The Sex Worker Debate

I just watched a documentary on sex workers - or more specifically the debate on them. Both sides of the debate agree that sex workers have no protection against exploitation, violence, and even murder. Making prostitution illegal means that the women (and occasionally men) get the full force of the blame. They "obviously deserved" to be beaten up because they dared to sell their bodies for money, or worse, they deserved to work for a pimp who felt that they were absolutely nothing but property that works to death to make him (her) money.
Sigh...

The other side of the debate is a bit more sensible to me. Legalize it. However they also go wrong because the countries who have more famously legalized it did so by shifting the crime and the blame to the men who buy sex from the prostitutes. They claim that this supports the women by giving them access to healthcare and support. They no longer go to jail, bear the brunt of the shame and stigma, and can work to change their lives. It has actually decreased prostitution because now that the men go to jail if caught instead, they have stopped using prostitutes as much.

I'm willing to bet that the crime rate for rape has gone up. That law - and those who defend it - have basically said that normal men - the ones who actually obey the law because they are otherwise decent men, now have no legal outlet for their needs, and make no mistake, they are NEEDS.

All humans have a biological need to have sex. Both men and women. The root of the problem is that women - usually mothers with younger children, and some older women in general - have a diminished sex drive. Some women just never really wanted sex, and some dry up at some point for various reasons. This does not mean that they don't love their husbands/significant others. It simply means that THEY do not want sex. Or more specifically, they probably want sex, they just can't get into the mood to actually have it.

Thus the man who has a strong urge to have sex but is paired with a women who has little to no sex drive might decide to cheat on his wife with another woman, OR he might go to a prostitute in which there is no emotional attachment. This paid sex worker might do things for him that his woman never liked - such as blowjobs or anal. He gets his needs met and can go back home to his wife happier and more attentive. I think she might even be relieved if he doesn't pressure her for sex.

In a perfect world, he will have asked her for her permission and she will have gladly given it, but sadly, this is not a perfect world. Women are raised believing that if their man wants sex with another, there is something wrong with her and she should be upset and offended. If a man legitimately wants to have a calm and serious discussion in which he asks his woman with no libido if he can have permission to have sex with someone else, chances are very likely that she will flat out say no.

This is what I love about polyamory and open relationships. Couples can talk openly about these things and not get upset. Often a satisfactory solution can be found. Maybe just maybe, a valid solution to the woman's dry spell might be finding a new lover of her own to reawaken her passion. I submit that she might like to take advantage of a male sex worker, shrugs.

Anyway, getting back to the sex worker debate, I feel that it should be legal. End of story. Make sex work legal, but give the workers and customers protection. For one, make each worker independent. Make it illegal for pimps to use and abuse them. They work for themselves period, and if they want to join together to for a co-op slash brothel, they can so long as they are part owners rather than simple workers. Allow these women to run their business in whatever manner makes them feels safe - such as hiring bodyguards, or maybe working from home with someone who can check up on her if things sound like they're going wrong.

Basically this goes back to consent. I wrote about this not too long ago. Consent is everything and if a woman feels that she wants to have sex for money (or a man) then she should be allowed to. She should not be criminalized or shamed. There are some things that only a person that really loves sex can do for others. I think that if a person loves to be spanked, but their significant other does not, then it just makes sense to be allowed to find someone that likes to spank for playing.

Prostitution has been illegal for a very long time, but it hasn't stopped because you can't stop men needing sex. Sometimes kinky and adventurous sex. I will admit that a lot of women who become prostitutes do so because they are abused or forced into it. Some feel that they have no other choice. These women should be helped and encouraged to change their lives for the better.

I'm not really talking about those women who are forced into prostitution, because I think that if the industry in general is legalized and all of the power of it given to the sex workers themselves, then the chances of being forced into it are likely to go down. I'm talking about the women (and men) who legitimately want to have lots of sex and wouldn't mind getting paid for it.

For example, if someone likes to receive pain during sex, but is in love with someone who is squeamish about giving pain, then it only makes sense that the masochist seek out the sexual pain from someone else. Why not let them earn a living while they're at it?

Just like domination. Everyone has heard about a Dominatrix at some point, and most people think that knowing a professional Domme would be awesome. She's performing a service to men who want to be submissive and dominated. I really don't see why her service should be illegal. She's consenting, he's consenting. This consent is symbolized by an exchange of money. Why is it anybody's business what they are doing?

Bah! Thinking about things like this makes my head hurt. Basically, I'm saying that prostitution - like all sex - should be based on consent. If it's consensual, then it shouldn't be illegal. Making it illegal not only takes away the ability to consent to a paid sexual experience, but it also places all the power of such a situation into the hands of people who just want to use others as a commodity - a cash crop, if you will. Taking away the consent of the worker doesn't stop her from being a worker, it just forces her to work for someone else, and then if she tries to complain or quit, it's her who bears all the brunt of the so called crime.

I mean think about it, she can't exactly go to the police and say: "I want to stop being a prostitute but my pimp won't let me!" Because then the police would just arrest her, charge her with a crime, and then throw her back on the streets when she's done her time or paid her fine. She end up right back in the hands of her pimp, and he'd just beat her for trying quit.

