talented brilliant satirical sexy real & oh so deliciously fashionable

the latest masterpiece:



if you're not identifying yet



proof she's got the legit skills



and she blows you away with how rad she is as an actual person



and the best live show I've seen in quite some time

Lady Gaga - New Music - More Music Videos

“I always loved rock and pop and theater. When I discovered Queen and David Bowie is when it really came together for me and I realized I could do all three,” says Gaga, who nicked her name from Queen’s song “Radio Gaga” and who cites rock star girlfriends, Peggy Bundy, and Donatella Versace as her fashion icons. “I look at those artists as icons in art. It’s not just about the music. It’s about the performance, the attitude, the look; it’s everything. And, that is where I live as an artist and that is what I want to accomplish.”

“My goal as an artist is to funnel a pop record to a world in a very interesting way,” says Gaga, who wrote all of her lyrics, all of her melodies, and played most of the synth work on her album, The Fame (Streamline/KonLive/Cherrytree/Interscope). “I almost want to trick people into hanging with something that is really cool with a pop song. It’s almost like the spoonful of sugar and I’m the medicine.”

It’s been a while since a new pop artist has made her way in the music industry the old-fashioned/grass roots way by paying her dues with seedy club gigs and self-promotion. This is one rising pop star who hasn’t been plucked from a model casting call, born into a famous family, won a reality TV singing contest, or emerged from a teen cable TV sitcom. “I did this the way you are supposed to. I played every club in New York City and I bombed in every club and then killed it in every club and I found myself as an artist. I learned how to survive as an artist, get real, and how to fail and then figure out who I was as singer and performer. And, I worked hard.”

The Hero of this Halloween

is officially Heidi Klum



as Kali





















with hubby Seal































Amazing.

I'm going into therapy

Because I want to be a therapist. So I'd better darn well be familiar with the process and have some empathy for those on the other end of things. And the most respected areas of the field pretty much expect that you receive therapy yourself as a lifelong endeavor.

Because I believe in therapy. I think the majority of the world's problems would be solved if everyone got over their bullshit egos thinking that you only get "help" if something's "wrong" with you and you can't "take care of yourself." Because one of my favorite quotes is

"Every single person has at least one secret that would break your heart. If we could just remember this, I think there would be a lot more compassion and tolerance in the world."
— Frank Warren

Because sometimes I forget that I'm not normal. Because I had help to get through it and I ended up ok and I feel like I should fit in with the world. But most people did not lose one of their parents when they were fourteen. And that stays with you forever. Every loss does. But I have been thinking about the concept of being an orphan lately. About how Harry Potter is an orphan, about how he has automatic conflict and depth and never ending heartbreak because he will always always be the boy who feels the stinging deep ache of his parents' absence. But there is no word for being half an orphan. I think there should be. Because I think that feels appropriate, to find some way to pin down what I feel, what I am - I am half an orphan. I think I will always be damaged and I will always be missing something and I will always live in an entirely different world than people with both parents. At least people who got to graduate high school with both parents, who got to graduate college, who got to have their fathers walk them down the aisle, who got to have their parents meet their children.

But my therapist isn't going into all this yet. We're mostly talking about my sleeping habits and such so far. Which is fine. I know we have to "build the therapeutic relationship" and start on the easier things.

And I'm also going because I'm using the University's clinic that they use as a training tool for their students. So I get to pay $9 a session in exchange for a girl who is my age if not younger and who I don't think has ever been out in the world not in college. But that is ok. Because one day I will be her, and I will need understanding clients to learn on. And one day I will be able to afford therapy with someone older and wiser and strong enough to hold everything I have to share.

So this is my activism against the stigma of therapy, against the way the normal response is to laugh at it as only something "silly elitist self-centered people do" or shudder in disgust at even taking a look at the deeper issues or say, "well that's great for you but I can certainly take care of myself."

Because, guess what - I can take care of myself too. I even welcome it when people have the courage to ask me about my dad. It's not taboo, I'm glad you want to know. I can answer your questions appropriately and calmly. And I can function in the world like any human being. But I want more than functioning, I want more out of life, I want to take absolute thorough care of every crevice of my psyche, I want to ascend to new levels and I want to face my weaknesses.

If only the men who start the world's wars had the courage to do the same.

sappy poem

my love
how you satisfy
this existential chemical hunger

your scent your taste
quenches and soothes like cucumber
the faint complexity of nature manifested so clear and clean

your touch so intoxicating
like cinnamon
fiery, tingling and richly effortlessly perfect

your love washes over me
filling every spiritual need, binding to every receptor, overwhelming and surprising
like creamy vanilla, sweet and indulgent

in the past I had believed that my primary challenge would be
to make peace
with the hunger

but apparently it has become
to strive for the unattainably appropriate amount of gratitude
for such endless satiety

Thank You Glamour

For allowing me to emerge from having read an article in a fashion magazine without suddenly finding myself drowning in a pool of obsessions on the 63 physical flaws I need to get back to feeling self-conscious about.

