Dildohead & Noodleshitter > Douchebag

I just don't understand why I can't blog. All I can write lately is bad fiction. I miss you guys.

Every day Buzznet.com benefits immensely from the enormous contributions made by our lovable and super-fun site moderator Breesays. We all know her as the peppy, outgoing and personable site administrator who gets the awesome interviews and keeps us up to date on pop culture and music news. But beyond that sassy persona is one deep chick. Now Bree sits down with us to discuss her work work, body image issues, her addictions, depression awareness, and her life outside of Buzznet.

Read more about Breesays in today's Get To Know...

 

 

 

So recently David Letterman, who I usually LOVE, got into some hot water for making a joke about  the daughter of former Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin, who I usually can't stand. He deserves all of it and more.

The other night, Letterman made a crack about the Palins' visit to New York City saying, "during the seventh inning [of a Yankees game], her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez." 

Letterman claims that the joke was about the 18-year-old Bristol, who recently appeared on the cover with her newborn baby boy. The problem was, the only Palin daughter at the game was Willow, 14.

The Palins were pissed, rightfully, at first thinking it was aimed at Willow, Letterman later claimed the joke was about Bristol, but the Palins said it didn't matter-- the joke was sick, inappropriate and wrong to tell about any of their daughters. And they're right. You NEVER make fun of the kids, no matter how old they are. It's meesed up and wrong.And this got me thinking.

When Al Gore's son got busted for drugs, the media backed off. You never hear any jokes about Ted Kennedy's nephew being an alleged rapist. But you hear this joke about Palin's daughter. A few years ago people made fun of the Bush twins for partying.

You could say that it's because the media is biased toward the Democrats, so a comedian can get away with making jokes about Republican kids and people can

get away with  pulling Republican kids into the spotlight, but not Democrat ones and I realize that that isn't totally true either.

 

 

Beanie Baby made Dolls out of the Obama girls. And yeara and years ago when the Clintons were in the White House, people targetted Chelsea Clinton, criticizing and making fun of her for not being pretty enough (seriously). And I notice, there seems to be more acceptance of focussing inappropriate attention on daughters than there is of boys. When it's a young man, the media backs off. When it's a girl, well, one toe out of line and it's ridiculous. And it crosses party lines!

In fact, it's always okay to pull daughters into the spotlight, to call them skanks and trainwrecks when they party or write tabloid stories about them. It doesn't matter how old they are.

 

Let's face it, how many tabloid stories have you seen chronicling the life of Suri Cruise? She's THREE. Or Shiloh-Jolie Pitt. There are more stories focussing directly on Shiloh than any of her other siblings. We're hearing more and more stories about Madonna's daughter,Lourdes, every day. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO LEAVING THE KIDS ALONE. AND WHY IS IT ALWAYS THE GIRLS?

It's messed up. We need to leave the kids alone, no matter how old, no matter what sex.

 

WHat is it that makes girls so vulnerable to this?

 

I'm pretty excited. One of my favorite shows is going back on the air. Futurama was one of the funniest, most brilliant cartoons ever and was cancelled before its time. But apparently, DVD sales and viewings in syndication were enough for Comedy Central to commision 26 new episodes! And the old cast ( comprised almost entirely of Billy West) and the core writing staff will be back!

 

Yahoo!

I'm walking on sunshine WAH-OH! I'm walking on sunshine WAH-OH!

 

*Goes to watch *The Wild Green Yonder* again. It's gonna be fun on a bun!

Hey guys, I'm doing an interview with our very own Bree (breesays) for Buzznet's Get To Know Feature. I thought it would be fun to have you guys submit uestions for me to ask her. So if you're interested, submit questions via comments, messages, bulletins, etc. Happy questioning.

(Satire)

 

It seems that Twilight hottie Robert Pattinson has really grabbed Hollywood's attention. Over the last few weeks, Pattinson has grabbed more tabloid attention than Jon and Kate Gosselin of Jon & Kate Plus 8 over his alleged trysts with Twilight co-stars Nikki Reed and Kristen Stewart and LA resident Erika Dutra.

 

 

 

Over the last few weeks, Rob has repeatedly graced the covers of Life & Style, Ok!, Us Weekly and In Touch Weekly with tales of his encounters with various women on and off-set. But while this will no doubt generate press for the next film installment of the Twilight saga, not everyone is pleased about the attention the star is recieving. Among the disgruntled is Twilight author Stephenie Meyer, who penned this letter to Pattinson recently.

 

My Dearest Robert,

I am truly concerned about the reports I am hearing about your Casanova-like ways concerning the ladies on the Twilight set via Us and In Touch Weekly. It pains me to hear that you were fornicating with Rosalie, I mean Nikki. You are not supposed to pay that sort of attention to her. After all, she is your sister! As for that blonde girl who isn’t even one of my characters, what are you thinking? Does Bella know about her? While I am pleased to hear you are back on the right track in pursuing Bella, I do hope that you are pursuing a relationship that is monogamous and confined to the sacred bond that is holy matrimony. After all, Bella is already nineteen and it won’t be long until she has reached her “old maid” years. I truly wish that you will be more like your character Edward and do right by your beloved Bella and, if you please, stop doing nasty, horrid films where you engage in disgusting acts with other men. People might start thinking my characters are gay. And they're not gay. Not gay at all. Especially not Edward. He definitely isn't gay. I love my characters. And you. My Edward.

Love, Stephenie*

 

Could it be that Pattinson has incurred the wrath of the woman who helped give him his fame? It seems possible that Meyer might also resent his former characterization of Meyer as "Mad". Do you think Pattinson should follow Meyer's advice and cease his Lothario ways?

 

(Satire)

 

*Just to be perfectly clear, the letter isn't real. It's a JOKE.

For the first time in several days, I signed onto buzznet to discover that along with two new messages and and two new comments, one of the forums I have posted on has been updated. To my surprise it was  a Question of the Day thread titled "Is Feminism Still Relevant?"

I think you can guess what my answer to this question is.

The thread in question has been updated 33 times since I was last on buzznet, so it is a logical conclusion that discussion must hhave been sparked within this topic. It can also be concluded that a good deal of discussion has taken place. Therefore we may also conclude that it is a topic that gets people talking and therefore is one that is important or at least interesting to people. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that it is relevant.