It's a sucky situation all around, but I truly believe that legalizing the situation would give the sex worker the power to protect herself, say no if she doesn't want to for any reason, and even quit when she's had enough. Not to mention, legalizing it would give the workers the ability to get medical care and STD testing. This would not only protect them but also the customers. They'd be paying taxes, which could boost a state's revenue.

Can anybody think of a good reason why this SHOULDN'T be legal???

No Means No!

Why is this SO hard to understand??? Well, I'll tell you why...

I was watching a TV show called the Fosters, and in it, one of the girls was raped by a previous foster brother. She FINALLY got the courage to report this when she realized that he was doing it to someone else.

Her lawyer told her many a time that she could NOT tell the judge she was raped. If she claimed that it was consensual, the foster brother would be automatically sentenced to jail time. If she claimed that it was NOT consensual and the judge didn't believe her, then the foster brother would go free.

This is SO typical of the American legal system that I can only shake my head at the stupidity of it all. Let me break this down for you...

A girl - of ANY age - was straight up raped. She said no and he DIDN'T listen. The lawyer told her that she couldn't tell this to the judge because the judge probably wouldn't believe her because the girl was a troubled girl and HE was a model person - so far as anyone could tell. It would be his word against hers, and he would win by reputation alone.

So... No means no, but only if the girl is a better person than the guy???

Moving on, let's get to the REAL crux of the matter. The TRUE problem with this whole Scenario.
If no means no, then yes means yes!

You CANNOT have it both ways! You cannot say that no means no if yes doesn't actually mean yes! I mean is it any wonder that EVERYONE is confused on the topic of consent?!

In this scenario, had this girl decided to claim that she said yes, and then he was automatically sent to jail for Statutory Rape, then yes would not have meant yes!!! I do not care who is hopping in bed together, if BOTH of them are saying yes, then it should be legal. Don't give me that BS about one of them not being old enough to consent, because if you are in court arguing this, then the point is really moot. Or at least it should be. Did you consent, yes or no, and if no, RAPE has occurred!!!

If yes, then why the eff are they in court for this? Well I'll tell you why. It's adults that eff everything up. If a girl's parents find out that their 14 or 15 year old girl decided to go out and have a wild weekend with a 17 year old boy, rather than accept that she said yes and had fun, they want to ruin his life and send him to jail. Shame on the parents!!! You know what they have just done? They have just created a culture in which a girl is NOT ALLOWED to say yes without parental permission! (And vice versa. Girls can be sent to jail for this too.)

Here is a real life example. When I met my husband, I was 16 and he was 20. We hopped right into bed and stayed there for 4 days. By law, he should have gone to jail. WHY??? Because even though I had reached the age of consent, he was still too old for me legally. THANK ALL THE GODS that my mother was too smart for that esh! She took one look at him and knew that he was my future husband. And you know what? She was right. We got married when I was 21 and he was 25. We had broken up for a few years and got back together. We've been married for 14 years now.

Thus rather than ruin his life for a VERY stupid reason, we were given the luxury of yes meaning yes.

Do you know how to teach a teen that no means no? You give them the power to make that decision. After all, if a girl is saying: "No I can't because my parents will kill me, or kick me out, or ground me for the rest of my life," then what she is really saying is yes, and that is what the boy is hearing. But if she says: "No I don't want to," then that decision must be treated EQUALLY as important as if she said: Yes, I want to, let's do it!" It must be treated equally as important as if she said: "Yes I want to, but only a little. Let's kiss and grope each other's naked body, and maybe give mutual oral, but NOT penetration!" It must be treated equal with: "I want to kiss you for a while first while I make up my mind."

Because for no to mean no, then yes MUST mean yes, and this is the very foundation of consent. Without it, we are always going to be arguing over whether or not she really said yes.

Sigh...

The Most Important Secret You'll Ever Learn.

Psst! Hey, you! Yes you. Come over here a second. I need to tell you something. Something big. Something HUGE! Literally THE MOST IMPORTANT thing you will ever learn. You interested? Well, here it is:

Let's say that you died today and there actually is a being who is going to sit down with your soul and judge your life. Do you think you would be judged a good soul or a bad soul? How would this judgement be rendered? Do you think that this being is going to pull up a list of every time you didn't do the dishes or clean the house? Do you think he or she is going to remind you of every single time you ever told a white lie in your entire life?

No! That's not what is going to happen at all. This being is going to ask you one question: Did you love those in your life with all your heart? If the answer is yes, you'll then be asked: Did you show them that love so much and so well that they never doubted for a second that they were loved? 

If the answer to that one isn't yes, then you're doing something wrong. Because - and here's the secret...

NOTHING ELSE MATTERS!!! 

Good = love 

You will be judged on your heart and whether or not you were good to those you loved. That's it. Being considered successful with a good paying job means nothing if it makes you treat your loved ones like shit.

