This guy needs to learn the term "slashers"

From the New York Post (emphasis mine):

Guy Ritchie’s plan to put a gay spin on the relationship of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in his new movie about the detective and his sidekick could backfire.

Robert Downey Jr, who plays Holmes, has revealed the crimebuster will sleep with and have sweaty grappling scenes with Watson, played by Jude Law, in “Sherlock Holmes,” due out Christmas Day.

“We’re two men who happen to be roommates, wrestle a lot and share a bed. It’s bad-ass,” Downey told Britain’s News of the World. Added much-in-the-news Law: “Guy wanted to make this about the relationship between Watson and Holmes. They’re both mean and complicated.”

But Michael Medved, a former Post movie critic, says Downey and Law must be joking. “There’s not a seething, bubbling hunger to see straight stars impersonating homosexuals,” Medved told us. “I think they’re just trying to generate controversy . . . They know that making Holmes and Watson homosexual will take away two-thirds of their box office. Who is going to want to see Downey Jr. and Law make out? I don’t think it would be appealing to women. Straight men don’t want to see it.

…

*raises hand*

This man has clearly never talked to a straight woman who wasn’t a fundamentalist or an uber-conservative. Are you shitting me? When I saw the trailer for Sherlock Holmes I flailed with girlish glee, which honestly doesn’t happen too often. But a Sherlock Holmes movie? With Robert Downey Jr.? And Jude Law? Dressed in period clothing? Bickering like an old married couple with homoerotic undertones? Fuck yeah, eye candy. I’ll happily shell out eight bucks for that.

If you could assure me Downey Jr. and Jude Law would make out, first I would cry tears of joy, then I would probably go back multiple times. As would a very large number of women (proof? go read the comments on this LJ thread). We’re the people who saw Brokeback Mountain for teh gay (actually didn’t like it, but that’s because I went for the gay, and I usually hate those kinds of movies). We’re the people who shat bricks of pure bliss when Harry Potter Book 6 essentially made Harry/Draco canon. We’re 95% of the people who read and write slash (homosexual) fanfiction – the straight gals, not the gay guys. We are more than enough to make up for the homophobes that would be scared away.

I highly doubt the movie will have anything more than homoerotic subtext, but that’s fine by me. Imagining what’s really happening it half the fun anyway. And if it wasn’t nearly 3 am, I’d have some insightful comment as to why straight women love homoeroticism, and how this mirrors men’s stereotypical love of lesbians. But it is 3 am, so I’ll just leave it at this:

Bow chicka wow wow

Catholic Priest by day, techno singing Drag Queen by night

This is pretty much the best thing ever (from The Freethinker):

“THERE is much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Roman Catholic circles in the US over the recent revelation that a Catholic priest, Father Anthony (aka Vincent Capretta), is a drag queen who performs as Big Mama Capretta.

Drag queen and priest Father Anthony

Not only that, the gay priest, from Columbus, Ohio, has a single that is currently No 25 on Billboard’s Club Play dance chart called “Big Mama’s House.”

Said Capretta:

It’s Big Mama, y’all! And I am no longer afraid to come out of the closet as a gay Catholic priest! … I am enjoying my life being who I am and who God intended me to be! Now let’s dance, y’all!”

Apparently Catholic Online is in a tizzy about this story, no surprise there. They’re saying he’s not a real Roman Catholic – he’s part of the Old Independent Catholic Church – so it doesn’t count at the Catholic church endorsing gay rights. Because that would be a horrible, horrible thing. Uh, okay. I actually think the world would be a better place with more drag queens, but we all know I’m a little strange.

Here’s the video for his song, for those of you who are interested:

(Thanks to Grant for the tip)

This is post 6 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Kiss-In Protests Mormon Bigotry

A couple days ago Pharyngula covered a story about two men who shared a kiss outside of the Mormon’s headquarters in Utah. Security guards detained the men because the formerly public plaza is now property of the LDS church, and apparently gay kissing is considered to be “offensive, indecent, obscene, lewd or disorderly speech, dress or conduct.”

First of, fuck you, LDS church.