It is safe to say that feminism has had a profound affect on society. Women can work now, support themselves, they can be seen as full citizens, pursue justice for themselves within the legal system. Sure, we have not achieved equality since society still tends o cling to the old social ideals, views and custons that comes from a pre-feminist era that still allows instances of unfair pay, sexual double standards, fear and derision towards powerful women, and the blaming of rape victims for what is done with them. But the fact that people are even able to point out the fucked-uppedness of all this, that fact that women can publish books like The Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti and Manifesta by Jennifer Baum gardner and Amy Richards, or that rape in the court of law is now recognized as a crime against the rape victi, not the rape victim's father or husband (like it was in 1980, no shit), is just a testamet to the progress made.

But it is it still relevant?

Why is this a question when we still have the sexual bigotry and outdated notions stated above alive and well in our society? When we still have idiots claiming that if a women wears a short skirt, she is at least partially responsible for her own rape (because, you know, men are all the sort of creatures that have no self control, and have to rape someone wearing a short skirt becausxe you know. they can't be expected not to know that rape is bad because they're rape machines). Why is it that feminism can be considered irrelevant or dead when we still have people debating these issues. If feminism is dead, why do we need articles coming out every years or so announcing it to be so? How can some thing dead need repeated obituaries?

Are wee going to use Andrea Dworkin as an excuse forever to disregard feminism? Are we going to talk about a dead and irrelevant thing forever? How can something that generates so much debate and discussion be considered irrelevant because it seems to me that is something is truly irrelevant, than it should not require so much effort to announce it to be irrelevant in the first place.

Think about it.

In two days, it will be May 22nd. This is going to be one of the most important days of my life. One reason for this is that it will be my 18th birthday. 18. The big one. The age where I'm legally an adult, old enough to legally buy cigarettes, vote, etc. This is a huge deal.

Also, May 22nd will be the last day I attend Paul VI High School, a school I've attended for four years, even longer than I've had this blog. I will be officially done with high school as of May 22nd. Another HUGE deal. No longer a kid, a student, or a high schooler. An adult. Wendy Weissman. No longer a minor.

 

Despite the magnitude of this day, I have made no plans. None as to where I even want to have my birthday dinner, or who I want to spend it with. I feel no excitement, amazingly, and have basically treated this week like any other. How? How is that possible? How do I not feel excited? I don't get it.

 

Maybe I'm just not that excited about my life. Maybe it just hasn't hit me yet. Whatever it is, it feels weird.

 

I wish my Grandmother was still alive.

I say I'm going to be on here more often and I leave for another two weeks. Typical. Sorry guys, I've just been so busy with school ending and everything. I only have two  more days left and it's been insane.

 

I got voted Most Likely to Write a New York Times Best Seller!

I don't have much else to say except  I cried myself to sleep after Game 7 of the playoffs. I went to see the Caps play the Pens. Our loss was so humiliating and no more hockey until the fall! Sad.

 

I hope you're all doing great.

It’s hard to find a person on Buzznet who is not acquainted with the awesomeness that is Mark Panasonicyouth. In addition to having the greatest screen name of all time, Panasonic youth has cemented an important place in Buzznet as our community manager with his expert moderation, insightful blogs, great photographs, great projects, not to mention his generousity towards everyone on this site. He’s been reaching out to us in a million ways, so in this installment of Get to Know, we decided to learn more about him. We directed the Questions to him and chatted about Veganism, Henry Rollins, and his life as the Emperor of Buzznet. ---- Johnnynotsid, Buzznet Member Read more about Mark...

A blog was posted on the community section of feministing by this chick in Virginia Beach calling herself meld.

Now, where she lives there is this "no cursing" law that basically bans any obscenity, curse words, sexual terms which are uncomfortable, harassment or intimidation.

So suddenly these conservative Christian zealots and start staking out the boardwalk.

 

"the zealot was holding up signs "REPENT WHORES" and was talking about all women who aren't married will burn in hell and all women who have sex are whores. He had signs up that said "REBELLION OF WOMEN WILL LEAD TO DEATH AND AN ETERNITY IN HELL" and was following girls who were in their bathing suits or a dress and called them whores."

[Feministing Community]

 

Wait, it gets better.

Now, to anyone normal, this would be stopped by the police, this qualifies as harassment and certainly disturbing the piece. But, starngely enough, the local police officer watching this does nothing.

 

"A cop was watching the crowd and my boyfriend went up to them and said "Aren't they breaking the rule by calling women whores?" and the cop was quite rude to them if I may say and said no. He later told them that the men were harassing the women and girls and followed them around and was intimidating them and the cop just said "That is irrelevant. The law doesn't enforce when it comes to that." Kinda shocked, but he was still trying to get him to say what the cop really wanted to say. Then, the cop got all big and ballsy and said "Whore is not a curse word, especially when directed to those that are deserving" and he told us to go away."

[Feministing Community]

 

Last time I checked, the law was the law, you asshole, and call me crazy, but whore is a sexual term that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. For this man to scream this and follow unsuspecting and innocent women around calling them whores definitely qualifies as harassment.

Not only does this police officer not do anything about it, he also APPROVES of it. As in he thinks that female pedestrians deserve to be called whores.

I am so fucking sick of people letting people demean and publicly insult women. Wheter it's this or a "Nice ass, Baby" on a street sidewalk, none of it should be considered acceptable. And yet, it is! Because even in America, after years of feminism, women still are not respected. It's still okay to make sick sexual comments about them and scream hideous slander against them. In fact, we deserve it! This police officer thinks that the women walking on the street deserve to be called whores! Why?

Well, really, there's never any good reason to call a woman a whore. Anyone who thinks so has serious issues. But even the ones who justify it with "she was dressed 'slutty'" or "she was acting like a whore" could possibly justify this. These were just women going about their daily business.

The reason they "are deserving" in the mind of the officer and the harasser? Because they're women.

You're allowed to say all sorts of things to women on the street. WHether it's a comment on their body or an obscene sexual proposal, women get it on the street and it's accepted. Because women deserve it, right? Or they're just humorless evil castrating bitches if they dare to object to harassment. Because we deserve to be disrespected.

Of course, this is an extreme example of street misogyny, but it reflects very easily the mindset a lot of people have toward women. Could you imagine, have you ever witnessed a guy being treated this way? Ladies, we don't deserve to be treated like a piece of ass because we had the audacity to walk in public. No one has the right to shout sexual comments or make obscene insults toward you, no matter who you are, how you're walking, or how you're dressed. It's not okay and it's not funny and you're not a bitch if you're hurt by it. Being a chick is not a crime and it's not something to be embarrassed about.

Just thought I'd relay the story to you all to show how some people really think. Maybe wake a few people up to the utter bullshit of this and recognize the same sort of crap in their day to day lives. Pass this story around. Speak up. Stop letting yourself be treated like a second class citizen.

