If You Disagree With Me, You're WRONG

Equality means EQUAL -- for women AND men...

A female version of this was going around recently. Why should women be the only ones who have unquestioned rights over their reproductive organs? If you believe in equal rights but still support R(outine) I(nfant) C(ircumcision), you're a hypocrite!

A pair of substantial mammary glands have the advantage over the two hemispheres of the most "learned"... brain

I spend a lot of time in doctor's offices, and thus have spent a lot of time reading magazines (although I generally do try to have a book handy).  Every now and then a magazine or article will catch my eye.  As a new mom, I came across a local monthly, Washington Parent, touting itself as "The Trusted Source for Parents in DC, MD & VA."  It didn't take me long to stop reading it, though.  Why?  For one, it's not much more beyond a book of advertisements, mostly for local businesses and events.  Nothing particularly wrong with that, but it wasn't exactly something I found useful.  Then there's the fact that their "special" issues, discussing things like local camps and the "best" local schools, only feature companies or organizations that advertise with them.  It's the way of the business world, I get that, but again, not particularly useful.

But the single biggest reason?  Their articles.  The articles are just regurgitations of old news repackaged.  For some parents that may be helpful, but for me, I just didn't need to waste my time reading the same things I'd already read at the source.  Especially when the source articles aren't condensed and riddled with the opinions of the magazine staff.  Specifically, I found myself balking at articles regarding breastfeeding, co-sleeping, or other Attachment Parenting style techniques.  Not just because I disagreed with them, but because they were often filled with misinformation, if not clearly biased in their disfavor.

For some reason I picked up their latest edition.  Can't remember why.  Decided to flip through it a bit, see if I could figure out what must have caught my eye.  On page 68 is an article entitled "What?  I Need More Vitamin D?"  It is about pediatric recommendations for Vitamin D supplements.  The topic isn't a new one and the article contained no new information.  In fact, the topic has only been mentioned in any news sources over the last few years because the recommended dosages have been slightly adjusted.

The more I read of the article, the more irritated I became.  First, there is the large, prominent picture in the center of the page.  Cute baby, pretty eyes.  Big-ass bottle.  Now, Washington Parent isn't littered with formula ads and they aren't filled with bottle-fed baby pictures.  That doesn't mean, however, that they don't get their prevailing opinion across one way or another.  If you didn't think that the picture was enough, the very wording of the article itself makes sure that you get their point.  And then they hammer it home, starting the article with:

"Breast is best, but as more mothers are breastfeeding, the risk for vitamin D deficiency rickets has increased for all children."

Oh really?  That's a fact, eh?  And where exactly are they getting that information?  Thing is, they don't actually say!  WP cites two individual studies, "Prevention of Rickets and Vitamin D Deficiency in Infants, Children, and Adolescents" and "Vitamin D: importance in the prevention of cancers, type 1 diabetes, heart disease and osteoporosis."  The second article doesn't even mention breastfeeding, and the first one doesn't, in any way shape or form, blame breastfeeding for increased cases of rickets.  But I'll get to that in a minute.  The article continues:

"Human breast milk is another source of vitamin D; however the amount of vitamin D in human milk is extremely low"

Well, sort of.  What the study actually says is:

"Although corollary maternal serum concentrations were not measured, on the basis of vitamin D pharmacokinetics, maternal vitamin D status is assumed to have been abnormally low, thereby preventing adequate transfer of vitamin D in human milk."

In other words, the theory is that, when the mom is deficient in vitamin D, an exclusively breastfed baby will not be able to absorb enough vitamin D to prevent rickets.  Which means that, if a mother is deficient, she will not be able to provide enough vitamin D to the child through breastfeeding alone, but no studies have been done to determine if supplementing the mother will provide enough for the baby through the breastmilk.  Now, the debate comes into play when deciding whether or not a child would actually need a supplement versus merely needing more exposure to the sun, but that's another post altogether.  And we're still not even to the section that ticks me off the most.  Here's the next part:

"Recently, there has been an emphasis on the vitamin D intake of exclusively breastfed infants.  As more infants are being exclusively breastfed, the chances of developing infantile rickets has increased, especially in infants with darker pigmentation."

Where to begin with this?  Let's see...  The specific studies that WP is referencing?  The first is from 2008, the second is from 2004.  That is not "recent."  Mostly, though, the absurd part of this is the statement that the chances of developing infantile rickets increases due to exclusive breastfeeding.  That is, at best, a blatant exaggeration deliberately intended to mislead the readers.  What does the study actually say?

