Illustrator of the Month: February 2010

Olivia De Berardinis, known mostly as just Olivia, was born in California in 1948. She was an only child from a nomadic family who spent much of her time drawing to escape the world of adults she lived in. Her first model and muse was her mother, Connie. Her mother was a willing model, and as the artist describes, "She was a disgruntled glamour-puss, and would entertain me with terrible imitations of Mae West, Garbo, Dietrich, Hepburn and Zsa Zsa Gabor. She was a cross between Sophia Loren, Lucille ball, and Rosie the Riveter."

Olivia attended the New York School of Visual Arts, and worked for a few years as a minimalist oil painter, before turning to the commercial arts to make ends meet. She has painted all the classic girls from Bettie Page through to Dita Von Teese and as a result she has developed a loyal following of collectors and published hundreds of limited edition prints. Her work is also available as tshirts, cards and calendars. Olivia has published in a number of men's magazines but is now prominently featured in Playboy magazine, on the page previously held by famed pin-up illustrator Alberto Vargas. Olivia's images are hand selected by Hef himself, who writes the captions for her images each month.

I love the agression and feirceness with which Olivia portrays women. These aren't women who are accidentally caught with their pants down, these are women in control. These are women choosing to show you their sexuality and at times it is frightening, alluring, intoxicating. There are models who look innocent, there are models that look dangerous. I admire her ability to capture the spirit of pinup with a nod to the history of the style, but also her ability to do so in a totally modern way.

Dear Santa

I'll have one of these please.

Kinky

Here.

Everyone Loves Free

So I read this blog called Oh My God, That Britni's Shameless. It's not about Britney Spears, as you might expect, but rather it is a really interesting blog that has lots of smutty stuff including an author who writes in detail about her relationship that is dominant/submissive. She's the sub, and I really enjoy her writing on that topic in particular.

Today her post is about a new online retailer, Sexy and Discreet, who specialize in phthalate-free sex toys. Good times. Even better times? They are giving toys away free. Yep. A different one each week. All you have to pay for is shipping. AND! And they've included Canada in the offer, which is stellar, since American companies rarely do that.

So yeah. I ordered this week's toy. Of course I did! Check it out. 

Richard Kern

I briefly mentioned Richard Kern in my last post, and I thought I'd share some more Kern images for fun.

I first heard of Kern when he directed the Marilyn Manson video "Lunchbox", I was such a loyal little fan!  The good old days, when Marilyn Manson was still a good band. Aw, just listening to this song in the background while typing this gives me warm fuzzy feelings. Really.

Kern is primarily a portrait artist, though he dabbles in video direction and pornography. One might argue that any nude portrait is pornography, I would argue the opposite, and that's why I say he dabbles in pornography. Usually the subjects are just nude.

I think that Kern's portraiture possesses a unique vision that serves to express the human connection between himself and his subject, while recording subtle moments in cultural history. It is the voyeur in the artist's spirit that captures the subject in a portrait, while it is narcissism or a lack of objectivity that keeps that view out of self portraits. Not to say that one is better than the other, but it is interesting to see the way two portrait artists might capture the same individual in such different ways that the person may be unrecognizable between portraits. Somehow, the self portrait lacks this quality and ability - we as artists tend to capture only the self we wish to see.

He is part of a wave of artists (and average folk alike) that are taking nude photography out of studios and shady development labs into the mainstream home. The digital era has changed pornography and therefore our depictions of perversion; we can now find "anything" but also create "anything" we can imagine. An artist like Kern seeks to find new and dynamic ways of exploring these expressions that allows the viewer to think differently about sexual diversity, while maintaining his artistic credibility. These are not simply nudes for the sake of sexuality, perhaps the sexuality exists within the model, and Kern captures it, or it is projected by the viewer.

 

 

The Good Body - review

Over the weekend I did blissfully next to nothing, other than sleeping and eating. It was grand. I also read a play called "The Good Body" by Eve Ensler, who you may have heard of because she wrote a little something called "The Vagina Monologues". (Which is, in my opinion, fully worthy of all the hype it recieves. If you have not read or seen it, you should.)

The play found a way to make me feel good about myself, if only in knowing that even Eve Ensler, famous feminist playwrite and activist, also has body image issues she just can't shake.

Unfortunately, I was hoping for something a little more powerful.

She explores the issue by travelling the world, and writing monologues as everyone from Helen Gurley Brown to an African villager.