So I want you to sit down right now and think this over. If you had to answer those questions today, how would you do? And if you think you'd fail, then what can you do to change that?

Let me know in the comments :-D
Thank you and have a happy day,
Roxanne

Science is God

I KNOW I have said this before, but I think it bears repeating...

I am watching a science show with Neil deGrasse Tyson, and I like him for the most part. I think he is quite valuable and a very smart man, but he has a fundamental flaw that ruffles my feathers, lol!

He seems very harsh against the possibility of a God - any God. His philosophy seems to be that if science can explain it, then God didn't do it, and if someone thinks God did it, then they just don't know enough about science yet to explain it.

I find his reasoning blatantly asinine, because he is in effect stating that there is no such thing as a God - any God - and that anyone who believes in God is "ignorant" - his actual word.

Here's my take on it, God is Science, and Science IS GOD! So, for example, let's say a child is born with a disability. We'll use Autism for an example because it is becoming very prevalent in this day and age. NdGT used epilepsy as his example. He says that in older times, when and BECAUSE people could not explain it scientifically, they automatically blamed the devil. But science has proven that it is simply uncontrollable neurons misfiring.

I am certain that any autistic children born in that same era would have been either reviled as devil children, or considered "special" and "Touched by God." Even IF science could definitively explain EXACTLY what autism is and how it happens (Science can explain much about it, but not all, yet), that DOES NOT take away the possibility that (one) God (or another) had a hand in the creation of that child. That does not automatically mean that a God did not stand over the parents at the time of conception with the soul that would be born discussing its future life and the challenges it would face. 

In that moment, it could have been decided that this conceiving couple would experience the relative "misfortune" of an autistic child. And from that moment on, every event that needs to occur for autism to become a possibility happens and the child becomes autistic. The parents then learn to care and provide for their beautiful and unique child, and they become more spiritual as people.

Why does the fact that science CAN (or will be able to in the future) explain something take the power of that thing out of God's hands? I mean let's say - for one moment - that the Christian God (my least favorite one) happened to create the entire universe. Then that means that ALL of the laws of the universe were created by him, and if he wants to do something - such as perform a miracle - then he does it by using the laws he created, which is then explained by science and dismissed as a rare but possible event.

Thus my statement that God is Science and Science is God! They are not mutually exclusive and the existence of one does not eliminate the existence of the other. Sigh...

Rewatching the entire Jem and the Holograms series - just because - while I crochet, and I remember that the reason I liked it so much as a child was that it doesn't appear to be one of those cartoons I hate in which it's the same episode every time, just slightly different. Think any cartoon in which the heroes decide to do something, the bad guys come in to screw it up, and the heroes defeat them and save the day. This cartoon is like that, but it gives a really good effort at trying to appear to have a different plot each episode.


I like how it tries to teach girls that they can have it all, a career, fame, love, civic duty/charity, etc. However, I think it does a BIG disservice to girls as well. Main character Jerrica has been together with her sweetheart Rio practically since the first day they met when she was a young teen. He went off to college for a while and came back and now works with her and they are officially a couple. Jerrica didn't go to college because her father owned a record company and she chose to change into her alter ego Jem and become a rock star. All good so far, except that Rio - without knowing that Jem IS Jerrica - has half fallen in love with her too, and Jem and Jerrica seem happy to share him. Still good because I think that's a valid option :-D

What bugs me is that - according to the backstory - Jerrica and Rio have been together for several years, and it shows them kissing and going on dates all the time. They are not ready for marriage, and that's okay, BUT they imply that nothing else has ever happened between them. Nothing. Yeah sure, it's a kids show and they don't want to tangle with the controversial subject of sex, but I think that it could have been added very subtly, such as mentioning that Jerrica spent the night at Rio's or maybe show her taking a birth control pill. There could have been one tiny scene in which she gave half a second's thought to what it would be like to marry Rio and have children someday, but no.

The reason I think this is a disservice is that it very falsely implies that a man in love would be willing to wait many years (an excessive amount) to go beyond the kissing stage. I think this is wrong, and that he would eventually get tired of waiting for her to be ready for him. I ALSO think it's a disservice because it implies that a girl should not be interested in anything more than kissing until she's ready to get married. That implication shames girls who think they might want more than kisses and makes them feel bad about themselves. As I said, it's a disservice.

To me, a good cartoon would model realistic choices. Such as Avatar the Last Air Bender. They made it clear from almost the first moment that Aang was in love with Katara and would like to marry her someday. She made it clear that she wasn't ready to think about that, and when he pushed her to say how she felt about him, she stated that she was confused. After the first series ended, they got married and had kids.
SEE? They didn't have to imply that anything was happening, but they didn't deny that it could or would eventually. They even have a scene in which Sokka was clearly waiting for his girlfriend to visit him in his tent. That's it and all that's really needed to show that they had a realistic relationship.

I know y'all are probably dying to tell me that it's a kids show and not to take it too seriously, but it's shows like this that provided a role model for a generation of girls. Rather than be a truly positive one, they decided to avoid all real issues and focus on showing girls that they could only be loved if they were beautiful, fashionable, and famous - not to mention sweet, kind, and willing to work themselves to the bone in order to get ahead.

