Representative Issa Is Scared Of 'Girl Germs'. (This is totally factual and not at all mocking.)

So, I was talking to Cyc the other night, about politics and other intelligent things that had nothing to do with ducks wearing hats, and we started talking about how ridiculous it was for Representative Issa to throw a little party/sleepover (Is there proof that didn't happen? Well.. It might have.) over contraception. And, of course, with any immature little boys throwing a little get-together, there must not be any women. They might have cooties or girl germs! You wouldn't want that, would you? No. Of course not.

So it only makes sense for them to stick a nice big sign on the door of their fort, and stop all the girls coming in with their girl germs. Ew.
 

Carolyn Maloney said, before walking out of the committee;

"What I want to know is, where are the women? I look at this panel, and I don't see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventive health care services, including family planning. Mr Chairman, I was deeply disturbed that you rejected our request to hear from a woman. A third year student in law school named Sandra Fluke, and I am using this to urge on you, once again, to let Miss Fluke testify, let one woman speak for the panel right now on this all-male panel."

And yet, no women testified. Representative Issa said that;

The minority chose the witness we had not found to be appropriate or qualified. Now, appropriate and qualified is a decision I have to make. I asked our—our staff, what is her background, what has she done. They did the usual that we do when we’re not provided the three days and the forms that go with it: they did a Google search. They looked and found that she was, in fact, and is, a college student who appears to have become energized over this issue. I cannot and will not arbitrarily take a majority or minority witness if they do not have the appropriate credentials both for a hearing at full committee of the USA house of representatives and if you cannot get them at a timely fashion.

They could not find one woman who was qualified or appropriate, or with the appropriate credentials to speak at this hearing.

There is a rush transcript from DemocracyNow on interviewing Sandra Fluke and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton about this issue, including Sandra Fluke's would-be testimony,

 I especially wanted to tell the particular stories of some friends of mine, actually, close friends, who have medical needs that require birth control for reasons other than preventing pregnancy. For example, one of them—it’s just a tragedy. She actually—she lost her ovary. It had to be surgically removed because a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball grew on it, because she didn’t have access to contraception to prevent that. She has polycystic ovarian syndrome. And as a result of that, the doctors are very concerned that she’s going into early menopause at the age of 32. And, of course, this will cause complications for her ever trying to conceive a child and puts her at increased risk for heart disease, osteoporosis and cancer. Well, for many of these types of medical conditions, like endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome, many other conditions, doctors regularly prescribe contraception to prevent growth of things like cysts or fibroids, and that’s widely medically accepted and is the most appropriate and effective form of treatment.

I just want to clarify the misconception that the only women who are affected by this are young women who are not married. For the law students that I represent, the average age is 27, and many of them are married, and they have no access to contraception, as well. But beyond that, I strongly believe that our government has to legislate for reality, not ideology. So, if we don’t provide contraception coverage and healthcare, that’s not going to stop anyone from having sex, whether they should or should not be. And we really have to take care of women’s healthcare and not worry about policing their moral choices.

Well, all I can say to finish this off is that I'm damn happy that I live in a country where the government knows we're all filthy immoral whores that need to make sure we don't have any of those god-forsaken little horrors they call children!

And my personal note: Fuck you formatting. I hate you. Go away.

Youtube user disturbing name, disturbing videos.

So, I was on youtube, watching The Young Turks and I was watching this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSltPSxD-Bc&feature=autoplay&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&lf=plcp&playnext=3
When I came across a comment by someone called beagoodgirl4Daddy.
If you go on their channel, it has nothing but videos of preteens, or even younger, doing 'sexy' things.
Please, please go and report them. I believe in freedom, but that is just absolutely horrible. There's no way that should be on any popular site.
Unless you approve of sexualizing young children, this is sick, wrong and just plain disgusting.

Change Immigration Laws To Include Character And Employment References

Disaster has struck, and I need the help of the good people of the internet.
My boyfriend of two years, Cyc, lives in America. I am English. Recently, yesterday, he tried to come here, as mentioned on his blog, but due to some complications at immigration, he was refused entry, because our immigration system in a computer system where you must tick the right boxes, rather than judging who we actually want to visit our country, and who we don't.