One interesting fact: the modeling industry considers a model to be in the "Plus Size" category if she is over a size 6. That is just nauseating. In contrast, the highest selling size is 14. I am about a 10 on bottom and a 6 or 8 on top. I have never been thin, but I wouldn't say that I have to shop in the especially demeaning "Plus Size" departments either.

I think that Kate Harding on Jezebel sums it up best:

Truly accepting and supporting body diversity doesn't mean making assumptions about the health of size 0s or size 18s, 24s, 30s, what-have-you, and it definitely doesn't mean saying that women of some sizes shouldn't get clothes. (She also said earlier that "they shouldn't even make clothes" as small as size 0.) I understand that you don't want to be seen as supporting unhealthy or self-destructive behavior, but you can be against self-harm and pro-health without reinforcing the ideas that A) those who fail to maximize their own health potential to the greatest possible extent are less deserving than others, and B) there is a set range of "healthy" sizes — even if the one you would set is more generous than that of, say, most women's magazines — and anyone who falls outside it is suspect (see A).

But the Naked Fat Girl Extravaganza itself is still far from diverse by any reasonable standard. One woman of color, one maybe size 16, and a bunch of women who are conventionally beautiful and traditionally feminine-looking, despite being, you know, somewhere around the size of the average American woman (only much taller). As I said before, it's a good effort, and I'm going to go buy the issue to show my support. But let's not kid ourselves — this isn't a revolution. Yet.

Tantra for Dummies

broken down in this gorgeous article in the most beautiful way I've ever seen described

if you are interested in:
psychology
sex
orgasm
monogamy
physiology
spirituality

then I think you should check it out.
I have read the Neo-Daoist books she is critical of
and accidentally stumbled upon making love the Karezza way she describes
and I must say I recommend giving it a read

Gender Bending

For those of you that don't know, I'm involved with a volunteer group with the local Ecumenical Christian Ministries affiliated with campus (that does not require any profession of Christianity if Buddhists/Taoists/Agnostics/Wiccans/ect. also want to participate) called the Sexuality Education Committee (SEC). SEC seeks to educate students and anyone else interested in aspects of human sexuality that are not typically covered in any campus-offered classes. That is, we go beyond anatomy, STD prevention and "be safe" to hold events by local sex therapists, psychologists and other experts to discuss the deeper issues that sexually mature adults deal with. Right now we are holding "The Real Person's Guide To Human Sexuality," a 12-week free lecture/event series that presents on a different topic each Monday evening.

So, in honor of our first event last week, I wanted to write some on its topic: Transexuality.

To cover some of the basics - a person usually identifies as transgendered if they feel like their internal concept of their gendered self is different than the external expression of the sex of their body. Most transgendered persons report first having these feelings at a very young age, usually 3 to 10 years, although many do not come forward to others with these feelings until much older.

Some examples that you may recognize from the media:



Max, the Female to Male transgendered character on the Showtime show "The L Word," played by Daniela Sea

or



Katelynn, the recent cast member of The Real World: Brooklyn

or



Thomas, the "Pregnant Dad" who is a Female-to-Male transgendered person who assumed the external appearance of a man by taking hormones, but never did the surgery to change the female genitalia. Thomas was happily married to his wife, Nancy, but she was not able to conceive a child so they carried their baby in Thomas's perfectly healthy uterus.


Another topic relating to the oppression of the falsely black-and-white limitations on gender in our society is the persons who are born Intersex. The basic definition of a person born intersex is having "ambiguous gentaila". This quirk of biology can occur because when we are all developing fetuses we all start out as female, and then the determination of the sex depends upon whether or not the Y chromosome signals the tissue of the ovaries to descend into testicles and the clitoris to grow into a penis. However, growing a person is a very complex process with many opportunities for something to go wrong, and occasionally the thing that goes wrong is the genitalia development. Some of the many possibilities where the results don't fit the mold are when a person has a normal looking vulva on the outside, but instead of a uterus and ovaries has un-descended testes internally. The person could also end up with external genitalia that is somewhere between a large clitoris and a small penis. There are other variations, but you get the idea.

The latest media example of this is the runner Caster Semenya, who won a woman's race by quite a bit, and then was later discovered to not actually fit completely into the cut and dry XX category after all.