What is that really teaching our girls?

Why you shouldn't jump on the bandwagon to cancel the Duggars

So there's a petition going around to cancel 19 Kids and Counting. I've only watched the show a little bit, but my mom absolutely LOVES the show. I can totally see why because its a wholesome show that emphasizes treating people with kindness and respect.

So, in my opinion, if you have never seen the show, you should NOT be allowed to sign any petitions to get rid of it!

But here's the crux of the situation: Michelle expressed a very real concern, and then suddenly everyone lost their minds thinking she was anti LGBTQ when she's not.

Here's a whole conversation I had on it on Facebook:

A friend posted a petition to have the show cancelled. A couple of her friends liked the post.

Woman 1 posts: Good!
Woman 2 Posts: just change the channel. They believe in something and stand up for it just as we all do. I dont agree with it but they have the right to believe as they wish

I post: Thank you ******. I'm getting sick of people who don't even watch a show petition to have it taken off the air because they have an unpopular opinion. What are we, in high school? I have watched this show and they are a very loving and kind family. The people petitioning to take this show off the air will be committing a grave crime if they have their way.
I'm firmly pagan and into free love - and freedom of everything for that matter - and even I am saying that this show should not be cancelled!

Woman 1 posts: When they are breeding hate it's a whole different story. Shall we be subjected to a kkk show as well?

I post: They are not breeding hate. Watch the show, they are breeding love and kindness.

Then I decided to try and clarify the situation by posting: Let me put it this way: I am a nudist. Let say I had a ton of money and poured that into campaigning for laws to make it legal to tan naked in public parks. Let's say that I even manage to get popular support. Should I then petition to remove anyone on TV who thinks that being naked is a bad thing? Should I claim they are spreading hate because they want people to wear clothes in parks?
No, I have my opinion and they have theirs. Just because an opinion is popular, doesn't mean that the unpopular opinion should be punished. Just my two cents... 

Woman 1 posts: Quote from the article:
It specifically calls out matriarch Michelle Duggar for her efforts to stop an LGBT-inclusive antidiscrimination ordinance in Fayetteville, Ark. Over the summer, she recorded a robocall warning that if transgender people are allowed to use the restroom most appropriate to their gender identity, it will enable sexual predators to assault women and children. The ordinance passed nonetheless, but now, Wissick says, the Duggars are bankrolling an attempt to repeal it.
“The Duggars have thrown massive amounts of money to repeal this law so business owners and land lords can evict and fire people solely over gender idenity and sexual orientation!” Wissick wrote in an update. “They need to be taken off the air!”

Then to reply to me directly, she posts: Agreed but that situation is NOT discriminatory against ppl being who they are from birth genetically. Being a nudist is a lifestyle preference. Big difference!

I post: So you would rather judge the show based on bad PR than on the actual merit of the show? I can totally believe that Michelle Duggar might believe that transgender people could pose a threat to normal people, but she would not be rude or mean to them in person. She would treat them with kindness and respect.
And I would argue that being a nudist is something a person is born with every bit as much as being bisexual or transgender is. All I am really saying is watch the show a lot AND THEN judge it. Do not believe every article that says something is bad if you haven't seen it yourself.
Peace and have a happy day - night, whatever, lol! 

Woman 1 posts: I have watched it and all that is for the sake of the camera and a paycheck. I mean do we really watch tv shows and believe what we see is true? Cmon!

I was in the middle of typing up a post when she posted that, so I didn't really respond to it. But here's what I posted: Last thing, laws are very multifaceted. In one single proposed law you could have:
1 - the right to know what you are eating
2- Money to pay homeless veterans rent
3- A law to make it legal to shoot convicted sex offenders while in jail
4- And a suggestion to take away the right to defend yourself on your property if the person assaulting you is a different ethnicity.

If a person opposed just one part of the law, they would then have to oppose ALL of the law. So maybe they are against part 4, but then the media gets a hold of it and says: SO and SO voted AGAINST knowing what's in your food AND giving homeless veterans a place to live!!!
Now I know I have listed some fairly outlandish examples, but if you actually read every proposed law - especially when it comes to defense spending, they try to slip a LOT of bad shit in there.
So according the to article, Michelle has only ever expressed concerns about transgender people being molesters, but the media then made it into a much bigger issue by claiming that she opposed the REST of the bill too. She never said that. Not even in the article you quoted.

Woman 1 decides to add another article to prove her point: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5689840
She is spreading ignorance and fear lumping transgendered and pedophiles into the same category. Are women not able to violate young girls? Her argument is ridiculous
By her standards, nudists should be able to be fired or evicted because there's a chance they might reveal themselves in an inappropriate place or around minors like in the bathrooms.

Except that it actually proves MY point (I'll get to that in a bit). I post:  I totally agree that her argument is ridiculous! I know trans people and they are usually very sensitive and loving people. I think that Michelle is in the wrong by saying that they are likely to be pedophiles. I never argued with that. All I am saying is that she is entitled to her opinion and that just because it is unpopular, it is being blown way out of proportion. I myself will always vote FOR LGBTQ rights, but she shouldn't have to change her beliefs because people don't like it.

