the Constitution, such as Congressional oversight of Executive power.

The Bush administration tried to sneak this past Congress, and when someone finds out, it sends up a huge red flag that someone somewhere is trying to get away with something. Then today we find out that Bush had a secret agreement with the company to not have to go through the usual routine investigations or record-keeping practices required by law. This just screams that they knew something would be found if these routine investigations had occurred.

Most members of Congress are not saying "no, we will not let this company operate our ports." They're really just saying "give us time to investigate this sale and make sure it's in the best interests of our country."

Not an unreasonable request if you ask me.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Conservatives* are gonna have a hard time picking sides on this one...

From the producer of "Trembling Before G-D," a documentary about homosexual jews who struggle to reconcile their faith and their sexuality (good film btw), comes "In the Name of Allah," about the same thing but with gay Muslims.

*Of course the implication isn't that all conservatives have problems with Muslims and gays, but ya certainly gotta admit the tolerance for either is much lower on the right side of this country lol.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

If his mouth is open, he's spewing crazy

Stacey Campfield suggests sending Democrats hunting with Dick Cheney

That's it, it's official: Stacey Campfield is batshit insane.

I don't have anyhting else to say about this guy. He's just not worth the waste in effort. If you don't know anything about him, I suggest you read this column I wrote about him last spring, and if you like that, then you'lll love this webpage that I've dedicated to him.

Update: Michael Silence has picked up the story.
Update #2: As has Andy Axel, posting on Knoxviews. Apparently he was first, actually.
So the consensus seems to be unanimous - Stacey Campfield is indeed psychotic.
Update #3: Damn, this story isn't going away, it's going national lol. Picked up by Crooks and Liars. The consensus remains the same, though...

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Funny "ha-ha" or funny "ouch?"

Cheney shoots fellow hunter. -Associated Press

The guy's okay, and it was an accident, so that makes it "funny ha-ha" in my opinion.

Thursday, February 09, 2006

The "God" resolution is back, and creepy as ever...

The God Resolution

Michael Silence reports that the "God Resolution" has been brought before the Knox County Commission yet again. For those that are unaware, this little piece of legislation says that America was founded on religious principles and should therefore administer justice and create laws congruent thereto. No specific mention is made, but Christianity is implied as the sole religion this country is based upon.

I'll let Thomas Jefferson - you know, one of the people who DID help found this country - take this one. Your thoughts Tom?

"An amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," [into the Constitution]…the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

I think we should all propose that his holiness The Flying Spaghetti Monster was the inspiration for the founding of America (and his teachings should also be taught in schools as science, too). Or perhaps the Church of the Fonz was the basis for this country (Anybody see that Family Guy? That was funny.).

Meh, who needs the First Ammendment anyway? Hell, George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzalez are already trying to do away with the Fourth, so why not toss this one out with it?

Update: The resolution has again been withdrawn. Thank...er...God.

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Beacon Editorializing: 7 February

I've decided to start a new thing where, every now and then when the Beacon opinion page is particularly interesting, I'm gonna write a review/opinion/response/whatver to the things appearing that day. As I've been on the recieving end of both praise and criticism for my works with the Beacon for two years now, I've decided to dish some out for once. But of course, if I criticize a fellow columnist's argument, my comments do not bear any ill-will toward the writers themselves and are merely meant to spark debate.

"Data, not politics, is blind" - by Jon Fish
There's that super-hot super-intelligent kid again. Damn what a great writer.

Alright, that's enough self-aggrandizing I think. I LOVED this article, and I loved writing it. It's probably my favorite one of the year, and one of my best of all time.

What's great about this one it it's 95% proven fact. Aside from my occasional snarky comments, this thing is virtually no opinion. You just cant argue with it! And you know what the best part was? People still argued! It was great. I just went hardcore technocrat on them: "Oh, you think that your unsupported belief is more legitimate than the 50+ people with doctorates in psychology, sociology, and political science who verified the results? Yeah, good logic. You might as well argue that the grass isn't green." Yeah, haven't gotten any second responses to that yet.


moving on...

"Complaining fun but fruitless" - by Sarah Pevey

Heh, this was funny. I'm also proud to say I was a primary inspiration for this piece. I bitch to Pevey all the time and vice-versa. All we ever end up doing is busting on each other, but hey; it's fun.

The big irony is that the piece is bitching about how much people bitch. It's intentional, but still damn funny when you think about it


Anyway, that's al I got folks. Talk to ya later,

~Peace