Ensler suggests that most women in the world are more obsessed with their often distorted perception of one small part of their body than they are with any other aspect of their lives. For that matter, they are more fixated on that one body part than they are on world hunger, peace, or homelessness. They are more fixated on that one body part than they are on acheiving health, happiness or success. If they could have one wish, regardless of age, nationality, race, sex, economic class or social standing, it is to lose weight.

We fixate on our stomaches, our boobs, our legs, our noses. If we choose to mutilate ourselves and "fix" this perfectly functional body part to make it more how we'd imagine we'd like it to be, we then fixate on a new part of our bodies to dislike. We inundate ourselves with images of "good" bodies, and then punish ourselves for not looking like that, even though our concious minds are fully aware that those images are faked and 'shopped to look the way they do. Even the most radical feminist of us self-punishes this way. No wonder we aren't leading corporations and political parties as often as we should. We're too busy dieting.

In the preface Eve writes, "...when one out of three women in the world will be beaten or raped in her lifetime, why write a play about my stomach?" Eve then answers herself, "...because my stomach is one thing I feel I have control over, or maybe because I have hoped that my stomach is something I could get control over."

Control. Women are obsessed with control. Maybe it is because we have felt out of control for so many generations. A lack of choice makes you feel controlled. We are obsessed with controling our food. Our bodies. Eating disorders are the worst side of this, extreme dieting the middle of the road, diet soda the everyday. It is distorted that we believe we are in control by doing this. Then we wish for greater self-control. More discipline. If only.

We've been told we're equals, but perhaps because this isn't really true, and we don't have enough control over any other aspect of our lives, we obsess over the wrong things - things that don't need controlling. Our bodies are fine as they were made.

The play will help you to feel idiotic for wasting any of your precious mental resources on such a dalliance. It does it as well as the Beauty Myth, which is similar in message, though stronger in delivery.

It helps to comisserate with other women, to feel a part of something, to relate. Where the play falls flat is in the stereotypes - the "skinny bitch" makes a few to many appearances while the negative self talk gets tiring and a bit depressing. The author never resolves this and never finds a way out; "...here's what I think I've learned so far: In order to be good, I've got to be a smiling psychopath, deprived of pretzels, deeply involved with a Nazi trainer, fortunately numb from the botulinism, white vanilla fat sucked out with rods, and my pussy tightened."

Certainly cathartic, the play would be enjoyable to see in order to have the feelings of a shared experience. Standing alone, it is missing any reasonable solutions for overcoming the very problems it highlights.

I Am Not Advocating Violence, Just Great Lingerie.

Go Girl

Maybe if more women had these Women's washrooms would not be so disgusting.

This Woman's Work

During my lunch break today I was reading this article in the Metro and it got me thinking about why it is that women are stuck doing so much more work than men.

"Reports from Statistics Canada show that while men are doing more household chores and women are doing more paid work, men still spend only 1.4 hours per day on housework compared to the 2.4 hours on average done by women.The result is that while women have continued to break down barriers in the workplace, they still face the challenge of having to do more work at home than men as well as a double-standard of being seen as innately overstretched by their responsibilities."

The article goes on to cite the controversy surrounding MPP Lisa MacLeod’s testimony in a recent court case as an example of how society views the multi-tasking woman. Society (and Ontario Superior Court Justice Douglas Cunningham) apparently view a busy mother, employee and woman as incapable of "doing it all" properly. But that is flawed logic, since apparently we are already doing it all, and quite successfully. After all:

• Women in the U.S. spend more than $3.3 trillion annually (demonstrating amazing levels of purchasing power)
  
• Women business owners employ 35% more people than all Fortune 500 companies combined
• 95% of family financial decisions are made by women
  
• Women in business will invest $44.5 billion in high tech products this year
  
• 65% of women in senior management positions have children
  (Source: Women and Diversity, WOW Facts 2001)

So here we are, highly functioning members of society and the workplace. Many of us have good educations, work hard outside the home, raise children, do the housework and also manage the household finances. Why aren't men raising the bar on their lives? Why don't they want to do more as a gender? How come men have not adjusted to this new reality? Don't they want more responsibility?

I got to thinking that the answer was pretty simple. If for hundreds of years your role in society was to make money, and come home to be taken care of, would you want that to change? It sounds pretty good, to be honest. I'll take being the breadwinner if I can have a hot housewife.

Why would you, if in that position, be in any rush to take on more of the household responsibilities? What women have taken on is freedom - freedom to earn, both cash and respect. Freedom to control their lives and world to an extent never experienced before. It is no wonder we are thrilled to adapt to this new world full of opportunity.