Woman 2 comes back into the conversation: They believe what the majority of Christians do. The only difference is they have a tv show so what they believe is openly out there. I don't agree with their stance on the LGBT community but again they have a right to their beliefs. My daughter is a lesbian so it does hit home for her and our family. If you throw the hate logic out there then most of the reality television shows should be canceled as they do spill hate on different topics. imo

Woman 1 posts a response to my last post: No she shouldn't but she is using tv money to push her agenda

So here's where I get around to explaining why the article she posted actually proves my point: Again, she never said anything about firing or evicting, here are her exact words: Hello, this is Michelle Duggar. I’m calling to inform you of some shocking news that would affect the safety of Northwest Arkansas women and children. The Fayetteville City Council is voting on an ordinance this Tuesday night that would allow men – yes, I said men – to use women's and girls' restrooms, locker rooms, showers, sleeping areas and other areas that are designated for females only. I don’t believe the citizens of Fayetteville would want males with past child predator convictions that claim they are female to have a legal right to enter private areas that are reserved for women and girls. I doubt that Fayetteville parents would stand for a law that would endanger their daughters or allow them to be traumatized by a man joining them in their private space. We should never place the preference of an adult over the safety and innocence of a child. Parents, who do you want undressing next to your daughter at the public swimming pool’s private changing area?

She is simply concerned that a convicted sex offender will use the excuse of being transgender to go into a women's bathroom or locker room and molest people. I can see that as being a valid concern no matter WHAT you believe about transgender. I believe trans to be beautiful people. Never the less, pedophiles will take advantage of this law if they can.

Once more, Michelle herself never said anything else. But because she is opposed to THIS part of the law, people are claiming that she WANTS people to get fired or evicted for being trans. She never said that!

Woman 1 understands me, but basically agrees to disagree: Until I see just as much effort on her part saying I have no problem with trans folks, I just worry about my kids safety from this MINOR possibly. ...I will continue to believe this to be a pr smoke screen because she can't just come out and say trans ppl and gays are bad

I liked her statement because I do actually agree with her in that I believe this whole thing to be a smoke screen to distract from the REAL issues.

Woman 2 ends the conversation with this: ******, i can understand your worries especially with the restroom issues  

So if you have made it to the end of the conversation, you'll realize that people have taken what Michelle Duggar actually said WAY OUT of context. I still firmly believe that the show is a great show and should not be cancelled. I also challenge YOU to actually watch the show for at least 10 episodes before you even consider signing a petition to have it cancelled based off of bad PR and political smoke screens. Base your decision off the actual merits of the show, NOT what every one says happened.

Good night all! 

What is erotica anyway?

So today I had a comment on my blog from what appeared to be a real person. This made me so happy at first because I don't get near enough comments on my blog. But then, I read the comment...

It was the first 3 sentences of a story with a link to read the rest. I deleted it within a second. WHY? Because it was pornographic.

Whoa whoa wait? What? I deleted something for being pornographic?!?! I know y'all are confused by this because - lets face it - I have plenty of things on my blog that contain, describe, or somehow feature sex. I'm probably the last person people would expect to be mildly offended by someone posting porn on my blog, but I am.

Why?

Well, here's the thing, I'm kind of a grammar snob. I am a writer in the true sense, meaning I devote a lot of time and effort into creating something that most people will enjoy. I add graphic sex scenes to some of my writing because I fully believe that sex is a big part of life and that no story talking about someone's life would be complete without a little - or a lot - of sex.

In short, I do write some erotica, and I'm pretty good at it, but it's not the only thing I write.

So wait, back up. What exactly IS erotica?

Let's take three types of stories and compare them. Romance, erotica, and pornography.

Pornography is probably the easiest to describe. Here's an example:

He walked into the room and saw her in the middle of getting undressed, so he walked over to her, lifted her into his arms, tossed her on the bed, and proceeded to fuck her until the headboard banged into the wall. She was naturally delighted and moaned and gasped out her pleasure repeatedly. The fucking took all day, and then when he had finally gotten his rocks off, he left her in bed while he went home.

The entire story exists ONLY for sex and it is graphically described (maybe not so graphic in my example paragraph), but it has no real emotion to it. It's usually a product for men to read or watch so they can masturbate to it. From beginning to end, it has no story but sex, and if it does have a story, it's only to explain why this sex is new and different or enviable.

ROMANCE - on the other hand - is a story that talks about how the couple met, the things they did, and how everyone felt. The story revolves around them falling in love and very likely overcoming some obstacles to be together. It may contain sex, and heck! Very often contains graphic sex. But the sex is not the crux of the story. It's not the reason the story exists.