Ahem. Thankfully there are a bunch of awesome gay people in Salt Lake City, and they decided to hold a peaceful kiss-in on the square:

This kind of stuff needs to happen every time gay rights takes a hit somewhere. It’s peaceful and shows that gays are normal, loving couples just like heterosexual couples. I don’t want to live in a world where it’s not cool for a gay couple to kiss in a bar, but then I have to watch a straight couple basically having sex at their table.

And yes, I guess the plaza is private property now. And even though the LDS church promised this sort of stuff wouldn’t happen, that isn’t legally binding and they can theoretically do whatever they want. But you know what, whatever tiny modicum of respect I had for the LDS church completely went out the window when they fucked over California with their ridiculous funding of Prop 8. So screw you, Mormon bigots. I hope gays make out in front of all of your temples every day until you wise up.

*end rant*

(Video via Womanist Musings)

Q&A – Why Blag Hag?

“Query – Why ‘Blag Hag’? It is not the most flattering of pseudonyms. It does have tremendous rememberability (is that a word?) value though.

– Jeff”

I’ve been waiting for someone to ask me this! Like other internet nicknames I’ve chosen for myself, this just kind of sprung to life out of a joke. I had wanted to start a blog for a while, but I was agonizing over what to call it. I hate giving things titles. Whenever I had to name a piece of art or short story, I’d generally go with something minimalistic and obvious like “Cat” or “Bowl of Fruit” just because otherwise I’d suffer over it for days. But I think a name can make or break a blog, so I was fretting over it more than usual. I started brainstorming with a good friend of mine who happens to be gay (I promise this is relevant), hoping something would pop up.

Him: Hmm, well how about a pun?
Me: Ehh, I dunno, like what?
Him: Well my [now very defunct] blog is called “Honest to Blog.”
Me: Hmmm…
Him: How about “In Blog We Trust?”
Me: What am I, your blag hag? … *lightbulb goes on*

So yes, the name of this blog is based on a random joke about being another blog’s fag hag. For those of you who don’t think “blag” is a legitimate synonym for “blog”, I direct you to this and this. xkcd knows all. As for not being flattering, I’ve always used the term fag hag with a bit of pride rather than as an insult. And you know what? Recent research has shown that “fag hags” (aka women who associate with gay men) actually have higher body esteem and feel more attractive! So there!

And anyway, “Blag Hag” is better than the nickname I use on most sites, “Jennifurret.” That’s from a friend pointing out that Jennifer and Furret made Jennifurret. Yes, my internet nickname is based on a Pokemon. For shame. Hey, I was 13 and it stuck. At least it’s a cute one.

Same-sex couples and immigration

While we’re celebrating the victories for gay marriage in Maine and New Hampshire, I wanted to point out another big gay rights issue that you may not know as much: same-sex couples and immigration rights. An American straight woman can marry a foreign straight man and sponsor him for a green card, but gay couples cannot. If you happen to fall in love with a foreigner, they’ll struggle to stay in the US, frequently be sent back to their own country, and possibly lose the ability to reenter if they go home for a dying relative or some other sort of emergency. CNN has a great article describing the problem here that includes some really touching stories from gay couples.

After 9 years of being ignored, the Uniting American Families Act, which hopes to solve this problem, is finally getting some time in the Senate:

“The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the bill for the first time Wednesday, after 10 previous attempts to have hearings on the Uniting American Families Act. The bill has 102 co-sponsors in the House and 17 co-sponsors in the Senate, including Judiciary Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council which opposes same sex marriage, has condemned the bill as “yet another attack on marriage at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.” “

Oh, you would say that, President of the Family Research Council, wouldn’t you? Because the number one goal of any organization with “Family” in the name is to ruin gay families. Blah. Anyway.

While I’ve always been a strong supporter of gay rights, this issue is especially important to me. My close British friend/coworker is stuck in this exact situation with his long term American partner. He’s been here a year and a half on a research visa, and after another year he’s going to be shipped back to England. He can’t go visit his family because he won’t be allowed back in the country, even if one of his parents became deathly ill. It’s horrible that this sort of inequality exists that would tear apart relationships (not to mention how idiotic it is to shoo away intelligent people with PhDs who want to be here…but that’s another issue).

You can help out by sending a letter to your representative urging them to support this bill – and if you want, there’s a nifty little form letter here. It only takes a second, and every little bit helps.