The tragic part of this issue is that, due to our society's inability to accept anyone who is not easily identifiable as completely male or completely female, doctors and parents often decide to surgically alter an infant's genitalia to look as close as they can get to one or the other. This decision is made before the person can voice their own wishes as to which gender they feel they are and would like to be assigned as, and also typically results in a significant loss of genital sensitivity. The surgery is purely for cosmetic purposes; the life or health of such individuals is not at risk. But they wouldn't match either mommy or daddy, which is not something many parents are willing to allow until the child can speak for itself.

Another interesting fact about gender:

Hormone levels have nothing to do with one's personal gender identity or sexual preferences in others. Studies were done to measure the testosterone levels of different men, some straight and some gay. And, in fact some of the highest levels of testosterone were found in the men who most strongly identified as homosexual. In addition, genetic females who take testosterone do not report a changing of their identity or preferences, but they do experience a significant increase in libido - it's just the same version of the libido as before.

And, finally, the inspiration for today's post (in addition to the event last week, perhaps "catalyst" is a better word):

My new discovery on MySpace today - Jeffree Star








From Jeffree's MySpace bio:

The appearance of my own body is cut and dissected every time I breathe. My horror of beauty is not when I’m laying naked on the bathroom floor, but when I’m staring at myself, wondering what’s underneath the painted-on feelings and made-up eyes. I’m not a fucking beauty queen. When I walk into the bathroom, I’m not getting pretty.. I’m destroying myself. Repairing myself from the damage I’ve done. Whether YOU like it or NOT. The ceiling of fear crashes down on me when I pick up the latest fashion magazine and find that no one else looks like me. But what is ME? Where has the word "real" gone to? Maybe reality is blonde hair, plastic body parts, tan skin and porcelain teeth? I think it’s sweaty skin, smeared lipstick and a big mouth, being afraid of nothing and truly LOVING yourself without BEING someone else. The vanity sanctuary will keep me safe and you can try to break me down but you’re only hurting yourself, just like you’re supposed to be doing.

I want out of the labels. I don't want my whole life crammed into a single word. A story. I want to find something else, unknowable, some place to be that's not on the map. A real adventure. A sphinx. A mystery. A blank. Unknown. Undefined.

The only way to find true happiness is to risk being completely cut open. Sure, everybody wants to play God, but for me it's a full-time job. What you don't understand, you can make mean anything.

What do you think? What does looking at Jeffree make you think about yourself and the world?

For further reading: Between XX and XY: Intersexuality and the Myth of Two Sexes by Gerald N. Callahan PhD


Post Script:
Another fact I learned at tonight's Domestic Violence presentation: the number one public health risk facing transexuals is murder. Please go forth and spread love and acceptance and knowledge and wisdom.

where are you on the spectrum?

Your result for The Sexuality Spectrum Test...

Bi/Slightly Straight

You scored 5 (-52 being completely gay, 0 being bisexual, and 52 being completely straight)

For the most part, you are bisexual. You have a slight preference for the opposite sex, but either sex would suit you. If you are sexually inexperienced, it is possible that this will change after you do some experimenting.

Take The Sexuality Spectrum Test at HelloQuizzy

This quiz was not especially sophisticated but it did the job.

I think that this clip explains how I feel best. Her character is a lesbian explaining her preferences. And as celebrities and situations go, I can most definitely identify with the famous-for-being-more-curvy-than-hollywood-typically-allows gorgeous Ms. Lopez displaying her mastery of yoga while presenting a flawless argument.



And as far as bisexuality - well who knows for me. I'm too busy being monogamous right now to figure out how far I would enjoy things to go with a woman. My suspicions are thus: A) I'm picky. There are a lot of people that don't do it enough for me to want to let anything at all happen. When you transfer that pickyness down to the much smaller pool of possibilities containing women that dig women, the occurrences become rare. But they have happened. But those special ones were either not interested in women, already in a relationship, or not attracted to me at the same time. Or I was in a relationship. And B) I don't pursue. I like to be pursued. I will make myself accessible and start a conversation, but beyond that if someone does not act interested I do not push the issue. Perhaps it is my ego protecting itself, perhaps it is my ego just wanting to be stroked with attention, or perhaps it is my first test for anyone interested - I need you to want me enough to make something happen. And with guys, this works fine. I am good at attracting the ones I want usually, and they are good at being transparent enough for me to tell they are interested enough to feel safe.
But I lack the skills with women. They make me all nervous and flustered. Because there is not only the wondering if they are into me to think of with guys, but there is the wondering if they are into girls at all. And the fact that I'm usually pretty feminine and don't project all kinds of "butch ladies should come hit on me" vibes. And then some hot guy comes over and picks me up and I get all wrapped up in a monogamous relationship with him for a few years... and so yeah.
On my last trip to Colorado I met two amazing women I would so cuddle up with and make out with for a good while. A gorgeous effervescent buddhist psych grad student in boulder who talked to me openly and excitedly about our sex lives and adopting children all within the first 5 minutes of having met. And an amazing burlesque dancer who studied ballet all her life until she got injured and was the best performer of the night (or perhaps equal with my other amazing dancer friend in the show) who I had a lot in common with and also opened up to me very quickly and was a damn sexy burlesque dancer with the most creative costume and quite perfect breasts.
But she had a husband and the first had a boyfriend. And I've got one of those too, who I kind of want to be my husband.