My petition letter is on this link, for the change.org petition, please sign and give us both some hope for humanity, and maybe we can change the unfairness in this particular part of the world.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/24371

Blogger issues

Can-Fap (Not for the squeamish due to video content)

So, blogger is not nice to me. I'm hoping this will work. Anyway, I have no idea what I wrote for this post, but I have a feeling it was really long and detailed and had all the pros and cons of circumcision... But before I go and write it again, I'm going to check if blogger is working for me again yet!

Okay! Now that it's apparently working, I'm going to try to rewrite:


Circumcision is found reasonably often in males, and is usually performed within 10 days of birth, usually before the child is taken home. It's done for religious, cultural or occasionally hygienic reasons. But circumcision is both dangerous and unnecessary, providing no long term benefits, and occasionally causing death due to insuffieciant aftercare, badly done surgery, anaesthesic overdose or unsafe practitioners. Even though death is rare (Around 18 per 100,000), would you risk your child's life over almost no long-term benefits?

Circumcision can make children difficult, even make them develop an early post-trauma stress disorder, causing them to sleep, eat and bond slower. It can also cause them to have a lower pain threshold. Besides, would you remove any other part of your child? You may as well take their appendix, as that is utterly useless. It's not your right to remove any organ, or part of any organ, from your child, without a good reason. Especially in such a traumatising way.

It also costed over a million dollars in state funding, and most insurance companies will not cover circumcision or complications after circumcision. Even Jewish children are often now circumcised without cutting, to reduce complications and trauma. There's also no need to circumcise a child so that they will 'fit in with their parent'. If your son regularly sees his father's penis, enough to realise that has no foreskin and his does, then you have more to worry about than whether or not they feel they'll fit in!

Children don't need to wash under their foreskin until it's easily retractable anyway, by which they will figure out that they should clean under it sooner or later, until then, a bath or a long shower will do fine. Circumcision does not do much to prevent aids or stds, it's much easier, cheaper and less traumatic just to explain to them what a condom is, and that they shouldn't have unprotected sex. Ever. (Or at least unless they know that their partner is clean, and wouldn't mind breeding with them.) 

Uncircumcised men have a very slight increase in penile cancer, but as it is only a 1 in 100,000 chance of getting it anyway, it is not a good reason to circumcise an infant. A 2007 study found that the five most sensitive parts of the penis are removed by circumcision, and the head is made less sensitive from exposure. Do you really want to deny your child full sexual enjoyment? Did you know that men, like women, can have different types of orgasms? Removing the foreskin removes the possibility for your child to enjoy some of these.

In Australia, some hospitals will only allow circumcision when it's medically necessary for the health of the male. The foreskin should not be fully retractable until the child is at the least five years of age, and it is not recommended to try to retract it at all until at least the age of three. Phimosis (The foreskin not retractable at an age where it should be retractable), paraphimosis (The foreskin not returnable to its original place after being retracted) balenoposthests (The inflammation of the head of the penis and the foreskin) may all be treated by circumcision where medically advised. Meatitis is the inflammation of the opening of the penis, and is more common in circumcised males, but leads to no long term harm.
Urinary tract infections are more common in uncircumcised children, but after the first year or two, this evens itself out, and it is not shown to be down to uncircumcised males having worse hygiene because of their foreskin.

And if nothing else will persuade you, here's the video (Which is not for the squeamish) from the Can-fap (The Canadian Foreskin Awareness Project) website.



If you wouldn't allowed female genital mutilation, why would you allow males to undergo essentially the same process? It's illegal in many places to cut the genitals of a female under the age of 18 for any non-medical reason, why would this not be extended to males?

Please go to Can-fap for more information.

D/s: Security

A big part of D/s is security, not only for the submissive, but for the dominant as well, security in the relationship, and in each other. The submissive has to feel safe enough to let themselves be open in the relationship, and the dominant needs to feel secure enough to act dominant with the submissive without it feeling harmful. There are a lot of ways to create this security.