To ask a man who has had this wonderful freedom in his life to change is a difficult request. Ask him to take on more cleaning, more babysitting, more planning, and so on. It is really no wonder they resist giving up the freedoms they once had to take on more life responsibility. It is really no wonder a woman finds herself nagging her husband to "do his share".

Who wants to do the dirty work?

To be honest, if I could work outside of the home and make enough money to go it alone, I would. If I could have a house-wife or husband (or hired help) that would be swell; someone to do the bulk of raising my kids for me, cooking for me and cleaning for me would be more than welcomed.

Is it any wonder,"...men are quite supportive of women in the workforce but they generally have not, with the same level of tenacity, said "I want to be a part of the home life."?

A woman's work is fucking hard. And does not include 1 hour lunches at Baton Rouge.

This Day in Inappropriate Product Branding

Going Crazy with my new HTML Writing Ability

Take that Photosuckit!

Giving Flickr A Try

a-evi-hegre-nudes-plastic-bubble, originally uploaded by sexsocietyscribblesandscenes.

Well, Photobucket hates my erotic art. So, I'm going to try out Flickr. Here's my first test post using Flickr's blogging to blogger tool, or whatever they call it. I'm not overly pleased that I have to blog in Flickr to make it work, and that it seems I can only post one image at a time. But it will let me post images like this from Norwegian erotic photographer Petter Hegre, so maybe it will work in a pinch. Testing Testing, 123.

Still looking for suggestions on this other than "move your whole blog to Wordpress" and "pay for this such and such account", both of which I don't think are going to happen.

Additional test: if I write my own html (which I avoid doing like the plague, because apparently on some level I hate doing it so much that I refuse to memorize such simple things) will it let me post? Test:







huh. well fancy that. That's another Petter Hegre added to this post. Sigh. I guess I am going to learn this simple html coding. Why must I resist these simple tasks? Resistance is futile! Since I'm in here again, here is the link to Hegre's wiki. And while you are at it, why don't you visit his own website, which contains all sorts of erotic excitement.

Madonna

I'm sad that Madonna is destroying her face with plastic surgery. I really am. Because though I came late to the Madonna party, I really love her. I thought she'd be one of those 'fuck the patriarchy I'm going to get old and you are going to like it" sorts, but apparently not:



It is unfortunate because I really felt like Madonna was going to be the last one to go all crazy and down this road. She gave us some pretty important feminist fuck-you moments, but I guess even those that we see as the strongest just might be the weakest of all.

Anyhow thinking about all of it took me down memory lane.

This is probably my favourite Madonna video (but not the song, really). It features Christopher Walken! Awesomeness.


The look, the hair, the feeling. It is perfect. It makes a mediocre song amazing.

What is my favourite you ask? It's obvious, isn't it? I love the video for Erotica, but Human Nature is the clear winner. The visual look is completely stolen from Mapplethorpe, (and here - you know I really gotta work out this erotic photo ban thing...today, promise)and that is part of the beauty.

Listening, Local Talent

I first heard of Trish on the local college radio station. They played a few singles one morning on my drive to work. Needless to say, my day ruled, I felt hot, and I needed to find out who this Trish was.

Here's her first video.

Love the sexy-yet-terrifying look she's working in this video. Love the s&m imagery. Love the double meaning, love the grinding electro beat. Love it.

Thongs for Children

As you may or may not know, I also have a blogging gig over at SFYS that is a professional blog, a marketing blog. Today I blogged about the history of thong underwear. Really, having a paid job that allows me to write about lingerie is a dream - but I'm sad that it takes away from this blog. I do have an actual life outside of the internet. In any case blogging about lingerie is pretty sweet. The reason I mention it is because the topic of thongs for pre-teens came up during my research. I glazed over it in my post - but I'd like to talk about it a bit more here.

Personally, I don't think a thong is appropriate for an 9 year old. I guess this is something that has happened to me with age. I was an early bloomer (by which I mean EARLY) and at 9 years old would have probably quite enjoyed being allowed to wear one as a means of exploring my early sexuality. But somehow in the past twenty or so years I have become quite removed from that self (thankfully, I suppose) and now have perspective on how young a 9 year old - or 13 year old for that matter - actually is.

I am all for freedom of expression and freedom of sexuality and therefore, freedom of sexual expression. I argue in favour of allowing Miley Cyrus to model in a bedsheet at 15, but I can assure you no daughter of mine will be wearing a thong at 9.