You don't deserve to listen to perverted comment or misogynistic slurs directed at you just for being female. Just because you're a human doesn't mean you're not a person. You are a human being and people need to be reminded of that. You deserve respect.

It seems that Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor has been using that time off to focus on his love life. The singer and his girlfriend, rocker Mariqueen Maandig, announced on her band West Indian Girl's web site that the two are planning to tie the knot. Read more...

Seriously, this is annoying.

Why do we equate the term "pussy" with "wimp"?

We hear this all the time, on the street, online, in Judd Apatow films... The vagina is continually used as metaphor for weakness and wimpiness.

"Don't be such a pussy."

 

"Don't let the door hit you in the vagina on your way out."

 

"Pittsburgh Penguins star Sidney Crosby to miss his fourth straight game because of a sore vagina"

 

This is really starting to annoy me because this slang can only be attributed to one thing: misogyny.

I'm not saying that everyone who uses that term is a misogynist, I'm saying that there's subliminal girl-hate within that use of the word. Because, if you think about it in realistic terms, it makes absolutely no sense for "vagina" to mean pathetic.

Actually, it directly contradicts reality so much that you might suspect that equating the lady bits with weakness is sarcasm.

 

Think about it. The average adult caslopis is an opening with a circumfrence ranging from that of a penny to a silver dollar. Yet, an adult caslopis can expand itself to release and push forth another human being, roughly the size of a watermelon, without being ripped to shreds. That is not weakness. That is the exact opposite of weakness. That's strength and toughness to the Herculean degree. Anybody who disagrees is a moron.

As if that is not enough to support my theory that the word pusy is misused, also consider this, if we were to use any sort of gentalia to describe wimpiness, how is it that it isn't the testicles? Why are balls a symbol of strength while the vagina is a symbol of weakness? It really should be the other way around considering the testicles have the strength and endurance of a strawberry and the vagina, well, the vagina pushes other human beings into the world. It's a person with balls that should be considered the wimps, and it's the pussy that should be equated with nerves of steel.

 

After all, what happens when you kick a man in the balls?

 

The man in the picture obviously has balls, but that hasn't helped him much in the toughness factor. But if he had a pussy, he'd probably be kicking ass. Balls are a dude's weak point in battle.

But the vagina, it's the most powerful force in nature. So how on Earth could it be equated with weakness?

If you think about it, what other explanation is there for this nonsensical word usage? There has to be a reason for it, because it directly contradicts the reality of the situation.

The pussy is strong. It's powerful. It's tough.  The testicles are. So why aren't we calling weak little dweebs testicles?

It makes no sense! It's just stupid and sexist. So why do we continue to talk that way?

The same reason why girly things are made fun of. In order to glorify the masculine ideal, we have to demean the feminine. It's the classic sexist dynamic, to foster the male ego and power, we have to reinforce the idea that women are weak and pathetic. So, in a way to subliminally reinforce the idea that girls are weak and pathetic, we demean the thing that makes girls so powerful while pretending that testicles are anything to brag about. Because guys want to believe that maleness is real strength, so anything female has to be less than. So we make pussy the new slang for wimp.

Even though in real life, we all know the pussy is no pussy.

 

So, over the past year I have become a big fan of a certain sports team.

This is pretty uncharacteristic of me, considering I always considered myself one of the last people on the planet to take a keen interest in any professional sport. Sure, I had played soccer and basketball before, but I wasn't a big fan of watching anything professional. This of course, has always been a sore spot with my dad and I, as my father is a sports fanatic and has adorned our entire basement with autograph photos, baseballs, framed memrobilia, and, in oarticular, minor and major league baseball caps. Practically everything down there is sports-themed, and don't get me startedon all the other stuff he owns that is devoted to College football. I never had much interest though, until over the last year things changed and I became a big fan of a particular sport and team.

I have not just become attached to the team, however, but the fans I hang out with at games. I've gain a reputation with the people I sit with and its out of respect for them, and the team, that I will not say which team it is. Let's just say I'm as in to being part of this fandom than I have been into being a part of the Arcade Fire fandom. I've made quite a few friends among this group of people.

I am also, I am afraid to say, known as one of the loudest screamers and best trashtalkers in my section. I assure you however, that my reputation as a trash talker is not because I get negative a lot, it's because when I do get negative, I am very articulate and creative when I jeer. I don't get too nasty, and I make sure I don't say anything homophobic or sexist or anything like that, but I do say some pretty ridiculous things.

I do however, have standards, and my principles, despite being a sports fan, have not changed, though I hate it when people bitch about my favorite team or fellow fans.

Here's where I get conflicted,

Recently I read in the Washington Post an article about how the coach of one of the opposing teams was complaining about the fans of my team. At first I was like, "Aw, put a sock in it, crybaby." But then I found out that a lot of the comments made by fans were homophobic.

Now, while the people who made these comments were not in my section and are not acquainted with me, you feel a connection to all the fans when you're in a group and so their antics, while they didn't involve me at all, are still embarrassing to me. That people that have even the most remote connection to me, people I like to defend, do things that so go against my own values, well, it's humiliating. And you know it's not the group or most of the people, and you know it doesn't mean being a part of that fandom is bad or that even the people who said those things really meant them, but it still can be upsetting when people act that way

It makes me think about other times online where I've been embarrassed by people who are a part of something I'm a part of. When fellow MCR fans would send threats to Alicia Simmons or spread rumors about Lin-Z. Or when people on buzznet say disgusting, sexist things. I know that is just their behavior and it does not determine the character of all MCR fans or buzznetters, but it is stuff that sticks in your mind and gives a really bad impression of everyone associated with that group. You don't have to know these people, have been involved, agree with them or even have heard of them, but the fact that you share this one thing with those people makes you feel strange and awkward.

 

Have any of you had this experience?

 

 

So basically, this paper, and one I had due in Government, and one I hade due in Religion, have been what I've been doing all week. We had to write a paper comparing the film adaptation of a great piece of literature and I did The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by RObert Louis Stevenson. I focus on the romantic element of the 1941 version with Spencer Tracy. It's eight pages double-spaced, but it's good. If you guys are in the mood to read something, take a look.