"Rickets attributable to vitamin D deficiency is known to be a condition that is preventable with adequate nutritional intake of vitamin D.  Despite this knowledge, cases of rickets in infants attributable to inadequate vitamin D intake and decreased exposure to sunlight continue to be reported in the United States and other Western countries, particularly with exclusively breastfed infants and infants with darker skin pigmentation." 

In other words, rickets is preventable with enough vitamin D intake.  However, rates of rickets are increasing because children still aren't getting enough vitamin D through both nutrition and sun exposure.  When taken *in context* with the rest of the study, the meaning is a bit clearer: children who are exclusively breastfed by mothers who are deficient in vitamin D are more likely to develop rickets if they are not absorbing enough vitamin D through sunlight exposure (which is more likely when the child has darker skin).  However, if a child is receiving food fortified with vitamin D (e.g. formula), they are not as likely to be deficient, excluding sunlight absorption.  Even that isn't what upset me the most, though.  It was this:

"Breastfeeding puts all infants at risk for vitamin D deficincy due to the poor vitamin D status of most lactating mothers and the inadequate amounts of vitamin D that is transmitted via breastmilk(1)." (My emphasis.)

Wow.  Just wow.  They actually put a footnote with that, linking it to the first study.  This claim seemed unbelievable to me.  So I tracked down the study.  Read it.  Tried to find the supporting claim.  And you know why it seemed unbelievable to me?  Because it is unbelievable.  Because the study doesn't say any such thing.  The topic of the study is the increase of the recommended supplemented dosage from 200 IU/day to 400 IU/day.  (Assuming, of course, that the child needs supplements in the first place!)  Nowhere does it say that exclusive breastfeeding puts an infant at risk for a vitamin D deficiency; rather that if you are already vitamin D deficient, you cannot gain enough vitamin D through exclusive breastfeeding alone.  That's not the same thing at all.

This article has to be one of the most irresponsible and misleading pieces of garbage that I've ever read.  I don't know what kind of anti-breastfeeding agenda that author "Christi Hay, M.D. MPH" has, but it's clear that she has one.  Given her inability to understand even the most basic concepts outlined in a scientific study, her poor patient ratings aren't much of a surprise.

Second Hand Sex -- Better the next time around?

You can find some really funny things at thrift stores.  Sometimes you find great treasures, things you've always wanted.  Or, in most cases for us, something you can sell for scads of money.  Occasionally you find something that has you scratching your head.  Rarely, however, do you find something that makes you want to retch.  I mean, I've got 2 kids, and I grew up with 4 brothers.  It takes a LOT to nauseate me.

On Monday, since Uncle Walter was still quite bereaved over the recent death of my father, we went to the thrift store to see if we could come across a treasure of the "sell for scads of money" kind.  Or, you know, just some cool stuff.  On our way out, in a rare show of interest on Uncle Walter's part, he peered into the "naughty" bin.

Wait!  Do you see what Uncle Walter saw???  He called me over, and bade me to examine it.  Alas, I did.  And what to my wondering eyes did appear?

Write what you know; or you don't know what the fuck you're talking about... literally...

I primarily read trashy romance novels.  I like 'em.  They're non-threatening, and they make great fodder for the blogs.  But too often the sexual descriptions are unbelievably bad.

Look, I like sex.  I've had a lot of it.  There's not much I HAVEN'T done, to be honest.  And little left that I'd like to try.  So I have a fairly decent grasp on what we're working with.  I know whether desire is slicing through my sex or not.  It's not.

When I'm reading a trashy romance novel, and come to a "love" scene, I expect, I suppose, that the author has some basic working knowledge of anatomy and the sexual act.  Even putting aside the flowery phrases, they should at least understand Insert Tab A into Slot B.

Recently I read my first mainstream "romantica" book -- a stupid name, as there really is no such thing.  Erotica with a hint of romance does not a romance make, and the hint of romance is barely more than an excuse for the sex.  It's porn for women, and a way for them to justify reading it.  Which is just stupid.  If you want to read porn, just read it, and stop feeling bad about it.  If you feel like you have to hide it, then maybe you need to work on your sexual hang-ups rather than wasting your time reading about the sex you wish you were having.