I am reminded of a recent mall visit where I unfortunately found myself in LaSenza Girl. At LaSenza Girl you can buy panties with "Diva Princess" emblazoned on the ass. These underwear are targeted to pre-teens. They made me upset. Not only because they imply you will might show off your underwear at that age, but also because you are somehow intended to be proud of being a little bitch. I guess that 9 year olds don't quite get this. But shouldn't their mothers?

So what is it that is so wrong with tweener thongs and Diva Princess undies that I find it offensive?

I have two reasons:
1. Companies that market these products are sure that you will either love or hate them for it. Don't think for one minute that the bigwigs didn't sit down and talk about the decision. Because they did. As a result of selling them, they get a lot of negative press. In the marketing world, no press is bad press, in particular for a clothing company. It is a ploy to get us saying their name - and it works. I've already said one in this post. As a result, they are making it 'normal' for girls of this pre-tween age to wear thongs, and creating an interest. After all, they claim to be 'supplying a demand', but aren't they just creating one? Did you need a thong at that age? Did it even cross your mind?

2. Girls have so much pressure in society to be a certain way, act a certain way and be sexy that they really need their childhood protected. It is not that children as young as 11 don't have a sexuality - they most certainly do - it is that it deserves to be protected along with the rest of their youthful freedoms. Sexuality - healthy sexuality - should develop on a personal level, not a public level. By this I mean that young girls should be allowed to explore their feelings and themselves without the pressure of being sexy for someone else. Certainly not an adult or anyone with adult standards. That important stage of development is what is destroyed by sexual abuse of minors, and without that precious self discovery so many women fall into the trap of being sexy or having sex to seek approval, love and self-esteem.

Outrageousness and generally shocking clothing don't get to me. The types that spout off about how this is part of a natural evolution towards more a more revealing dressing style are missing the point. It is one thing for adults to leave the house in something that only technically is a dress, I'm all for that. At the very least, that is amusing to me. Hey, we all like naked ladies, don't we? And adults have adult freedoms, and can determine what is appropriate. But children should be exempt from this. Just like they should be exempt from bikinis, heels, hair dye and false eyelashes. Children need time to be children before being adults. It's not cute, it's not amusing. It's gross.

So where do you draw the line? I say, if you are too young to purchase and wash your own thong, you are too young to wear it.

100 Girls and 100 Octopuses

Special thanks to my dear friend SVCON for sending me this amazingness.

100 Girls and 100 Octopuses, 2005
Acrylic and metallic ink on paper: 98 parts, each 10 x 8 inches, overall 69 x 111 inches

here's the over all painting:



here are some details.








I'm in awe of this, really, fuck, it's amazing.

All 98 are worth a look, so go to the site, and to learn more about Zak Smith, go here.

Pop Goes the World

Pop is a Swedish child whose parents are attempting to raise....it...without a gender. Pop's hairstyle changes regularly, Pop's wardrobe consists of both pants and skirts, etc. Pop's parents say that they want "Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” and that they believe it is "cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.”

At first when I heard of this news story I was intrigued because I do find it quite interesting in concept. The child is only two - so surely the child will figure out its gender eventually, either through media or other children. Absolutely when the child starts school there will be issues, and I can't help but wonder if the questions and experiences Pop will have in those times will be life- long scars. On the other hand, perhaps Pop will grow up to be a well-adjusted and self-confident adult the likes of which the world has never seen.

However, it seems unlikely to really last much longer. Susan Pinker, a Toronto-based psychologist says, "once children can speak, males tell aggressive stories 87 per cent of the time, while females only 17 per cent." Therefore, at 2, the child is already displaying gender norms. She does go on to say in the article, that later in life there are other differences in aggression and behavior, but I am not convinced these are innate behaviors. I do think the way that boys socialize vs. the way girls socialize has a lot to do with who we are as adults and I'm not sure that that socialization would happen the same without societal norms. But I digress. What Pinker is getting at is that there are gender differences that are born into us via hormones that are part of our development during the second trimester of pregnancy. I would surmise these are also the sort of hormones that would make a child gay or straight or transgendered.

I haven't had a tonne of experience with babies, but lately people can't stop asking me if and when I am going to get pregnant. As a result, there have been many conversations about what I'd 'want' if I were pregnant, and the differences between male and female babies. I am routinely told that girl infants and boy infants are 'so different' and a 'world apart' that I can't help but wonder if Pop's parents are really achieving anything with their approach.