Not Cool, California

“California high courts upholds same-sex marriage ban”

California, I am very disappointed in you. You’ve been moved to the list of “Very Uncool States.” Yeah, I’m grouping you with the likes of Alabama and Arkansas now. How does that feel?

Sigh. At least they’re letting all the marriages performed before Prop 8 remian. I can’t imagine how horrible it would be to tell someone “Nope, your marriage doesn’t count any more.” Probably only a little worse than “Nope, you’re love doesn’t count enough to get married.”

Grumble grumble.

Because two tiny triangles of fabric mark the line between sexy and slutty

Womanist Musings has a great summary of why the new development in the Miss California controversy sucks. If you desperately try to avoid tabloid style news, let me fill you in on what has happened. Miss California says she’s against gay marriage during the Miss USA pageant to Perez Hilton, of all people. She loses, scandal ensues saying she lost because of her views, yadda yadda. Miss C claims she’s just a good Christian girls with strong morals and all that jazz. Photos are released of a topless Miss C that she took when she was trying to become a Victoria’s secret model. Both sides freak out. Conservative pageant people are pissed because you’re not allowed to have any nude or semi-nude photographs. Liberal people are gleefully chuckling at her hypocrisy and are glad she’ll probably lose her title.

…

There is so much Wrong floating around that I don’t even know where to start. Pageants are such patriarchal stereotypical sexist bullshit to begin with that ranting about them is a waste of time, but one thing really bugs me. Let’s compare the two photos, shall we?

What the hell is the big flipping difference here? It’s okay for girls to parade around in skimpy bikinis so we can judge them on their sex appeal, but remove two tiny pieces of fabric and it instantly becomes slutty and bad? It’s not like the right photo is hard core porn (which still shouldn’t matter, but whatever, I have to fight the small battles first). I’d even say it’s a pretty tasteful nude if you removed all the Dirty watermarks. It really makes me wonder what’s going to happen when my generation is the politicians and businessmen of the world. There will probably be so many “scandalous” photos floating around that they won’t be scandalous anymore.

“Ms. President, another topless photo has surfaced. The elderly members of the press want a statement.”
“Oooh, I remember that one! That was some good tequila. Man, look how nice my boobs looked.”
“Uh, they’re great, Ms. President.”

But you know what, okay. She signed a contract saying she didn’t have any nude or semi-nude problems, and the pageant people get to make their own dumb rules. So fine, punish away. But to all the liberal people who think these rules are stupid and don’t have a problem with boobies, but are just glad to get revenge on a conservative girl…shame on you. She’s not the freaking Westboro Baptist Church. She said she doesn’t support gay marriage, not “all fags should die in a fire” or something. People say she’s a hypocrite because she’s claiming to have conservative values yet has posed topless…but seriously, so what? Why are liberals forcing anti-toplessness to be a conservative value? If we want people to stop freaking out about women’s boobs, we need to stop treating it like it matters. Why can’t we all be accepting of teh boobies?

Maybe I’m just a softie, but I don’t wish bad things upon people even if I fervently disagree with their political viewpoints. I also think boob scandals are about the most stupid thing ever (the Janet Jackson incident made my head nearly explode), so I just wish we’d stop making such a big deal out of them. Pro-boobs people unite!

Natural Sexuality

“Alright everybody, quiet down, we’re going to get started,” grumbled Lion. He glared at the menagerie in front of him, squawking and snorting away obliviously. “I SAID QUIET!” he roared. The crowd was silenced and turned wide-eyed to the speaker. “Ahem. Thank you. I’d like to welcome all of you to the second meeting of the Animal Association of Family Values. First off-“

“Wait a second,” piped Bear, “who the heck voted you king of the jungle?”

Tarsier rolled his eyes, which was quite spectacular and frightening to those around him. “Maybe if you weren’t hibernating through our last meeting…”

“Enough, enough,” grumbled Lion. Everything always took ten times longer at inter-species meetings. “Let’s just get down to business, shall we? The topic for today is humans – or Homo sapiens – and their-” he paused to sneer distastefully- “unnatural “heterosexual monogamy” business.”

“Oh come on,” whined Albatross, “are we still going on about that? There are plenty of examples of monogamy across the animal kingdom. 90% of birds are monogamous!”

Bear whispered under his breath, “Only 3% of mammals.”

Albatross huffed. “You mammalists! Really.”