1. Physical reminders

It's very nice to have something tangible to reassure both that the relationship exists in that manner, even if it doesn't look like something from a D/s relationship. Personally, I like having my collar, but some people might like something more like a bracelet or a ring. Some prefer something that they don't have to have on them at all times, even just a letter on it's own. Sometimes these can be used instead of safety words, like I use mine, for a break from the relationship to talk, or something similar. It's nice for the submissive to have something to touch and feel to remind them of the relationship, and for the dominant to be able to see or touch for themselves for the same reason. I also have a leash, which I'm very fond of. Whenever I feel particularly anxious, out of place in my relationship and/or submissive, I'll just ask to have it on, and it makes both myself and my Master feel a lot better. 

Manners Of Speaking

It's normal for people in D/s relationships is for each to use names for each other, or at least for the submissive to have a title for the dominant. Master/Mistress, Sir/Ma'am,  Lord/Lady, etc, are often used, though the latter more in online communities. Another thing is for the submissive to be referred to by themselves or others in third person, or with their Master's name for them, or even just their gender. For example, a dominant may refer to their female submissive as 'girl', or a submissive pet may call themselves 'pet'. In some cases, the submissive may not be able to talk over a whisper, without permission, or to anyone other than their dominant, though these are often used as punishments as well. 

Spontaneousness 

A good thing to remind the submissive of their place in the relationship is random demands or requests, and when the submissive obeys their dominant, it's a nice reminder to the dominant of their place in the relationship as well. Even random light punishment if the submissive is acting out of place in general is well-suited.

Positioning

A common mistake is that to an outsider or beginner, when a dominant treats their submissive in an 'objectifying' way, it isn't really objectifying, but showing the submissive their place, and therefore giving them security. One way this is seen is when a dominant specifically positions their submissive for an activity. Some submissives have a specific way to kneel or sit for their dominant, some have specific spanking positions, or specific positions for punishments. These are reinforced by their dominant whenever the submissive does the position wrongly. Sometimes this seems like the submissive is being treated like an object, but they're just being trained. 

Training

There's always something new to learn in any relationship, and D/s is certainly no different. A good way to improve the relationship if it's getting a little drier, or just to amuse yourselves is to add a new training regime. If there's nothing that specifically needs doing, rearrange a system that doesn't work as well as it could. From something as simple as telling the submissive which direction to clean around the house (E.g, downstairs left to upstairs right, or bedrooms, then lounge, then bathrooms, etcetera.), to asking them to learn and prepare new recipes or learn a new skill. The training can also be strictly D/s, but that isn't nearly as fun, especially when the two can be combined. For example, if the submissive is learning a new skill, the dominant may instruct them to practice it for an hour a day. It could be that if they do so, they'll get a reward, or it could be that if they don't, they'll have some sort of punishment. A nice thing if you're using the punishment idea would be to slightly increase it each time it happens. (Obviously in a safe situation, giving a submissive an increased number of spankings for each time they don't will likely get tiring for both involved. A better idea would be to increase the unpleasantness of the task, say, start with spanking, then move up to doing unpleasant chores, then to some slight humiliation.. Depending on what the submissive likes, and on an agreed schedule. There's no use in if they miss it twice, going straight to the next level of punishment.) Dominants also need to remember with any form of training that there has to be exceptions for some situations. You can't expect the submissive to.. Say, practice panting if a family member is seriously wounded and needs attending or company. 

Leaving Strict Roles 

I've had someone ask me before, something like, "In your relationship, do you always stay in your D/s roles?" And while I consider myself full time, for the sake of my relationship having depth to it, I've never stayed strictly in my role for more than a few hours without resuming normal conversation or banter, or something just to break us both out of that regime. It isn't that we aren't still in those roles, it's just neither of us feel as though we need to stress our positions because by not needing to, we both know that the other is happy and mentally secure in their role. That isn't to say there's anything wrong with not being entirely secure in it, sometimes I enjoy just laying there and talking about the relationship roles for hours, or I ask my dominant to do something to remind me of my place. I remember when I told the person who asked the earlier question the answer, they were extremely relieved about it. 

Affection

There's a misconception that D/s relationships are less affectionate than 'vanilla' relationships, but for this, we really need to remember that all couples in all different types of relationships There are some of both that have very limited affection, and others that are in danger of breaking the law with the amount of PDAs that happen between them.