After all, they know the gender. They are changing the diapers. I am sure they are making every effort to avoid the gender stereotypes in their raising of the child, but if they consciously know the child is female, will they really be able to treat it the same way that they would if they knew it was male? The subconscious mind is an amazing beast - and if it can make you dream of people you haven't seen in 25 years (at 30 years old) as if a day has never passed, can it also make you treat your female child with more softness and femininity than you would if you knew deep down the child was male?

It is a well intentioned but odd approach to child-rearing. I think it would be better extended to raising the child with a more normalized gender identity. Giving your child a gender does not immediately scar the child - educating them with a healthy view on society and gender stereotypes, at an appropriate age to do so, would seem like a more normalized approach to the whole thing.

I take, for example, my sister-in-law who is 9, who just last night informed me that "Beauty Pageants are dumb because they only judge you on your looks and that is wrong." She's been taught a thing or two about the world that I had to learn much later in life. She's lucky and I think she'll be one of the strongest women I will know, because she was raised to be the sort of kid that tells off her teacher when she tells the class that "hockey is something boys play" (yes, this also happened, and resulted in suspension, believe it or not.) That right there is a healthy world view on gender. She's into hair, and bugs, and biking, and sports, and singing and dancing and makeup and art and science, because she's been told she can be anything. Telling your son it is ok to do ballet or soccer or art or music or construction or drag performances or science also sets them up to be strong adults with normalized view of who they can be. Gender is not the enemy. Trying to control who your children will become is.

I feel that trying so hard to strip your child of what is naturally present, and then talking to the media about it, (not to mention naming your child Pop) will create a difficult start to life, socialization and school. It is no different than trying to force your little tom boy into a pink princess dress. If you strip your child of both genders, will they fit in anywhere and feel a part of anything? Being different is difficult enough when you are different from 'most' people. Being different from everyone is another story altogether.

While I admire the determination of Pop's parents to change the world, and while I am sure their intentions are pure, I am wondering if they are thinking more about their own experience than that of the child's. I really think that using your children to do anything - change gender roles in society, make money as a child actor, make your partner stay in your life, negotiate divorce settlements, and so forth, is just plain wrong. Children are not lab rats and should not be treated as if they are an experiment. They deserve to feel safe, loved and cared for. I don't doubt Pop feels all these things at 2 years old. But how will Pop feel when Pop discovers it was used to promote and demonstrate the ideals of its parents?

It feels timely to think about this - Michael Jackson has died. Michael, may he rest in peace, is the ultimate example of how you can destroy a human being's soul by forcing them to have an unusual childhood - or none at all. The universal human desire to 'fit in' somewhere, with something, is the force that drives us all. Even those of us who wish to be 'different' and 'unique' wish to fit in with others who are similarly 'unique'. That feeling is the feeling of belonging, of safety, of comfort. Fitting in somewhere makes us feel safe, loved and cared for. I believe it is a basic human right. Michael had his childhood stolen from him and he never felt normal or like he fit in after that. He never felt normal, so he never acted normal. And it eventually destroyed him.

Pop is only 2 - but if this continues, Pop's chance to have a normal childhood is disappearing as well.

Recommended Reading

Filthy Gorgeous Things

F/lthyGorgeousTh/ngs is an online magazine about sex for artists, thinkers and sensualists. FGT aims to cultivate innovative content that stimulates sexually and intellectually. Each monthly issue showcases work from both up-and-coming and established writers, photographers and filmmakers with content oriented around a featured theme.

Angelina Jolie: A Leader For Feminists. Or Something.

Ugh. Naomi Wolf, did you really have to write an article about Angelina Jolie for Harper's Bazaar Magazine about why she placed #1 on the ...whatever it is, world's most powerful and rich and insanely popular celebrity list? Is work that scarce?

You, Naomi Wolf, author of life-changing thought-provoking book "The Beauty Myth", taking on pop culture as a "serious topic" to be examined? Wolf calls Jolie "...an "ego ideal" for women — a kind of dream figure that allows women to access, through fantasies of their own, possibilities for their own heightened empowerment and liberation." Is this true for you as well Naomi?

Oh for fucks sake. Is it because she can fly a plane? Because she plays Lara Croft, arguably the most masturbated-to video game heroine ever? Or because she's rich and can do whatever she wants? Or is it simply her beauty that enamors us?

