Posts Tagged ‘you WHAT?’

Last year, at a wedding I attended, one of the conversations I participated in involved a straight woman asking a gay woman how much money it would take for her to sleep with a man.

Now, I’m not saying nobody should ever have such a conversation – as woman B said to me after woman A had left for a bit, she has had that conversation with her good friends, possibly more than once. But to ask that question completely out of the blue pretty much immediately finding out that a person does not want to make sexy times with any person of a particular gender? Really?

The conversation was not made any better by woman A’s exposition on prostitution (her word) sex work, and linking it to desperation and solely that, which came about when I pointed out that the question wasn’t really a test of sexuality, per se, as some people are quite happy to have sex with people they might not be particularly sexually attracted to, sometimes for money, and for others – assuming they are generally happy with their present material wealth, which woman B is, and that’s who she was asking – no sum would be sufficient. Funnily enough, different people feel differently about this, and it’s not necessarily about their sexuality (if sexuality is defined as what gender of persons one is attracted to).


Read Full Post »

… and it looks like Selleys doesn’t want my business.

I saw this ad on television this evening:



Read Full Post »

caitlinate at The Dawn Chorus has a bonza (or something) collection of quotes from Tony Abbott, just to remind you of all the odious things he’s said over the years.

Here’s a sample:

Why isn’t the fact that 100,000 women choose to end their pregnancies regarded as a national tragedy approaching the scale (say) of Aboriginal life expectancy being 20 years less than that of the general community?
– From Tony Abbott’s speech to the Adelaide University Democratic Club ib 16 March 2004 (NB: link is a PDF; quote is at the top of page 6) (NB2: he put it in writing, so it’s not just something he said “in the heat of discussion” – rather, it must be taken to be an “absolutely calm, considered, prepared and scripted” remark!)

I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman’s right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man’s right to demand I think they are both they both need to be moderated, so to speak
– From Q&A, 19 March 2009

Misogyny, racism, general douchery. What more could you want?

(yep, that’s sarcasm)

Well, even if you don’t think you want more, go read caitlinate’s post to remind yourself of how odious Tony Abbott really is.

Read Full Post »

I was watching the ABC news on TV, and saw the TV version of this story.

In essence: NSW is trying to crack down on graffiti. One of the “initiatives” from the clever clogs in charge of this banana State is to impose higher penalties. For example, a quote from the TV version was something like: “kids as young as 13 will face up to 6 months’ imprisonment for carrying a spray can without a legitimate excuse.”


The TV version also had NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos saying something like “since people aren’t being deterred by current penalties, we’re going to raise the penalties”.


The stupidity of this knee-jerk statement is obvious: if people aren’t deterred by the penalties, it’s often because they’re simply not deterred by penalties full stop, not because the penalties aren’t fucking harsh enough. In other words, imprisonment is not a specific deterrent. Even The Australian gets that!

It’s a bad idea to imprison kids. Really, really fucking bad. We should only do it where it’s absolutely necessary.

And where a kid has been carrying a spray can (or even spraying a bit of graffiti, and I find that as annoying and sometimes distressing as many others do), it’s not precisely necessary.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: