Saturday, November 6, 2010

Dressup [chat]

Halloween r 4 dressup.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Shatner: Fuck You

You would think this would get less funny over time...

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Colorado Amendment 62: Definition of a Person

This constitutional amendment would apply personhood — and all of its rights — from "the beginning of the biological development" of a human being.

Colorado Votes No on 62

Just thought you should know.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Nov. 2, 2010: Vote, Fuckers.

Liquor stores are closed.
Bars are closed.

So, you have no reason to not be voting.

Monday, November 1, 2010

The Bro Code: Objectification of Women?

So, per the rules of The Bro Code, if Bro-A indicates interest in Female-X, then Female-X is "out of bounds" for all Bros of Bro-A. Bro-B may not seek out Female-X lest he violate the Bro Code.

The problem, as I see it, is that having given women the vote, they ceased to be objects. And as far as I can discern, the only manner by which to get this aspect of The Bro Code up and running is to treat women not as people, but rather as objects. So I think, at the very least, that any individual invoking this aspect of The Bro Code must also admit to objectifying women, treating women as objects to be desired and claimed rather than self-directing, sentient, rational entities.

But I might be wrong, so let's see if my argument holds.

If Player-A and Player-B walk into a donut shop they might both inspect the donuts available. If Player-A notes an especially satisfying looking donut, a delightful white cake donut with white icing and sprinkles, Player-A may call "dibs" on that donut. Having called dibs, Player-A does not have to worry about Player-B purchasing the donut, unless Player-B is an asshole.

With regard to the donut we can understand the power-relation between the Players and the donut. The donut has no volition, no hopes, no dreams; it is an inert physical object to be consumed. Either Player may call dibs on the donut and not violate the "rights" or, in less problematic terms, the desires of the donut unto itself. If Player-A calls dibs the donut will not yearn, in its heart of hearts, to be consumed by Player-B. In this situation, the rule of dibs functions without problem.

Now, if we consider women to be, basically, donuts with vaginas instead of cakey goodness and tits instead of frosting, then the dibs system has no difficulties. But if we maintain that women are, in fact, not donuts...then the dibs system seems to encounter a problem: How may dibs be called for an entity which has desires of its own?

Let's play make-believe for a moment and construct a completely fictitious scenario.

Let's say that Player A and Player B are both academic students in the same department. A new woman, Female-X, enters the department as a student. Player A articulates an interest in Female-X, asking Player B to not attempt to date Female-X.

Question 1: At this moment, The Bro Code has been invoked. Does this act fundamentally undermine the personhood of Female-X and treat her as a donut, or can this act cohere with the notion of Female-X as a rational, self-directing entity?

So, time goes on. Player A makes its moves and Player B spends time with Female X, but never puts forth effort into dating. It turns out, after some time has passed, that Female X "likes" Player B, but does not "like" Player A. Female X indicates a desire to date Player B.

Question 2: In this event, would Player B dating Female X violate The Bro Code?

The situation is further complicated by Player A's professed stance of not objectifying females. Yet, I wonder, how can a male not objectify females and at the same time treat females as donuts, insofar as dibs can be called?

This is my difficulty. Does the Bro Code fundamentally objectify women? Can an individual who professes to not objectify women invoke The Bro Code? Most importantly; with The Bro Code having been invoked, can the male who did not invoke The Bro Code date the female for whom dibs have been called without violating The Bro Code if the female in question explicitly states her own dating interests?

The larger issue, I think, is what to make of the desires of women with regard to the standards of The Bro Code. Another rule of The Bro Code is that a Bro may not date the sister of another Bro. But, if said sister desired to date the Bro of her Brother, would not this artificial rule structure limit and retard the desires of the female, the sister? Does not the sister have a right to actualize her desire to fuck her brother's bro? Or, is The Bro Code a fundamental rule of existence, articulating that women are to be objects without desires or volition of their own?

Prior to women getting the vote, the Bro Code functioned without problem for thousands of years. But, having been given the vote, how does one reconcile the rules of The Bro Code with the fact that women are, at least to some people, not donuts? What do you think?

For my part, I cannot reconcile the act of "I call dibs on that" with "I do not objectify women". I can understand calling dibs on a donut, but to call dibs on a female seems to place the female in the position of the donut, as an object of desire. Even if a guy says to another guy, "Hey, could you not make any moves on that girl and give me a chance to make my moves first?" this act treats the female as an object of desire, a donut, an entity to be consumed; at the very least this statement can be summarized to say, "I want that."

Perhaps another way of stressing my point is to elucidate the degree to which this system is characterized as a competition, with tits and pussy as the prize. If there is a competition between Player A and Player B for the female, then what does this say of the female? Well, it makes her, almost by definition, a prize. But since women can vote, is it also sensible to maintain that they are prizes? How do we make sense of this obvious tension?


Aubrey Plaza: Fantastic Win

Remember how Aubrey Plaza played Julie Powers in the Scott Pilgrim movie? Remember how she was a fucking bitch in that role?

Turns out she wasn't acting.

Marry me.