The Women Who Dreamed of Being Mrs. Jekyll

“A good woman! A bad woman--- Who needed the love of both!” reads the tagline of Victor Fleming’s 1941 classic production, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (IMDB, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde). Within the original novella, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, by Robert Louis Stevenson, the characters of Beatrix Emery (the “good woman”) and Ivy Peterson (the “bad woman”) fail to appear to readers. The theatrical adaptation of the book, made years earlier, introduced the romantic element of the film. Though it does not appear at first in Victor Fleming’s version, the first screen adaptation of the book in 1931 initiated the new love interests. The movie indeed almost entirely set itself around the romantic storyline, rather than through the narratives and letters of Dr. Henry Jekyll, Dr. Hastie Lanyon, Mr. Utterson, and Mr. Richard Enfield (Robert Louis Stevenson). Readers have long been fascinated with the original book as both a study of dual personality, as well as its status as a thriller. While some might criticize the romantic addition as pandering to mainstream readers and viewers at the expense of the book’s original theme, others could be argue that the film’s romantic storyline enhances the psychological aspects of the story. The casting, the portrayals of the characters in the story, and the use of imagery and roles of those characters all show connections to the matter of dual sides of human nature.

Lana Turner and Ingrid Bergman portrayed Beatrix Emery and Ivy Peterson in the film, respectively. That line of casting was not the first choice of the male lead. Spencer Tracy certainly wished for his character to be fully fleshed out, though he was cast against his wishes. While the characters of Jekyll and Hyde enjoyed the same experience they had in the book of being chained together by one body – Spencer Tracy and the two invented female characters were cast in an entirely different ways. A rumor states that title star Spencer Tracy had originally wished for his future co-star and lover Katherine Hepburn to play both of the parts. Though Tracy had not worked with Ms. Hepburn before, his admiration for the eccentric starlet’s abilities as a highly versatile actress was considerable. Tracy had the idea that Hepburn would play the “Bad Woman” Ivy and the “Good Woman” Beatrix, and that the heroines would be revealed as having been the same woman all along by the end of the movie. “That’s the problem of civilized man’s soul, isn’t it? That the good and evil in it are constantly fighting one another. Good and evil are so close as to be chained together…” Spencer Tracy’s Dr. Jekyll says, when explaining his research at a dinner party, sitting next to Turner’s Beatrix Emery, his fiancée in the film. It is this statement which pertains to the book’s original central theme, and why shouldn’t the “good” woman and the “bad” woman be chained together the way Jekyll and Hyde are “chained” together in the story through the same actor and person. Alas, that was not to be so as Hepburn devoted herself to stage roles on Broadway during this period of her career. But, as it turns out, the dual personalities were embodied by the women and the actresses playing them in a different way when the studio abandoned the plot twist and offered the role of Beatrix Emery to Ingrid Bergman and the role of Ivy Peterson to Lana Turner. Both women had enjoyed successful careers thus far and continued to do so after the movie premiered. The two actresses had also become known for specific types of roles. Ingrid Bergman, who would famously go on to star in the legendary romance Casablanca, was a Swedish immigrant who had enjoyed stardom in her native country and had made a name for herself in Hollywood for playing good saintly women in Intermezzo: A Love Story and Adam Had Four Sons. Lana Turner had worked her way through Hollywood and gained a reputation as a “Blonde Bonfire” and sex symbol in roles like Dancing Co-ed’s Patty Marlow and These Glamour Girls’ Jane Thomas. It would seem logical to any studio, casting the sweet, saintly Bergman as the lady Beatrix and the bombshell Turner as the cockney barmaid Ivy. But before filming advanced, Bergman was conflicted about playing the role of Beatrix, with fears of being typecast as the “good girl” and the fascination with the character of Ivy was the more challenging role to her. As a result, Bergman requested that she switch roles with Turner, which was granted by the studio heads. Thus, while one star had to assume two personalities entirely on screen, both Bergman and Turner had the opportunity of the experience to explore other “sides” of themselves: Bergman, revealing her ability to play the “bad girl,” and Turner getting to drop the “Bonfire” act and explore her abilities to be the innocent, chaste, “good girl.” The reviews noted the oddity of the casting of the two women. David Kehr of the Chicago Reader noted that Bergman and Turner “Seemed to be playing each others roles.” Another review had this to say:

“Oddly, the studio cast Turner as Jekyll's sweet, prudish fiancée, this time called Beatrix Emery, and Bergman as the coy, temperamental barmaid, this time called Ivy Peterson. You'd have thought it would have been the other way around, but the results are fine, even if Bergman seems a bit too cultured for the street snipe she plays.”(John. J. Puccio, DVD TOWN)

In spite of the noting of this switch in roles, the casting of the women oddly mirrors the central idea of the story. In the book, Henry Jekyll states in his full statement, “It came about that I concealed my pleasures, and that when I reached my years of reflection, and began to look around me and take stock of my progress and position in the world, I stood already committed to the duplicity of life.” (Robert Louis Stevenson, pg 97). Could it be that Bergman, who initiated the switch, saw the duplicity of her own career, always playing the “good woman,” and decided, like Jekyll, to explore the other side of her persona?