Erotica is fairly hard to categorize because it is a mixture of the other two genres. It usually has a story, but the story either revolves around sex or it relies heavily on sex to fill the gaps in the plot. It could go something like this:

A man and woman met for the first time because they were set up on a blind date. Both had fun on the date and found the other person funny, but they felt no beginning pangs of love. After a couple of hours, they ran out of things to do but didn't really want to go home and be alone, so they decided to go back to his place and have sex. The sex turned out to be epic, so they had more sex. Then, the next morning, they decided to exchange numbers and call each other if they ever wanted a booty call. For the rest of the story, they run into troubles finding love, so they hook up to have sex at least once a chapter. By the end of the story, they might actually be together, but their story was based on sex and love happened to be the product.

So, to recap: Pornography equals no real story for the sake of sex. Romance equals story for the sake of love, and erotica equals an actual story for the sake of sex, complete with plot that makes sense but isn't intended to have the characters fall in love.

A LOT of times - especially in my writing - romance and erotica end up being the same thing, lol! But the most important thing of all is that I as the author get to decide what category my story falls into, lol!

So anyway, the reason I am against pornography posted to my blog is this: I want a story. I want the characters to get to know each other and fall in love - or at the very least a very solid friendship. I want my readers to be happy and feel good after they read one of my stories (most of the time, lol). I also know that there are times when a reader wants to read something without sex, so I have separated my stories into sections for that very reason.

So yes, it did actually mildly offend me when a man posted pornography on my blog. Sigh... Anyway, rant over. Have a happy day :-D

Warning: Unpopular Opinion Alert

So I read this article: http://nypost.com/2014/10/21/ex-gym-teacher-busted-for-having-sex-romps-with-student/

I resisted reading it at first because I just knew it was going to piss me off, and I was right. It did...

I know, you're thinking: "How dare that teacher take advantage of her student like that! She should be severely punished! She deserves what she gets!"

Yeah... that's NOT why I'm pissed. Let's take the whole teacher student thing out of the picture and think of it like this:

A woman meets and spends a lot of time with a man. Over time, their relationship develops into something more and they fall in love. Let's say she's purple and he's chartreuse, so people think that they don't belong together. People try to pull them apart and shame them for being together. People get mad that they are in love and happy.

Oh go eff yourselves people! It's nobody's business but theirs. They are in LOVE!!!

But he's 16 and she's 24! She should have known better!

Yeah and so? When was the last time your heart didn't fall in love with someone because you should have known better? May as well say that he's an alcoholic and she should have known better than to fall in love with him. It doesn't work like that.

At 16, he's old enough to consent to sex. He's old enough to want it, and he's old enough to brag about it to all his friends. He was in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM RAPED!! Poll all the 16 year old boys and ask them if they want to have sex with their prettiest teacher. What do you think the answer will be?

So basically, you are saying that it is illegal for Purple female to love Chartreuse male because it makes you uncomfortable. I say grow up! The only person that should have the right in this case to even consider pressing charges is the 16 year old boy. I am willing to bet that all he really wants is for the government to drop their charges and let his girlfriend go.

But there's 8 years difference in their age! The relationship could never last!

Well, you may be right about that but so what? Most relationships don't last until death do they part. At least give them a chance to try it. Maybe they'd be one of the lucky couples that lasts forever. I think it is really stupid and selfish on the part of the government to make them go through years of hell for being a horny couple experiencing the first rush of new love. Effin' prudes...

And then there's this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/10/teacher-may-be-pregnant-with-teen-baby/17030889/

Finally, let's not forget that in this famous case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kay_Letourneau

The couple got married when she got out of jail. SOOOOO, instead of letting them be together and raise their children, the state had to be an asshole about it, tear them apart, and put them through hell for years before they could no longer interfere. It makes me so mad! Let me repeat, they were in LOVE!!! There's absolutely no rhyme or reason to love, and there should be no laws about it either.

Don't get me wrong. In cases where an adult really does sexually assault a child, they should be forcibly neutered (spayed) and tossed in jail to rot, but these were not cases of abuse, these were cases of love. By all accounts, Mary Kay and Villi are still married, and so do prove the point that sometimes people fall in love very young and stay in love despite all odds.
http://askville.amazon.com/Mary-Kay-Letourneau-Vili-Fualaau/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=18985540

Anyway, I just had to get that off my chest. NO, I am NOT advocating regular sex between adults and young teens, but I do however have the open mind necessary to be enraged that the law would rather ruin these people's lives than allow for the possibility that no crime has occurred.

Lastly, has anyone else noticed something strange that all these female teachers who sleep with their students have in common? They're all... Catholic... Just an observation.

I am Jesus Reborn!

If you knew me, you'd be laughing your ass off at that statement! I am a pagan; my chosen pantheon of Gods are mostly Greek. If anything, I'd like to think that I was Zeus in a past life, lol!

So why then did I say that I am Jesus reborn? Well, it's like this:

I do believe Jesus was a real person. I also believe that he was a VERY good man. I believe that he believed in the way of love, and that he walked his talk. He didn't just say "Love thy neighbor" while treating his like shit. He - like Gandhi or Mother Teresa - actually treated others with love and compassion.