As the first woman I've ever wanted to make love to said so well:

And you'll never know dear
Just how much I loved you
You probably think this was just my big excuse
But I stand committed
To a love that came before you
And the fact that I adore you
Is just one of my truths

And I guess that this is the price we pay
for the privilege of living for even a day
in a world with so many things worth believing in

some thoughts on one of the intersections of physicality & spirituality

From the introduction of Mark Bittman's Food Matters:

Two years ago, a report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) landed on my desk. Called Livestock's Long Shadow, it revealed a stunning statistic: global livestock production is responsible for about one-fifth of all greenhouse gases - more than transportation.

This was a signal moment for me, coming along with some personal health problems, an overall gloomy global outlook, and an increasing concern with animal products in general-the quality of meat, the endangerment of wild fish, the way domestic animals are raised, and the impact of our diet has had on the environment. Never before had I realized issues of personal and global health intersected so exquisitely. The destiny of the human race and that of the planet lay in our hands and in the choices-as individuals and as a society-that we made.

And, same topic from a different angle, this is the chapter Spiritual Correctness from Cheri Huber's Trying to Be Human: Zen Talks

Spiritual Correctness

Discussions of harmlessness often lead to questions like, where do you draw the line about what life forms you do and do not kill?

Within myself, it is not necessary to draw any lines, because I am always responding to an internal sense of how something feels to me. Obviously I eat. People will ask me, "What about a carrot? Don't you think a carrot feels?"

Maybe it does. However, looking into the eyes of a carrot and looking into the eyes of a cow, I have a very different experience, such that right now I am going to eat the carrot, and I am not going to eat the cow. I would ask people who can eat cows with no difficulty to spend a little time looking in the eyes of a cow and see if it seems like there is anybody home there.

It is not compassionate to this creature (pointing to self) not to eat anything at all - nor would it be compassionate to force myself to eat the cow.

People argue that because the nervous system of a mosquito is not developed to the point that it can understand itself as a seperate being, it's okay to kill them. When I look at a mosquito though, I clearly see that it is alive, and it is going about its life. Just because I cannot see into its eyes does not mean it doesn't have eyes, it just means my seeing is too gross. Why should the mosquito pay with its life for the limitations of my perception?

It is also argued that if you are three times removed from the killing of a creature, it's okay to eat it. That means if somebody kills it and somebody else processes it and somebody else sells it, there is no harm in buying it and eating it. The word "rationalization" always springs to my mind when I hear that. Why would people go through the trouble to rationalize something like that if they did not in their heart suspect that it wasn't the thing to do?

I go so far as to not eat with people who are eating creatures. When this peculiarity of mine is mentioned, I am sometimes asked how I avoid offending people. The answer is, if I lived my life to avoid offending people, I'd be out of a job. But usually I am not in situations where this is a difficulty. I arrange it that way; I do not lead retreats where anything other than vegetarian food is served, because I cannot look at the flesh and not think about the creature.

I am not suggesting any "shoulds" based on a notion that not eating meat is the more spiritual thing to do. In fact, "the more spiritual thing to do" is an idea that is always interesting to question.

contemporary ballet partnering

is one of my favorite things in the whole world

excitement

yes, I think that the majority of my heading's themes are the basis of this show.

the simplest solution is usually the best one

the best article on abortion I have ever read

for your reading pleasure

brilliant brilliant

the latest episode of weeds


that blew me away

one cannot fully appreciate the references unless one has been following the show in its entirety. but shit I hope you kids have. they had me wondering what the fuck they were up to back when they had Nancy forgive the rapist mexican corrupt politician, but it has come full circle when she sees what he is here.