Wolf points out that women not only want to be Jolie, we also want to sleep with her. Yes, even the straight girls pick her first. Well, she's hot. Ok, so that's fair. But where Wolf loses me is in her explanation that Jolie 'has it all' and that's why we admire her. "She makes the claim, with her life and actions, that, indeed, you can get away with it. All of it. Against every Western convention, she has managed to draw together all of these kinds of female liberation and empowerment. And her gestures determinedly transgress social boundaries — boundaries of convention, race, class, and gender — giving many of us a vicarious thrill." Hmm. Well, she does fly planes. And she chose to adopt children out of wedlock. Both symbols of different kinds of female liberation.

But can I just take a moment to suggest something? Jolie is rich. Jolie was born rich, to a rich family with ample opportunity. She did not have to struggle to become what she is, she attracted interest, and therefore power, simply because of her parents. I think that's a pretty good head start on the whole 'transgressing social boundaries' part, isn't it? It is definitely a good starting point for acheiving new levels of female liberation. You know, since she doesn't have social and cultural economics standing in her way.

The reality is that Jolie, like so many other women who we hold up as 'liberated' and 'modern' and 'icons' are trapped by the very beauty that made them popular. When it comes down to it, beauty is Jolie's commodity. Sure, a head start from the family helps, but Jolie is the most famous and powerful woman in the world for two reasons; 1. She's stunningly beautiful, and 2. she is stunningly beautiful and knows how to work the media. What else to we relate to with Angie? What other reason do we even have to know or care about who she is and what she does? Everything else is an afterthought that has come as a result of her beauty. Sure, people say we care about her children. But do we care about most single mothers with six kids? Not in the least. Why is Angie an icon? Because she's got great lips.

And isn't this exactly the kind of message Naomi Wolf wrote the Beauty Myth about in the first place? The damage is done on all of us, and now the damage is being ignored for a fluff peice in Harper's Bazaar.

To read these words from Naomi Wolf is particularly brutal. I'm going to go downstairs and read my copy of The Beauty Myth and go to sleep. Beauty rest, if you will.

PETA PRO-?

Something just dawned on me. If you support PETA, does that mean you are also Pro-life?

So I had a little look into the idea. On their official site, PETA says, "just as the pro-life movement has no official position on animal rights, the animal rights movement has no official position on abortion," so this, I suppose should be taken at face value. It is fair to say that someone who supports the right of an animal to a humane existence though, would be the same sort of person who would oppose abortion, though, wouldn't it?

After all, if you are going to spend time and energy on fighting for the rights of animals to live, would you not be the same sort of person who would be spending time trying to make it possible for an unborn fetus to live?

Well, a little research goes a long way. It seems they are playing both sides of the issue. PETA recently posted ads in universities that read "Pro Life? Go Veg!" and ones that read "Pro Choice? Go Veg!"



PETA's official statement on the issue was, "No matter where you stand on the abortion issue, whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, if you want to be kind, please do the right thing and go vegetarian."

I really don't want to get too deep into the abortion issue. I mean, you can guess where I stand on women's reproductive rights. Where I draw the line is an organization who have questionable practices (google "PETA questionable practices" for more details) speaking out on an issue as sensitive and key to women's rights as abortion in order to further publicize their directives.

I understand - people who love animals hate to see them die in order for us to eat. And as a meat eater, I do understand why this is. Yes, it's hard to kill an animal, watch it die, cut its heart out and then eat the nice juicy meat. I would have a hard time doing this. And yes, I buy my meat, already dead from the butcher to avoid dealing with this reality. This is because of consumerism, the food chain, the modern cash/goods market and my removal from my own food supply. I get it, these are complex issues that need deep thought, and if you so choose to be a vegetarian, good for you. I can respect that, even if I don't fully understand why would want to move yourself farther from where you (in an animistic-you-have-carnivorous-teeth-for-a-reason sort of way) should be on the food chain.

However taking an issue like abortion, which is not a 'fetal rights' issue as some would like to present it, and is rather a women's rights issue, and parading it around to try and further your animal-rights agenda, is despicable. To me, it is making light of a very serious issue that is still unresolved in many parliaments and governments, so much so that at any time, the freedom of choice could be overturned. This is a frightening idea for me. I don't like the concept of the government having control of my uterus. And even in countries like Canada (where technically abortion is only legal because by definition it is not illegal) access is limited and the right to a safe, legal abortion is not even fully realized, there is still a lot of work to be done towards securing women's right to choose. So much so, that a campaign such as this one by PETA could be damaging to the movement. Why, PETA, would you choose this issue to ride on the back of?

Just another reason to look at PETA, shake your head, and wonder, WHY people care more about animals then they do about other human beings.