So now, I might be making myself sound like some paragon of virtue, when I am so not. However, I DO try to practice the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

In pagan speak, that's: And it harm none, do what ye will. I suppose, if you wanted to, you could argue that those two mantras are very different, but to me, they are one and the same. In other words, if I don't want people harming me, I don't harm them, right?

There's a meme going around that has Jesus talking to a bunch of followers, and he says basically: Love thy neighbor. His followers all start protesting: But what if they are gay or ___ or ___ or ___! And Jesus responds with: "What? Did I fucking stutter???" In other words, what he is saying is that you should love your neighbors, NO MATTER WHAT!!!

In my life, I have often been accused of being too nice. I've been perceived as weak because it takes a lot to truly get me angry or upset. I can usually rationalize a person's bad behavior and give them the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't say that I actually LOVE my literal next door neighbors (mostly because I haven't had a chance to get to know them), but I don't have anything against them either.

Just so you know, my neighbors are a mixed couple. The wife is a white american woman, the husband is a black man literally from africa, and their son is half and half. My boys love playing with their son, and I think it's beautiful that the husband and wife found love despite being born on opposite sides of the world. I'm a sucker for love! It could be between a human and a little green alien, and I would STILL find it awesome and romantic, lol!

Anyway, so when I say that I have nothing against them, I mean that some people would have a problem with them (especially historically) but that I don't. I don't think Jesus would have had a problem with them either. He would have accepted them as they are and wished them happiness.

So maybe now you can understand just a little the title of my post, but it's more than that. So much more!

When I was a teen - actually, my whole life, really - I always knew when people were lying to or using me. Friends would very often call me up and claim they wanted to spend time with me when what they really wanted was a ride somewhere and I was one of the only teens with my own car. I knew they were using me, but I didn't mind because as I was driving them around, I really did get to spend time with my friends. I got to talk to them, mostly alone, about a wide variety of topics. We laughed and joked, and they'd ask me for advice on this or that. I'd get to meet their other friends, and sometimes, those friends became my friends too. I felt a part of the world like I hadn't felt before.

More recently, a friend of mine was talking about how used and abused she was feeling because she is a very giving person, and it seemed like she was always giving a part of her soul to people who didn't care about her at all. I tilted my head to the side in confusion, because giving is selfless, and the ACT of giving is much like divine love. You do it, NOT because you want or expect something in return, but because it fulfills your soul and makes you a better person.

For example, let's say that you took in a foster child. Most people think that foster parents are actually selfish, motivated only by the money they can get from the government. That may be true for some, but I still think that it is a fairly selfless thing to do. But for argument's sake, there is no government compensation. You take the child in because you feel that it is the RIGHT thing to do. You care for this child and spare no expense to raise this child and try to make him or her happy.

Do you then expect that this child should work for you? Be loyal to you? Somehow pay you back one day?

NO! If you have taken in a foster child and given part of your soul to them, you CANNOT expect anything in return!!! Why? Because expecting a return is not only selfish, but it will lead to your own heartache long before the child had found the maturity to realize that they owe you a debt of gratitude. This type of maturity often is not found until after your death. Only then does the foster child realize just how important you were to them. In the meantime, you'll have spent a large portion of your life resenting them if you were expecting something in return.

So, what if a loved one makes a decision that you feel is terrible and only going to hurt them in the long run? Should you take that decision personally and hold a grudge?

NO! Why? Because their decision had nothing to do with you. They made it based on what they felt was best for them, and holding a grudge not only poisons you, but it doesn't change their mind nor effect their peace and happiness. This leaves you suffering for no reason.

Lastly, just yesterday, a different friend was lamenting that she no longer felt welcome by her family. Most of her other friends were advising her to shove herself in the middle of them and fight for her right to be included. I read through all of their comments and scratched my head. So... in their opinion, creating drama and insisting on being the center of attention is the only way to handle the situation??? It really didn't make sense to me.

So, I advised spending some time in quiet reflection. Rather than create drama, I felt her spirit needed some time to rest and heal. Only then will she truly feel ready to take on the world if she has too.

Those are just a few examples that have made me wonder recently if I might just be the reincarnation of Jesus. Well, that and I would love to be able to heal people and I do have a habit of turning water into wine (using the magic of fermentation), lol!

Jesus is not a deity that I worship, so I am not about to convert. I just simply wonder why it is that so many people who do believe in him have such a hard time walking his talk. It seems fairly easy to me, shrugs.

So, to answer "What would Jesus do?" I say:

1- He would love you and respect you, no matter who you are or what you do. (Or how poor you are.)
2- He would try to heal your body/mind if you needed him to.
3- He would try to help you if it was at all possible for him to do so.
4- He wouldn't expect anything in return.
5- He would encourage you to love and help others as much as you can without expecting anything in return.
6- He would remind you that you are not the center of the universe, and that creating drama does not make you a better person.
And lastly, 7- I do believe that he would also try to explain that your soul has signed up for lessons that you must learn in order to grow as a person and have spiritual health. Whenever you keep running into the same type of problem, it is a lesson that you must learn in order to grow.