He reminds me of an ex boyfriend of mine, more of which is to come in a future blog that is still marinating in my brain juices for now.

the elevator scene is phenomenal

as well as Silas standing up as the anti-rape role model

and Shane jumping out as the bad ass

And Andy speaking the truth

and the brotherly camaraderie between two siblings who are both becoming adults and reconciling the situation of what has happened since their dad died.

which I also have more to say about, in an upcoming blog.

hope you ejoy

an excellent article on male vs. female birth control

can be found by clicking here

we modern dancers already know barefoot is better

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Christopher McDougall
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Reasons like this are exactly why I would much rather focus on finding the "cause" of cancer than on raising money for the "cure" for cancer - or other serious health issues. We have proof that is lifestyle based. But focusing on the "cause" would require companies to stop putting chemicals in our products and us to drive fewer cars and to make a collective change. Finding the "cure" would make drug companies a fuck ton of money and keep the medical/health/wellness status quo exactly as it is. So I won't participate in your fundraiser race. But I will spread information like this about lifestyle options that are proven to lower one's risk of cancer (or other terminal lifelong diseases) and hope that my loved ones and I can apply them now.

on niceguyness

As someone who occasionally maintains a part time career and personal interests in being a wingwoman/love doctor/social commentator, I could not pass up the opportunity to share some ideas on the phenomenon known as "The Nice Guy." He is a peculiar, unavoidable facet of life that I have always known was there, and known something was wrong, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it or explain it as well as these lovely people already have. So to help you identify and understand, here are some sources:

Kate Harding at Salon

Shakesville

Feministe

Pandagon

XKCD

in defense of Twilight

Now I can't very well run a blog concerned with such themes as psychology and sexuality without touching on the biggest romantic pop culture phenomenon since... I don't even know. They've said the movie is the biggest romance since Titanic, but Titanic didn't have a matching set of record-grossing novels to flesh it out. Twilight would be a phenomenon with or without the accompanying movie.
And Twilight is a phenomenon because of the love story. So let's talk about it.


The parameters for this discussion (yes I want you to join) are:

1.) Every point is only in reference to the book, not the movie. The movie stays true to the plot, but, like all book based movies, it of course misses the multitudes of details and subtleties and inner monologues and subplots that give the full sense of character and motivation.

2.) This "defense" is vaguely in response to the general Twilight backlash, but specifically in response to the Salon.com article by Laura Miller which criticizes the books. I love Salon and almost always agree with their reviews, but I had to beg to differ on this one.

3.) The books are categorized as Young Adult. Young Adult romance. They are therefore written at a teenage level, and the main subject is romance. Any criticism of the books that wishes they were simply written at a higher level or were not so full of romance I consider null and void because that's what they are.

4.) This discussion is led by a fiercely feminist well-read and well-educated degree holding financially independent 25 year old who is very happy in a stable and promising 2 year relationship. I am also not a stranger to pop vampire lore. I have read the original Bram Stoker's Dracula, I have read every Anne Rice book, I own all 7 seasons of Buffy. Adore them all.

5.) I have thus far read the first two books, Twilight and New Moon. I suspect I will finish the last two within the week, but the article mainly references the first two so I can make all the points I need to defending with as much as I have read thus far.

ok, here we go,

Laura Miller's main point seems to be that the books "summon a world in which love is passionate, yet (relatively) chaste, girls need be nothing more than fetchingly vulnerable, and masterful men can be depended upon to protect and worship them for it."

My main points are: yes, their love is passionate, isn't that what we all want? and what exactly is wrong with teenage love being chaste? And no, if you pay attention, Edward falls in love with Bella for many distinct reasons that have nothing to do with being "fetchingly vulnerable". Yes, he protects her, because they live in a magical world with powerful predators, hence the fantasy/adventure element of the book. And yes, he worships her, as much as she worships him. Because they're in love, duh!

So let's pick this apart a little bit deeper.

Miller compares Twilight's narrator, Bella, with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a teenage human who also falls in love with sexy vampire guys. However, Miller sees Buffy as a much more fitting role model because "Fulfilling her responsibilities as a slayer, loyalty to her friends and family, doing the right thing and cobbling together some semblance of a healthy life were all ultimately as important, if not more important, to her than getting the guy." Buffy's story has a 7 year arc, some of which focuses on her love life, some doesn't. But, again, I am going back to my initial parameter that Twilight is a Romance. A romance that has some vampire/werewolf/fast car action thrown in there. Buffy is an action/adventure, that sometimes has some romance. And are we really going to argue that Buffy's relationships with men are so much more healthy than Bella's? If we were to hear her inner monologue in the same way we hear Bella's during Buffy's fall for Angel, I doubt it would sound much different. Spike was even more of an addiction than Edward, although for different reasons.