Personas are the very center of the story of Henry Jekyll and his alter ego, Edward Hyde. It is indeed after much self-reflection in the book that Dr. Jekyll wishes to embark on the research that leads to his downfall and unleashes the fiend Mr. Hyde in the film. Mr. Hyde is first introduced in the book by a personal account from the character of Richard Enfield to his friend and relative Mr. Utterson. In a scene that does not appear in the movie, Richard Enfield describes an incident where he encountered Mr. Hyde late one night after the alter ego trampled a young girl and was confronted not only by Enfield, but by the girl’s family and several newcomers with threats of scandal. Though the description of such an act on Hyde’s part would be enough to let the reader know Mr. Hyde as a scoundrel, Enfield goes into greater detail. “He is not easy to describe. There is something wrong with his appearance; something displeasing, something downright detestable. I never saw a man I so disliked, and yet I scarcely know why. He must be deformed somewhere; he gives a strong feeling of deformity, although I can not specify the point.” (Robert Louis Stevenson, pg 18) Mr. Hyde, indeed, does not appear in the film until thirty-seven minutes into the film and we at once see a change in appearance. Rather than seeing Tracy’s sturdy, full, handsome face and gentlemanly demeanor, we’re greeted with flashing eyes, sallow, tight skin, greasy hair, filthy teeth and engorged eyebrows which give him an entirely maniacal look. Mr. Hyde indeed immediately assumes the role of a brute and a great abuser, his acts lustful and manipulative, and he has no issue using his connections to Dr. Jekyll as an advantage. But while in the film his great ills and crimes seemed to be mostly tuned to the violent and barbaric, such as his murder of Sir. Danvers Carew, and his trampling of the young girl. However, Hyde’s crimes in the film do not just touch on bestial and unsophisticated violence, but also psychological, lustful, and devious crime as well. He does kill and attack Sir. Charles Emery, the father of his fiancée Beatrix, and does beat Ivy, but his crimes do not end there. Particularly his abuse of Ivy, not only does he perfectly embody the character and actions of a domestic abuser through the physical aspect, but he also does through a mental aspect as well. He at first manipulates her into becoming his concubine of sorts by seeking her out and getting her fired from her job, robbing her of her independence and taking over her life. He threatens and abuses her with violence, threats, and taunts every time she shows any inclination of interest in the outside world. His mental manipulation as well as obvious showing of lust gives us the picture of a less hulk-like Hyde and more of truly deranged individual, but it fails to remove itself from the central theme, for in Jekyll’s account in the book, he describes the two sides of himself as “the intellectual” and “the moral.” Mr. Hyde is certainly not the moral. When it comes to Dr. Jekyll, we see little of him in the book, as the narration mostly comes from the perspectives of his friends Mr. Utterson and Dr. Lanyon. For the most part, Dr. Jekyll is described as an upstanding gentleman who grows more and more distant from his friends and, when he does personally appear within the story, appears frightened, paranoid, shameful, and desperate. Jekyll in the film appears first and foremost as an ambitious but kind doctor determinedly pursuing his research and adoring his dainty fiancée with outward displays of affection that once in a while meet with the disapproval of Sir. Charles. We at once know, however, that Jekyll is a good man, for his initial appearance is of him coming to the aid of a mentally-addled man who has a public outburst. Dr. Jekyll calls the law off the man and sees him to a hospital instead, viewing the man as a possible case for his research. Jekyll at first seems as devoted to his profession as he is to his intended, explaining and defending his theories on the two sides of man and whispering words of adoration into Beatrix’s ear; but it is not long before Doctor Jekyll engages in an activity that included an attack of his “evil” side. After rushing to the aid of a woman being attacked by a criminal, he escorts her home, and an immediate attraction forms between him and his damsel in distress. At her home as she attempts to seduce him, and, in a moment of weakness, he kisses her before being interrupted by Dr. Lanyon. Jekyll would later admit to his friend, “I don’t think that was a triumph [of my evil side over my good side], but it was an attack.” We know at once Jekyll is a flawed individual, but certainly a good man. Opposite Jekyll and Hyde, we see the characters of Beatrix Emery and Ivy Peterson. It could be said that the two perfectly embody the “virgin/whore” or “madonna/whore” dichotomy prevalent even in today’s society, the idea that a woman can either be a perfect, sweet little virgin or a dirty, conniving whore. Beatrix Emery certainly embodies the perfect “good girl,’ perfectly obedient to her father, hopelessly devoted to her fiancé. Her interests revolve entirely around being married to Jekyll, and her only act of rebellion throughout the whole movie is her midnight flight from her bedroom to Jekyll’s home to make sure he was okay and still with her. It is not hard to understand why Ingrid Bergman was dissatisfied with the original role, as Beatrix seems more of an archetype than a real character. Ivy Peterson is certainly a more complex part for an actress. Though she is characterized as a “bad woman” by theme and tagline, there is certainly more complexity and social influence pertaining to such a person. We are given the idea that Ivy is truly the “bad woman” when she is first introduced, being assaulted at night by a scoundrel and saved by Dr. Jekyll. Upon being saved, she immediately starts flirting with Jekyll and pretends to have injuries in her side and ankle to keep him with her. Once Ivy is carried into her small apartment by Jekyll, she believes she is successful at seducing him when he asks her to remove her blouse for examination ,and upon finding out that Jekyll is a doctor, presents him with her garter as “payment.” The message is clear—this woman is the proverbial “wanton slut”, though Jekyll believes she is not a prostitute, and labels her as “a pretty girl, perhaps a little too generous.” Other so-called “bad” qualities supposedly lie in the fact that she is an evening barmaid in middle-class music hall, and the fact that Hyde immediately seeks her out. For a long period, though, Ivy is presented as more of a victim than a deviant. Forced into Hyde’s clutches after he gets her fired from her job and robbing her of her livelihood and independence, she becomes the classic victim of domestic abuse. Ivy becomes shut off from the outside world, beaten and manipulated by Hyde, and driven to desperation and paranoia. When she goes to Jekyll for treatment of the various wounds she acquired through Hyde’s beatings, she becomes hysterical, professes her troubles to Jekyll. “He won’t let me go, sir! I’m afraid to run away! They say it’s my nerves and that you know about such things, but nothing can help me now! You can’t help me, I’m afraid. He ain’t a man, he’s a devil he is! He knows what you’re thinking, he does. When he knows I have been here today, I don’t know what he’ll do with me!” The only direct characterization of a “bad woman” that could possibly be interpreted later in the film is when she offers herself up to Jekyll in exchange for help. She does indeed fall in love with Jekyll, but is not his mate in the story. But the personalities of these four characters are symbols of dual natures nonetheless, showing the two sides of men, and the two types of women accepted during the era.

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is often described as “the purest example in English Literature of the use of the double convention to represent the duality of human nature.”(Charles E. May) Is the romantic theme merely a new convention to represent that duality? As stated before, Ivy Peterson is certainly the sexual side of the female coin presented by her and Beatrix Emery. She becomes Hyde’s mate, as a sort of live-in girlfriend. Such an arrangement would meet with scorn both in the Victorian era and the 1940’s. Despite the fact that Ivy exhibits a personality too vulnerable for a modern viewer to see her as a fully “bad woman,” she is the character of Hyde’s mate in the story, longing for Jekyll, but living with—or enslaved—by Hyde. Indeed, she becomes a foil for Jekyll when he is not the perfectly good man. At her introduction, Jekyll exposes weaknesses even in his good persona, and Hyde seeks out Ivy at once. Sexuality seems to be a major theme in Jekyll’s downfall, for it is after meeting Ivy that he first experiments on himself. Beatrix, however, is his good side, the woman he truly wants when he is Jekyll, the woman he wants in the most respectable sense, through marriage. Beatrix’s role in the story truly seems to run its course as the pining, chaste, bride-to-be, the “good woman” to Jekyll’s “good man.” She is on a pedestal as the “good girl” and is not at all the same sort of sexy bombshell role Turner usually played. She is indeed so innocent that she has to reassure herself (and Jekyll) that the two of them being in love is not part of their “evil” side. She is the female Jekyll, as Ivy should have been the female Hyde. That is not to say, however, that Ivy is the only woman in the movie who is sexualized. During the transformation scenes, the film presents the Freudian images of Hyde whipping horses that become both women, and of the two of them lying before him invitingly in their undergarments flash up upon the screen. Sex is a major key to the film, but not the book. Robert Louis Stevenson’s novella seems absolutely devoid of any overt sexuality whatsoever and instead, the evil is acted out with acts of violence and rude behavior, as well as cowardice and social isolation. The writer Wilton Eckley believes that “As an exploration of the darkest recesses of the human mind, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is skillfully constructed.” Should the film be deemed worthy of that phrase? The Jekyll in the film acts as the “good man” who, when he goes “bad” spends his time as Hyde with Ivy, but acts in public still comfortably as Jekyll, until he loses control of his transformations. Jekyll in the film then plays the role of a man leading a double life past his transformations. However, in the book, Jekyll describes himself as truly leading “a public life of convention and gentility and private life of unrestrained vice” (Wilton Eckley) before his experiments, and becomes entirely reclusive as Jekyll after he becomes Hyde. Either way, in both storylines, Jekyll is a truly tragic figure. The roles of Beatrix Emery and Ivy Peterson do not even exist in the book, but the roles they play in the movie, as the female Jekyll and Hyde respectively, certainly enhance the psychological aspects of the book. Each woman embodies what each side turns to when in control. Beatrix represents calm, loyalty, family life and innocence. Ivy is the woman of sexuality, violence, isolation and low class surroundings. The roles they play in the story create perfect dilemmas for Jekyll and Hyde, making the absence of the character narration almost unnecessary, and changing the story altogether. The plot may have been changed to revolve around these two women, but the theme, however, stays intact.