Anyway, love you and have a happy day :-)

Purple Hearts and the Sandman

Did you ever do anything when you were you at a sleepover that was mildly paranormal? An example that comes to my mind is "Light as a feather, stiff as a board." If you ever watched the Movie "The Craft," you know what I am talking about, otherwise, google it :-)

Anyway, when I was younger, I have NO IDEA where I heard about these, but I heard about and then played two games at birthday parties and or sleepovers. (As in I suggested and initiated the games. I don't think I learned about them at a party.) Both involve a form of hypnosis, and both are frickin' cool IMO.

First, I'm going to talk about The Sandman. This one can get freaky, so I don't do it anywhere near as much as Purple Hearts. Basically, to play the Sandman, you get a volunteer to lay down. Once they are laying down, you talk in a soft but clear voice, tell them a story about how they are at a beach and you are slowly filling their body with sand. You tell them you are filling this arm then that one, then this leg and that, then the chest, etc, (do the head last) and as you do so, you also pretend to fill each part of the body with sand. More and more and more, telling them that they are getting heavier and heavier until they cannot move their body.

Once you have filled their entire body with as much sand as you can, you ask them to try to move. Usually, the volunteer cannot move, not even to twitch their fingers! I played this on my mom once, and she freaked out, so I never really played it on anyone after that, but I do remember being fascinated by the game, wondering why it worked.

Just in case you were thinking: "So wait, you fill them with sand, tell them they can't move, and just leave them like that?!?!" No... Fortunately, you can undo the paralysis fairly easily by simply moving their arms and legs and telling them that they can move again.

Which brings me to the other game. This is actually one of my favorite games to play whenever I manage to get a person willing to play it. However, unlike the first game  - which can be played with just you and a volunteer - this game works better with an extra friend or two. The more the merrier!

To play, you sit comfortably with your volunteer laying with their head in your lap or close enough to you that you can easily reach out and rub their temples. The volunteer will start the game when they are ready by counting backwards from 100. You and all your other friends will softly and steadily chant: "Purple Hearts" over and over as the volunteer counts backwards.

When the game has worked for me, it's pretty obvious, because the volunteer will start to screw up as they count and then usually fall silent at some point. I've had one person barely get to 90 before they were out, and another got all the way to 1. We thought she was unable to be hypnotized, but when I ask her a couple of questions, it turns out that she was well and truly under.

Okay, so after getting your volunteer to go under, you ask her (or him) where she is and to describe everything she sees. Have her walk you through whatever happens - and this is often an elaborate dream like setting - as long as the trance lasts or until you get bored/tired and want to stop. At some point, the volunteer will describe seeing purple hearts, and for whatever reason, this is usually the signal that they are ready to stop, and simply telling them to grab the heart and wake up, or maybe opening a door and walking through it to wake up will do exactly that; wake them up. 

If you want to laugh your ass off, tape the whole session, and then tell the volunteer to forget everything as they are waking up. Then, once awake, they will insist that it didn't work. You and your friends will tell her all about the things that happened, and she will vehemently deny it... until you play the recording and amaze her!

It wasn't until I was an adult and had a psychologist hypnotize me that I realized that you could tell a hypnotized person that they could remember everything. I think this is why I could never be hypnotized at parties, I think I was too afraid of not being able to remember what happened that it simply wouldn't work on me. It was only after the therapist assured me that I would remember that I was able to be put under. 

To this day, I wish I had someone who was willing to work with me whenever I wanted - much like I read Tarot cards. I really wish I could work through some issues, access my guides more easily, and maybe even explore my past lives a bit. Sadly, I haven't found a person willing to do this :-(

Anyway, I had some thoughts on telling the person to forget VS telling them to remember. I think both have their time and place. For example, working on memory regression and past lives would be a good time to remember everything, BUT if you want a post hypnotic suggestion, that's actually better to forget. Here's why:

If you want to do something - such as lose weight - a post hypnotic suggestion can help you by telling your brain that you don't want to eat when you are not actually hungry. If you remember this suggestion, then it will come to the front of your mind every time you are looking in the fridge for food when you are bored or emotional. You'll hear the suggestion not to eat when you're not hungry, decide that this is an exception because fill in the blank, and then give yourself permission to eat anyway. However, if you don't remember the post hypnotic suggestion, you'll look into the fridge, get an urge not to eat anything, close the fridge, and come back later.

I've never really given post hypnotic suggestions during a game of Purple Hearts, but I would love to do so. I think it would be a great time to guide someone to their past life, and then give them the suggestion that they will continue to slowly remember other things - maybe in their dreams. OR - if they had a traumatic past life - tell them to overcome the trauma and allow for spiritual healing. 

I have thought a great deal about taking actual Hypnosis classes and getting certified as a therapist, but I've had so much else going on in my life that made that pretty much impossible. Also, as much as I would like to help others, I REALLY want to help myself work through some issues, so taking a class might not be the best idea after all.

So, tell me... Have any of you ever played these games? If so, how did it work out? If not, what other but similar games did you play? I look forwards to hearing about them :-)