But Miller is right, Bella is no Buffy Summers. Nor is she intended to be. Yes, Buffy is a hero and a role model. But, is a Buffy-like role model the only good kind? Because I will never be Buffy. I will never be the chosen one, the one woman who has super powers, who does not have to fear the physical strength of any kind of predator, who has no need of a protector. Unfortunately, I am just a human girl. So is a work of fiction that explores the idea of someone with no more super powers than I, who dates a vampire - someone who is very different, and very super-powered - necessarily anti-feminist? I don't think so. Bella is no Buffy, but she is a lot like Xander. Xander is the one member of the Buffy cast that never developed any super powers, yet somehow still had value. All of his super-power peers still wanted him in their group, much as the Cullens accepted Bella into their family. And Xander's shining moment, at arguably the climax of the series, is when he bravely faces seemingly certain death to save his friend (and the world). By telling her he loves her.

So Bella can't kickbox like Buffy can. Well neither can I. But Bella does repeatedly risk her life in order to save others, at the climax of each of the first two books. What is so wrong with having a protagonist that is not an action hero? Do females have nothing of value if they can't perfectly imitate traditionally masculine skills like Buffy and Xena? Is there no other way to be an equal with someone other than to be able to take them in a fight? (Because, for most of us, hand to hand combat skills will never be relevant.)


Miller next criticises Bella's reaction to Edward leaving her, highlighting Bella's weakness in taking the loss so hard, feeling empty and seeking out risky behavior for the adrenaline rush and the hallucination's of Edward's voice. So maybe that's not what Psychology Today would recommend. But that's sure as hell how I handle devastating breakups, of which I have had a few. The narration of that period of Bella's life is so engaging because that's how it feels. Meyer's goal isn't to show how Bella is amazing and perfect, her goal is to illustrate a realistic 18 year old girl who just had her heart ripped out. And how did Buffy handle it after she had to kill Angel? Oh yeah, she left all of her friends and family for three months with absolutely no word of where she went or when she is coming back, waitressing in the inner city, having taken up a different name and living as a depressed shell of herself. That's so much better than Bella wanting to ride a big bad motorcycle.
And Edward is the first to admit that he couldn't function even as well as she could when they were apart, he had an even harder time maintaining the will to live. Because, as Stephenie Meyer freely states, New Moon is based on Romeo & Juliet. Passionate teenagers in love who would rather die than live without each other. So if you have a problem with Edward and Bella's way of handling their relationship, take it up with Shakespeare.


Miller's next criticism I think comes from an inaccurate analysis of the narrative style: "Otherwise directionless and unsure of herself, Bella's only distinguishing trait is her clumsiness, about which she makes frequent self-deprecating jokes. But Bella is not really the point of the Twilight series; she's more of a place holder than a character. She is purposely made as featureless and ordinary as possible in order to render her a vacant, flexible skin into which the reader can insert herself and thereby vicariously enjoy Edward's chilly charms."

I disagree. The reader is not bombarded by Bella's positive attributes because Bella is the narrator. She is a somewhat insecure 17/18 year old girl. Hate to break it to you, but a lot of us girls at that age do feel like we're the clumsiest person ever, who no gorgeous boy would ever want and we are not quick to pick up on exactly why other people value us. So the author succeeds at getting you inside Bella's head, and you see the world as Bella sees it, but not necessarily as it is, as the careful reader will notice. Edward does in fact shed light on what he loves about Bella, none of which makes any mention of her being merely "fetchingly vulnerable".

The things "the careful reader" (you know, myself) notices that Edward loves about Bella (not in any order):

1.) The fact that he can't read her mind. In fact, Bella does have a superpower. It is her immunity to all vampire superpowers. Edward can read everyone's mind but hers. The big scary vampires in Europe also are unable to work their mojo on her.
And, as you may guess, it would be kinda hard to engage in a romantic relationship where one person can read the mind of another. That is, in my opinion, a big part of why Edward hasn't had any romance in his 80ish years pre-Bella. She is, in a lot of ways, the only one that can be his equal because of this.

2.) Yet it's like they can read each other's mind anyway. They have chemistry, they are in tune with each other, they read each other's body language and understand each other. They can have a conversation and feel like they are on the same page, when they are surrounded by a world where it feels like no one else is. One of his telling statements was, "I love you because you see through my pretenses." This is what we all want, someone to see through our bullshit to what we really mean and respond how we need underneath it all. She does that for him.

3.) She is, although unnoticed by Laura Miller, kinda fucking smart. The books make frequent reference to how easy school is to her, how in Biology class Edward is impressed by how she breezes through the labs, and she can maintain straight A's even during her months of heartbroken torment. The building climax of Twilight is a bunch of frantic Cullens trying to figure out how to keep Bella and her father safe from the bad vampire, James. But despite their supposed experience and expertise in dealing with vampires, it is Bella's plan that they decide to go with again and again, as they each state, "wow, what a good idea."