Some might believe that the theatrical adaptation completely changes the story Robert Louis Stevenson created in The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. That story is not a romance, but an intellectual study of the two sides of every person. Despite the change in storyline and narration, the true nature of the book is not in any way abandoned by the film. Spencer Tracy playing both male roles and his interest in one actress playing two women, then the two actresses switching roles to go against what they were typecast as mirrors well Dr. Jekyll’s own story of exploration and dealing with the two sides of himself. The personalities of the women, the victimized Ivy, the flawed Jekyll, the deviant Hyde and the sweet and innocent Beatrix, played true to their roles as starkly different personalities. Such portrayals set up exactly the dynamic that was needed to play true to the theme of good and evil battling internally within human nature. Though the cinematic version of the story becomes introduces supposed love interests, this new dynamic does not replace Stevenson’s initial intent, but enhances it.

-------

 

Yeah it's pretty long. Here's hoping I get an A!

 

 

                Anyone who knows me knows I’m no fan of abstinence only propaganda bullshit and all of its disturbing features and results. I think I’ve written enough about it to make my point. But there’s another thing I want to talk about that might not seem as true to my often-stated convictions as you might expect.

                It has to do with the new double standard, which is kind of a spinoff of the old one. The basic one is obvious “He’s a Player, She’s a skank.” We know it all. But the new double standard is the one celebrated and adored by the Joe Francises of the world: Sexual Objectification of women= Sexual Empowerment for women. The idea that things like Girls Gone Wild is empowering to women. Yeah. Safe to say, it’s not. But there’s obviously enough liquor in the world to make enough girls think that for an hour or two, and it’s championed by pretty much every advertiser and campaign that’s used women’s bodies to promote or sell their schtick (I’m looking at you, PETA).

I'm not interested in telling anyone what to do with their lives or anything. But this new double standard is troubling, not just because it gives a bunch of exploitative pornographers more bullshit to lurch out of their mouths and fools some women into becoming objects for the pleasure and entertainment for men. It also presents a disturbing picture of how we view sexuality, and indeed, what it means to be "sexually empowered" for women.

Do you need to be sexually active and happy about it to be empowered? Do you need to be "ready" to have sex? Do you need to experiment  sexually? Do you need to be comfortable when experimenting? Or is it something else.

I'm a young woman a month away from reaching the age of consent. So these thoughts about being a sexually empowered young woman have been occurring to me.

I'm not going to mention my sexual state, because that's nobody's business. I'm not ashamed or afraid, I merely think nobody outside of those I at least know personally really want or need to know. But the point is, I'm not ashamed. I've never been ashamed of who I am sex-wise, and I'm not afraid to be open about sex in general. I go to a Catholic School, and while I don't ever seek out exciuses to speak frankly on the subject, I do speak about it openly when the subject turns to that. And I do speak openly then. I've said point blank to classmates that I think the Clitoris is God's gift to women. I've told dirty jokes, I've talked about sex and my views on it, I've talked about rape. It's no secret to anyone at school that I'm a feminist, and a few times I've had people stop me because they noticed that I'm carrying a book with the title, in big letters, SLUT! (written by the amazing Leora Tanenbaum, if you haven't read it, check it out, that book will blow you away) or something of that nature on the cover. I don't force the subject or continue it when people don't seem very receptive, and if I say something that makes people feel too uncomfortable, I'll joke about it. On our question packet in our Abstinence-only sex class, there was a question about what could help kids to enbrace their sexual identities without engaging in pre-marital sex and I wrote, without hesitation "masturbation."

I'm not trying to show off, and in fact, some people find me pretty quiet, but they know if a subject regarding feminism, politics, social issues, sexuality, books, rock, or hockey comes up, I have something(s) to say.

And I don't feel embarrassed when I talk about these things. Not with boys, not with girls. I am always eager to share something I think a friend or classmate will respond to in a positive manner. Sometimes, though, I forget that not everyone is as easy with this stuff as I am, and I go to far (though I never try to ask them about what they do themselves, I don't bring up personal stuff, just issues in  general). And I wonder why, why are people, both sexually active and non-sexually active, are so embarrassed. Is it because still, even in this day and age, with such a pornified culture, we still are uncomfortable with ourselves sexually?

And I think, right there, is what sexual empowerment really means. Being comfortable and open about sex and our sexual selves. Not having to be active, not having to flash or use vulgar language or be explicit, but just feel comfortable enough that we're not afraid to express our feelings about such subjects, and not be embarrassed when someone else talks about it. I'm not talking about liking it when people breach a barrier of propriety, I mean not feeling personally embarrassed when someone does. Just say, "That's too far" and not feel ashamed or angry towards people who talk about sex. Not feel awkward to think and talk about sex ourselves, not afraid to look up the information we need or take safety measures regarding sex, like buying condoms or birth control, or going to the Doctor about certain things. Does being sexually empowered meaning being sexually active, expressive, agressive, etc? Or does it simply mean not being afraid or ashamed to be?

I consier myself a sexually empowered young woman, and I don't owe that to the fact that I have a dirty mouth or anything I've done sexually. I owe it to not being afraid of doing and saying those things.

 

I can’t believe how long it’s been.