“Oh come on, Albatross,” said Lion. “We all know that’s not entirely true. Only a tiny fraction of birds are actually sexually monogamous. You guys just can’t help getting some on the side. And wasn’t there even a new study that lesbian child rearing pairs are highly prevalent in Albatross?”

“…Maybe,” Albatross blushed, sinking back into the crowd.

“Anyway,” continued Lion, “it has become apparent to the Association that this human deviancy is out of control. It’s simply not natural compared to the mating habits of the rest of the animal kingdom. Well-” he corrected, feeling Albatross’s glare, “it’s not the majority at least. And we all know the most common habits are the best. And even if it is found in other animals, that doesn’t make it right! Look at how quickly they’re out breeding us! The resources they waste on frivolous wedding ceremonies! The anguish they cause themselves feeling like they’re forced to stay with their partner for a lifetime! Why, we’re doing them a favor to point out the error in their ways.”

Bear grumbled. “So what do you suggest we actually do about it?”

Lion stroked his mane proudly. He already saw this question coming. “Well, first we should define what exactly it is we find natural. That way the humans know how to act properly. For example, polygyny is the most common mating system in vertebrates. I have to mate with my many lionesses thousands of times a week, whether they like it or not. Humans? Once a week, maybe if they’re lucky, and with only one female!”

“Woah there,” piped Marmoset. “What about polyandry? Us girls are allowed multiple mates too!”

“Please,” huffed Dwarf Mongoose. “Why are we talking like everyone should get the chance to mate, anyway? Only the dominants should reproduce! I don’t even let my subordinate females ovulate!”

Bonobo grabbed Marmoset and Mongoose in a big hug. “Can’t we all just get along? I mean, we have sex regardless of gender to solve disputes! Doesn’t that sound great?”

Tarsier sneered. “Maybe if you hippies would have watched your cousin a little closer we wouldn’t be having this discussion!”

“Now, now,” muttered Lion, trying to regain order as it looked like Bonobo was about to burst into tears. “Maybe we shouldn’t just focus on mating systems. Like, what’s with all this step parenting business? They should kill all the previous cubs – er, children – when they start a relationship!”

“Ha!” laughed Praying Mantis. “Just kill the children? Why, the women should kill the male! What a good meal they’re missing out on, letting all that meat go to waste. They only need him for his sperm anyway! So illogical.”

Lion frowned nervously. “Well, I don’t know about that-“

“Pshh, why need men at all?” said Whiptail Lizard. “Parthenogenesis works perfectly fine for us!”

Tarsier rolled his eyes again. “Who invited the feminists?”

“Why is it always about females anyway?” piped Seahorse, floating in a small pool for the aquatic animals. The Animal Association of Family Values didn’t discriminate across taxa. “Males should be the ones who give birth! Female birth is just weird.”

“Yeah, but only if they keep their young on their back,” said Giant Water Bug.

“Or in their stomach,” croaked Platypus Frog, burping up a tadpole.

Fig Wasp buzzed excitedly around Lion’s head. “And why do humans have an age of consent? My sons will mate with my daughters before they’re even born!”

“Consent?” Mallard Duck looked around confused. “What’s that? You mean you don’t just go around raping your females?”

Beg Bug giggled excitedly. “I do. I’ll stab my junk through their abdomen if I have to! They call it “traumatic insemination,” but you know they’re just asking for it.”

“Hell, I don’t even care if they’re dead, I’ll still do ’em,” croaked Cane Toad. Many of the animals blanched.

“You’re all nuts!” cried Fungus in the back. “Why do you only have two sexes anyway? Why, some of my cousins have hundreds!”

“What the hell are you doing here, Fungus? You’re not even an animal!” snarled Lion.

“Animalists!” cried Fungus, and slowly oozed away.

“Look,” sighed Lion, exasperated at the animals’ squabbling. “Maybe we should put this off until next month’s meeting, when we’ve had more time to think about it. We can still agree that heterosexual monogamy is unnatural, right?”

“Right!”

“Alright. Let’s just leave it at that for now and move on to our next topic. So our boycott of Papa John’s is going well…”

Why don't astronauts float away on the moon? Heavy boots, of course!