Other signs that Bella's self-depricating narrative does not always paint the most accurate picture of what is really going on in Twilight-land are other character's views of her. Most memorably is Edward's brother Emmett's assurance that he knows that Bella is in fact worth all of the trouble and danger the family is risking to protect her. She doesn't think she's worth it. "I know you don't see it, but you are," he says with confidence after only knowing her for a few days, but already understanding what she means to his brother.

Miller misunderstands Bella's own self-doubting view of the world to be the absolute truth to the Twilight universe, instead of a known bias that the reader understandably filters the information through to know that Bella does have worth to all of these characters, and it is not because she is fetchingly vulnerable.


Miller then moves on to her distaste with Bella's repeated adoration of Edward, especially his physical form, to which I reply again: it's a romance!! That is in fact how it feels to be in love, that sometimes you just feel giddy and/or drunk looking at your gorgeous lover.

She also insists that no man would ever profess his love to a woman the way Edward does to Bella unless he were trying to manipulate her into having sex with him. And I must disagree. While I can't claim to have had experience with quite that level of Romeo-and-Juliet-suicidal love - yeah, when a man is really in love, he will say things like that. When he is with a woman he knows he wants to build a life with, who he is hopelessly attracted to, he will tell her so. In private. And not out of coercion. Perhaps Ms. Miller has yet to experience this, or perhaps her lovers just express themselves in different ways.
Given, that for a man to feel that way is rare. It doesn't happen on a first date, and it doesn't happen in ways that others can always pick up on.
But I will say this: So Edward is the fantasy, the perfect boyfriend. His character doesn't make me feel like I will always be disappointed in men because they can't be like him. He makes me realize that my boyfriend makes me feel the same way Edward makes Bella feel. My life doesn't involve frequent life-or-death situations like Bella's, so I don't need quite such an adventure-flavored brand of lover. But I have everything that I do need. I have a lover just as attentive, who makes me feel just as wanted and just as secure. So if women and girls are reading Twilight and wanting that kind of a relationship, I am not going to stomp my feminist boots all over those standards.


Now onto Miller's criticism of the sex, and lack thereof. "Edward he refuses to consummate his love for Bella because he's afraid he might accidentally harm her. As a result, their time together is spent in protracted courtship: make-out sessions and sweet nothings galore, every shy girl's dream." Now it's no secret that the author is Mormon, and we all easily connect her traditional faith to the fact that her characters aren't having all kinds of irresponsible sex. And what the hell is wrong with that? So yes, let's interprit Edward's extreme self-control to not only not drink Bella's blood, but to not have sex with her because his crazy inhuman strength might get out of control in the heat of the moment as a thinly veiled metaphor for how a normal man could have self control to not try to have sex with a girl because hey, in real life there are probably sucky consequences in store for her with regular sex as well. And what is so wrong with that? Is it something to make fun of that women might be attracted to a character that shows restraint to not give into his physical urges while around his girlfriend because he is keeping her best interests in mind?
And then Miller mistakenly presumes that this is just what Bella wants, "every shy girl's dream," when in fact Bella is frustrated by the situation, and gets caught up in her own passion when she kisses him and does not especially love it when he stops her.

And yes, the Twilight books are addicting. But it's not the only book I've felt that way about. And lots of other things are addicting. TV is addicting, internet is addicting, porn is addicting. I don't take that as a valid criticism.

Miller brings up again and again that one of Bella's main attractions to Edward must be the fact that he is rich, again highlighting how they are not equals. While yes, Bella appreciates the quality of the Cullen's fine things, their house and cars and clothing, she does not linger on them. She notices their beauty as any of us would. But she refuses to let Edward spend money on her. He repeatedly offers to buy her a car, pay for her college tuition, and she refuses it all. She works at a local sporting goods store, makes her own money, handles it well enough to have a decent savings that she has to pull out from time to time. She does not want him for his money.

So the Cullens are beautiful and rich. That is Vampire lore. So was Angel, so was Lestat, so was Dracula (in some of his incarnations). It is a given with that much power and that much time, all vampires can accumulate as much wealth as they would need. It is part of why the legend keeps on circulating. It does not therefore render Bella a shallow person because she has happened to find a connection with one of them.