Ever since I realized that I had real friends on this site, I didn’t think I could stay away long. This place and all the people I’ve connected with on it have meant so much to me, I could not fathom not ever wanting to log on, blog and comment my heart out and talk to all of you. But then… My time on here had been growing less and less frequent and finally… Well, it’s been long. I’ve already said that. The last few months for me have been… bad. Really bad. My whole life is turning upside down, really. Everything I thought was going to happen hasn’t been happening. I’ve mentioned this before, but I’l mention it again: I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

When people think of OCD, they usually think of some Monk-type character. Neurotic, afraid of germs, hyper organized, uptight, anal-retentive. That’s not everyone though. That’s not how it affects me at all. I’m not at all organized. In fact, I’m a total slob. It’s held me back a lot and I don’t obsess over things that could help me. I’m not a straight-A student and I don’t package everything and I don’t keep everything in perfect order.

Instead, it’s other things. My skin has to be perfectly smooth. Perfectly smooth. I’m always checking to make sure my skin is perfectly smooth. I can’t stop. It doesn’t matter what it is. If there is the slightest bump, I have to pick at it. The slightest hair that seems too dark or coarse or out of order, I have to get it out. My eyebrows are practically gone. I have to wear tights all the time, or I’ll be going after my legs with a tweezer, even after I’ve just shaved. If I see or feel the slightest sign of a hair root, I have to pluck it out.And I'm always searching running my fingers over any bit of skin I can get to... looking for the tiniest bump or hair... It doesn't matter how small. You would never notice the things I try to rip out of my body, but you'll see the scar tissue left over from what I've done. 

It's not like cutting. I'm not looking for pain or release or anything like that. I just need these things out of me. I do it in my sleep. And it's not something I just do in private. I'll do it in public, everyone else melting away around me. All I need is to get the poison out. Get the imperfections out. I'll scrath and pick and grab and pluck until there's blood. Then I'll search through the blood and when it finallly heals over, I'll pick at the scars and marks.

Do you know what it's like to do that, to have to do something so bad, and then have people notice and tell you to stop, like a three year old picking its nose? When you're seventeen going on eighteen, it's mortifying. Even more mortifying is that you can't stop. You can't stop trying to get it out. You want to stop. You try to stop yourself in a million different ways. You sit on your hands. But then it hurts or you need your hands to do something and then you stop in the middle of whatever you're doing to go at your self again. You leave your tweezers at home, but then you just plucks things out with your fingernails... or you try to and you spend even more time trying to get it out and end up cutting and scratching your face. So you try cutting your nails, but that just makes it even worse. So you try occupying your hands with something else, but you can't concentrate because you can't stop thinking about that little welt on your shoulder or that tiny emerged stub of hair just below your eyebrow that is too blond eto see but you felt it...

The only thing that could ever distract me was writing. Writing in this blog, writing in my notebook. Creating my own world to escape into where there were no bumps on my skin or hairs growing out of place. It's always been my safe haven.

It's been steadily growing worse over the years, but around Christmas it was increasing with exponential speed until it turned into a kind of mania. I'm always exhausted because I'm up all night worrying about it.. reaching under the covers with a tweazer...

What was worse was that I couldn't write. No matter what I did, I could not write. I tried everything to be able to write again but I couldn't. Nothing worked and I couldn't escape. I couldn't do anything but freak out. When I realized I couldn't write I'd freak out more.

It's affects kept deepening too. Soon I couldn't concentrate at school at all and I was failing two subjects. So I had to try and make myself do more schoolwork. My stress levels increased and it was all I could do to stop myself from failing the subjects I had A's in. just last quarter. One week I had won a spot on a field trip to Quantico for being one of my law teacher's  top students, the next, I was struggling to recieve a C on the interim.

It finally came to a head two weeks ago. My parents went insane about what I was doingand where I was going. They were terrified I would not be able to graduate. They changed a lot of things, trying to get me back on track. Then I had a full blown nervous breakdown. I couldn't stop crying. Everything had imploded on me. I felt so alone.

The other thing about my problem is that I can't get close to anybody. I'm afraid those bumps will be caught by someone else. I don't want to leave home because it's the only place where I can hide cover up my bumps and imperfections and protect others from having to deal with it. When people notice it, they're disgusted and I don't blame them. It is disgusting and no one knows what it is. And no one, no one, seems to really understand. My parents have sent me to a thousand dermatologists to try and fix whatever it is. I've gone to shrinks, I've gone to counselors. I've gone to a bunch of people and every time, I've become more afraid of telling anybody.

But it all spilled out of me finally, I couldn't hide it forever. I thought I could. I wanted to. But I couldn't keep it in. I just wanted to feel truly loved. To feel close to someone. To not feel like a freak. To truly feel safe. So I let it out as much as I could.

The problem is that even with my problems, a lot of the mess I'm in is my fault. It is. A lot of it comes from laziness, cowardice, fear, and a refusal to take responsibility for myself. And because of that, I've let my problems become an excuse and as a result, they've become out of control. If I had started taking responsibility for the mistakes I've made before, I wou;dn't be in the mess I'm in now. Because I wouldn't come clean to anyone. Because I let myself use what waqs once something I could have learned to control with a little help be my excuse for my failiures until it became a mania I may never be able to completely control even with a lot of help. Because I let myself use my problems as a way out of doing anything, it's now completely controlling my life. I'm now taking more medication than I've ever taken before, trying to curb my mania, to get my eyebrows back.

But there's still major damage. People around me who don't deserve to feel bad at all feel guilty because I didn't tell anyone sooner. I kept things from my family and I think they're going to have torouble trusting me completely for a while.

I still haven't been totally open with everyone. There are still things I'm not ready to say. But today, something happened. I got on my computer and started to write. Because that's the way I think I can communicate properly. I've become to accustomed to saying nothing but bullshit, but I think I haven't lost the ability to write something true. For some strange reason, I'm not afraid of writing all this down and posting it on the net for everyone to see, but I'm terrified of saying so much as "Mom, Dad, Sarah, Dr. B, I have a problem, and this is what it really is."

So here it is. This is where I've been. And I plan to print this out and have the people I love read it. Maybe it's the best I can do. I can at least try for once, and not hide.

It's nice to know that the first segment Jimmy Fallon decided to air on his first night as host of Late Night was a total ripoff of Infomania's Sarah Haskins' segment Target Women.

For those of you not already aware of the show, Infomania is a comedy news show available for viewing on CurrentTV as well as the network's website, is hosted by Connor Knighton and contains several segments by different correspondents, such as Sergio Cilli's "White Hot Top 5", Bret Elrich's "Viral Video Film School" and Ben Hoffman's "Tech Report." While I'm a fan of the whole show, it was Target Women, a segment that mocks and comments on the ridiculous ways the media tries to market everything from Yogurt to Wedding Shows to women. The sketch series has been appearing on Infomania since last May and, as far as I'm concerned, has only gotten funnier since.