If you’re not facepalming, you should review your introductory physics book. Either way, there’s an excellent summary about this particular question that really shows how little the average person understands basic scientific principles. Here’s the introduction:

“About 6-7 years ago, I was in a philosophy class at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (good science/engineering school) and the teaching assistant was explaining Descartes.

He was trying to show how things don’t always happen the way we think they will and explained that, while a pen always falls when you drop it on Earth, it would just float away if you let go of it on the Moon. My jaw dropped a little. I blurted “What?!” Looking around the room, I saw that only my friend Mark and one other student looked confused by the TA’s statement. The other 17 people just looked at me like “What’s your problem?” “But a pen would fall if you dropped it on the Moon, just more slowly.” I protested.

“No it wouldn’t.” the TA explained calmly, “because you’re too far away from the Earth’s gravity.” Think. Think. Aha! “You saw the APOLLO astronauts walking around on the Moon, didn’t you?”

I countered, “why didn’t they float away?”

“Because they were wearing heavy boots.” he responded, as if this made perfect sense (remember, this is a Philosophy TA who’s had plenty of logic classes).”

I had a similar experience when I was taking Sex, Gender, and Sexology my freshman year. It was a graduate level class offered through the Health and Kinesiology department. I’m pretty sure I was the only freshman foolish enough to take a grad level class, but it sounded so awesome that I couldn’t resist (and it was). I was also the only biologist in the class of 70 people – most people were in psychology, sociology, anthropology, or history.

We were talking about the possible biological causes of homosexuality, and our professor mentioned how there is probably a genetic component. One of the outspoken anthropology PhD students raised her hand.

“Well that’s obviously wrong,” she said. “A gene is either on or off, and we know people aren’t either straight or gay. There’s a continuum.”

A shot up my hand. “Um, that’s not how genetics works. You can have multiple genes effecting one trait, or different levels of regulation. That’s how you can get continuous traits like height or skin color. You’re not just tall or short.”

Her friend smiled and gave her the You Just Got Owned By a Freshman look.

Add this to my friend’s Anthropology TA who was convinced DNA was made up of proteins, and you can see why my opinion of Anthropology is a little shaky.

Why don’t astronauts float away on the moon? Heavy boots, of course!

If you’re not facepalming, you should review your introductory physics book. Either way, there’s an excellent summary about this particular question that really shows how little the average person understands basic scientific principles. Here’s the introduction:

“About 6-7 years ago, I was in a philosophy class at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (good science/engineering school) and the teaching assistant was explaining Descartes.

He was trying to show how things don’t always happen the way we think they will and explained that, while a pen always falls when you drop it on Earth, it would just float away if you let go of it on the Moon. My jaw dropped a little. I blurted “What?!” Looking around the room, I saw that only my friend Mark and one other student looked confused by the TA’s statement. The other 17 people just looked at me like “What’s your problem?” “But a pen would fall if you dropped it on the Moon, just more slowly.” I protested.

“No it wouldn’t.” the TA explained calmly, “because you’re too far away from the Earth’s gravity.” Think. Think. Aha! “You saw the APOLLO astronauts walking around on the Moon, didn’t you?”

I countered, “why didn’t they float away?”

“Because they were wearing heavy boots.” he responded, as if this made perfect sense (remember, this is a Philosophy TA who’s had plenty of logic classes).”

I had a similar experience when I was taking Sex, Gender, and Sexology my freshman year. It was a graduate level class offered through the Health and Kinesiology department. I’m pretty sure I was the only freshman foolish enough to take a grad level class, but it sounded so awesome that I couldn’t resist (and it was). I was also the only biologist in the class of 70 people – most people were in psychology, sociology, anthropology, or history.

We were talking about the possible biological causes of homosexuality, and our professor mentioned how there is probably a genetic component. One of the outspoken anthropology PhD students raised her hand.

“Well that’s obviously wrong,” she said. “A gene is either on or off, and we know people aren’t either straight or gay. There’s a continuum.”

A shot up my hand. “Um, that’s not how genetics works. You can have multiple genes effecting one trait, or different levels of regulation. That’s how you can get continuous traits like height or skin color. You’re not just tall or short.”

Her friend smiled and gave her the You Just Got Owned By a Freshman look.

Add this to my friend’s Anthropology TA who was convinced DNA was made up of proteins, and you can see why my opinion of Anthropology is a little shaky.