Twilight is a young adult romance. It's a fantasy. We wish we were Bella. And the boys who read fantasy wish they were Aragorn. But the modern capable feminist women would not suddenly hate ourselves if we became Bella and had her life. We would find a character a lot stronger, smarter, more capable and evenly matched to her lover than one can always tell from a first person account. The fans of the books know this and we do not put ourselves down or contradict our feminist ideals by enjoying the books. We enjoy the love story, and we are still happy with our boyfriends when we put it down.

concept

lately I've been thinking about an archetype reading I had done in Boulder about 5 years ago. they told me I fit the type of the Dark Mother - a rare identity whose place in this universe concerns motherhood, birth, death, destruction, sexuality and the unconscious. That is proving itself to fit more and more as the years go by - those are the areas where I feel I need to work, how I understand the world, what I think is important.

a bit o' research:


"The Dark Mother is the least honored archetype in our patriarchal world culture, and is therefore the most wounded. Here we have images of witch burnings, sex crimes and a culture of violent death. What we’re not taught through the System is that the Dark Mother represents the deepest, most intense expression of feminine power available to human experience. She is the descent into the unconscious depths, Ereshkigal in her Underworld domain – a domain present in each of us, though our Judeo/Christian heritage (as well as most other dominant religious systems) stresses a “heaven” realm somewhere up in the skies, the opposite of the depths. We are taught to fear and ignore the “queendom” of dreams, which is our window into the unconscious. Without a conscious awareness of what our dreams tell us, we are cut off from half our life-source. Dreams show a natural unfoldment that ascends and descends, just as our waking lives do. Up is not better or worse than down, but our anti-Dark Mother belief system paints the descent (labeled “depression”) as something to be medicated, controlled and denied. The Dark Mother is the power of sexuality and deep, watery emotion, her penetrating eyes looking behind superficial appearances for the deeper meaning of existence. If denied, her transformative nature will manifest regardless, and the experience may be unpleasant (the Dark Mother appears physically in the genitals, reproductive system, elimination organs and blood). However, if accepted, this Kali force offers complete transformation and access to our truest purpose, and therefore helps us to write with more depth and power. "

"Kali's fierce form is strewed with awesome symbols. Her black complexion symbolizes her all-embracing and transcendental nature. Says the Mahanirvana Tantra: "Just as all colors disappear in black, so all names and forms disappear in her". Her nudity is primeval, fundamental, and transparent like Nature — the earth, sea, and sky. Kali is free from the illusory covering, for she is beyond the all maya or "false consciousness." Kali's garland of fifty human heads that stands for the fifty letters in the Sanskrit alphabet, symbolizes infinite knowledge.

Her girdle of severed human hands signifies work and liberation from the cycle of karma. Her white teeth show her inner purity, and her red lolling tongue indicates her omnivorous nature — "her indiscriminate enjoyment of all the world's 'flavors'." Her sword is the destroyer of false consciousness and the eight bonds that bind us.

Her three eyes represent past, present, and future, — the three modes of time — an attribute that lies in the very name Kali ('Kala' in Sanskrit means time). The eminent translator of Tantrik texts, Sir John Woodroffe in Garland of Letters, writes, "Kali is so called because She devours Kala (Time) and then resumes Her own dark formlessness."

Kali's proximity to cremation grounds where the five elements or "Pancha Mahabhuta" come together, and all worldly attachments are absolved, again point to the cycle of birth and death. The reclined Shiva lying prostrate under the feet of Kali suggests that without the power of Kali (Shakti), Shiva is inert."

"In terms of Jungian archetypes, the Dark Mother archetype is depicted in astrology as Scorpio and Pluto. In the Tarot she is Death, the Prince of Cups, and has a presence is several other cards. In mythology she is Queen of the Underworld, the Sex Goddess, the mysterious, exotic, forbidden female whose power is a threat to the male notion of dominance. She is death/rebirth, depth transformation, sexuality (including wounds associated with incest and other abuse), profound intuition, and watery emotion. Within the current 5000-year Wounded Patriarchy, she is the most wounded archetype: the witch burning at the stake, and subjugated woman, the disempowered prostitute."










A prominent feminist's description of a fellow gemini:

"Her persona hits an unprecedented level of global resonance — and makes women want to be with her and be her at the same time — because she has created a life narrative that is not just personal. Rather, it is archetypal. And the archetype is one that really, for the first time in modern culture, brings together almost every aspect of female empowerment and liberation."



— Naomi Wolf in Harper's Bazaar on why so many women find Angelina Jolie intriguing, beyond the fact of her beauty. Jolie, Wolf argues, is proof on some level that women can have it all. She’s a mother, a sex symbol, a humanitarian, and has been in both conventional and unconventional relationships. Finally, she seems unapologetic and has yet to be “punished” for her experiments as the stars of the past were.














theme of the blog is now set.