Last night, Jimmy Fallon asummed his new role as Conan O'Brien's replacement for the Late Night Show. He introduced a new segment for the show he called "Target Demographic", this sketch's demographic being "Blonde Mothers from Connecticut." The sketch-- you guessed it, was a film that mocked the way the media views Blonde Mothers and how to market to them.

See if you can spot the resemblance between the two TV spots:



Target Women: Number Two, aired May 9th, 2008



Target Demographic: Blonde Mothers" aired March 3rd, 2009




Sarah Haskins certainly has noticed the resemblance. She has called Fallon out on Twitter already, saying, "Hey, Jimmy Fallon, call me when you want to give my idea back!"

Haskins has asked us to send Fallon some of our favorite Target Women clips to get him to own up.

So, how about it Jimmy? Are you going to admit the idea was stolen?

I'm too sickened to post the actual article text. So here's the link.

Apparently Rihanna has been proven to need anger management since she got her face bashed in.

Keep in mind, this feature isn't even really about Chris Brown and Rihanna. This is about domestic violence. Apparently, the New York Daily News has no qualms with blaming abuse victims for their traumatic experiences if they have the audacity to do something like, say, throw a pair of car keys. Because us bitches deserve it when we get out of line.


I emailed a letter to the editor, here it is:

Title: Your Hideous Chris Brown/Rihanna Feature

"I am emailing to voice my outrage over your sickening article about Rihanna needing anger management. The woman had her face practically bashed in, and according to your paper, she caused him to do it by throwing a pair of car keys. Oh yes, she should definitely be punished for making Brown beat her, right? She must have asked for it? Brown could not possibly control himself and not hit her after she had the audacity to throw those keys!

Because it's the woman's fault if they're abused, right? They deserve a beating for having the nerve to..... throw keys. Gotta teach us our place, right? If not, well, we're just asking for a beating.

Yep. She had her face used as punching bag, she definitely needs anger management. Obviously she's unstable. It's not enough that she was pulverized by someone she trusted, she needs to be taught another lesson!

I'm not really talking about those two anymore. I'm talking about every case of domestic violence in which a woman (or sometimes a man) has been beaten and blamed for it. This acceptance of victim-blaming continues to justify abuse and violence to potential attackers. You were not just talking about Rihanna and Chris Brown there, you were essentially sent the message that the victim is to blame when they are abused. You used an unknown source (couldn't you at least have the decency to use a real one? Or did you just make this up to feul some pro-violence, woman-hating agenda?). You sent the message that the victim of abuse "asks for it" in some way, and that violence against women is okay if the woman has the audacity to act in an angry manner. You sent that message to your readers, This was just an "example." Don't believe me? Read some of the comments on your article. You were not talking about those two celebrities at all. You were talking about all victims of abuse, all women who had ever been beaten by their fathers, partners, husbands, boyfriends, etc. You decided that in the issue of Domestic Violence, you are more sympathetic to the abusers than the victims.


Thank you for sending the message that abuse victims ask for it, that women make men beat them, that the man should not be held responsible for his violent actions in cases like these. I hope you are proud of yourselves. I will from now on associate your publication with violence, irresponsibility, lack of human feeling, and misogyny

Wendy Notsid"


You know maybe I'm strange, but I really think the person who resorted to violence is the one who is entirely at fault.

You can send a message to the editor at voicers@edit.nydailynews.com

This isn't about one incident, this is about all cases of Domestic Abuse. We need to stand up against victim-blaming, whoever the victim may be. Violence is never justifiable and victims are being criticized for being attacked.

What kind of fucked up world do we live in where people actually do that?

It's bad enough Perez Hilton is a disgusting slimeball, what with his penchant for calling 16-year-old girls sluts at every opportunity. But he reveals that he is so desperate to "break' "news" stories and is so ignorant about women's bodies that he is calling preggers on every female celebrity who inhales.

Seriously, you may be shocked and in a state of disbelief over his so-called photo evidence.

1) Nicole Kidman: COULD IT BE???


[Image from RameyPix]

Apparently, she has a "bump." MUST be preggers!

Never mind her boobs are miniscule, that she had a baby a few months ago, and that she's basically a stick. Apparently, a picture of a woman who's stomach isn't as flat as Joe Jonas's hair is cause for pregnancy rumors.

2) Claire Danes: SPERMINATED???


[AP Images]

She's wearing a shiny fabric, moron. Also, very thin.

Seriously, I'm starting to wonder if this dude is aware that women breath, and that their breathing, just like his, involves inhalation, and that inhalation makes your front rise.

3) Kate Moss: SPERMINATION SHOWING?


[RameyPix]

Seriously.

I'm starting to wonder if women are going to have to stop inhaling altogether so as to avoid having to refer to themselves as "Fat" to dispell pregnancy rumors. WTF are people insane? These women are incredibly skinny, yet their belly rises for a second and everyone's crying "BABY!" Soon we'll see every celebrity chick sporting an iron lung so they won't have to inhale air and look "fat." Either that or we'll be going back to whale-bone corsets.

How insane have our beauty standards become that we call pregnancy on anything?

I remember when Eva Longoria-Parker said she was "just fat" after pregnancy rumors started popping up to her. According to People Magazine, after that she went on a diet and lost ten pounds. But she didn't look fat then at all. I'm willing to bet Eva Longoria Parker has ever been "fat" in her life. And Kate Moss.

SERIOUSLY PEOPLE. KATE MOSS IS CALLING HERSELF FAT.

WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?

Is this the new crotch shot or something? WTF.

HEY MORONS, HAVING A STOMACH MEANS NOTHING. THE ONLY WAY TO TELL IS IF THE CHICKS BOOBS SWELL AND SHE'S FLUSHED.

What really bothers me is that it's not just the apparent ignorance people have about women's bodies, but it's more like the only acceptable thing to be if your stomach is not concave is to be pregnant. Like, those are the only good ways to be if your female. If your stomach pushes out if you're a girl and you're pregnant, you're fat, and that's bad. So to be nice, we;ll just assume that you're pregnant since your belly is not the acceptable table-shape. The only time it's acceptable and not embarrassing for a woman's belly to be visible is when she's pregnant, apparently. That's right ladies: either your stomach doesn't push out at all, or you're pregnant, otherwise, well, be embarrassed and call yourself fat.

If that's not the message that's being put out here, then I don't know what is.

Seriously, why aren't chicks allowed to have stomachs anymore?


Well, fuck that.