Don't believe me as to how bad they are?  Trust me.  It's not just that the writing is bad...  or that the stories are stupid... it's that the descriptions are just so unbelievable!  Horny?  Fine. But don't tell me that her "womb" was "spasming" with desire!  I've had children.  Trust me, desire doesn't make your "womb spasm" -- labor does that.

If you're going to do a little rear entry action, you had better use lube!  If you're claiming the man is extraordinarily well endowed, you'd better not try to tell me that she took "all of him" in her mouth!  And if the "hero" is 6'4" and the "heroine" is 5'4", don't even THINK about pretending that, standing up, he bent over and licked her breast.  Can you imagine the contortions involved in THAT?  My back hurts just thinking about it!

Which leads me to further wonder... have the *editors* ever had sex?  Do they even READ the descriptions?  How can they let "manroot" get by???  MANROOT, people. If the tip of the penis looks (and apparently smells) like a musky peach -- GO TO THE DOCTOR.  If it's red like a plum?  YOU HAVE AN STD.  GET HELP.

What it basically comes down to is that if you haven't done it, you're better off not writing about it.  If you've never lived a polyamourous lifestyle, you're going to have a hell of a time writing about it.  THAT involves doing a hell of a lot of research if you DON'T know.  Same with sex.  Either go out and have it, stop writing about it, or talk to people who know what they're doing.  Ones you trust not to pull your leg about it, too.  That might explain Manroot, huh?

Love your son??? Don't fuck with his dick!!!

A penis is designed for maximum functionality and maximum pleasure. That means that WITH A FORESKIN the penis is at its most functional and most pleasurable. So tell me why some moron would look at their perfect baby boy and decide to hack off a completely healthy piece of skin? One filled with nerve endings, designed exactly the way it's supposed to be? Because they wanna "look like dad"? THAT's a great reason, ain't it? I mean, all kids are clones, right?  Because THEY think that a normal, healthy penis "looks funny"? Why the hell are they judging the attractiveness of their son's penis?  Are they really worried about what some potential girlfriend MIGHT think about their kids' penis?  How fucking sick can you get?

When a woman's labia and vulva is hacked up, we call it what it is: Mutilation.  When we perform an unnecessary surgery, on a newborn, WITHOUT ANESTHETIC, we call it "normal"??? Where the fuck did THAT idea come from? Even practicing Jews are turning away from the surgery, although in fairness to the religion, the procedure is NOT done the way it is in the hospital. By a god damned OB??? Why would someone think that an OB would know what to do with a baby's penis? Even a pediatrician isn't a surgeon!

If you can't reduce, then reuse and recycle -- the ultimate conservationist use for breastmilk...

What  do you do when you have more breastmilk than you know what to do with?  Well, first choice is to donate it, but that is a long process, and in the meantime, it's easy to run out of space for it all.  Throwing it away is one of the most horrifying things that someone could possibly do to the most nutritious food on the planet.  One couple, who seem like some of the coolest people on the planet, have found an awesome use for it.  Daniel Angerer is making cheese out of his wife's extra milk.  Too bad it's not available for sale.

Yeah, I know this grosses people out.  But when I say that it's the most nutritious food, I mean it.  There is nothing better for the human body than human milk.  It is designed to give a person everything they can possibly need for their health (it's just usually not in sufficient quantities for an adult).  And while the cooking process will remove a lot of those nutrients, just the way cooking any food will, it's still an amazing way to help a growing boy or girl to stay healthy long past weaning!  Especially if you never breastfed at all.  And more so if your child has extreme allergies and will react to dairy products.  Which happens a lot.  'Cause, you know, COW MILK IS MEANT FOR BABY COWS, not baby humans, and it's almost amazing that humans can drink it at all.  It's from a different SPECIES, people.  That would be like suckling directly off a dog.  And yes, I use dairy.  I have no moral or ethical problems with it.  But I do resent the fact that breastfeeding is treated as a privilege, not the right it is, but forced milking of a cow is big business.

Why would we not flinch at eating cheese made from cow's milk, but hesitate to eat cheese made from human milk?  I'd rather something be MEANT for a human, rather than yanking the milk out of an ANIMAL and calling that "food."  Wouldn't you?  If you're like most people, no.  But there are some of us who find the whole process of eating cow's milk to be a little gross -- even if we still do it.

And besides, this can support a family!  No extra costs to house and feed the animals.  Just a gourmet dish made from the healthiest stuff on the planet.  I'd buy it!  Right now, breastfeeding has little public support pushing for its use.  There's no money in it, since it's provided to children for free. THIS however, may provide a way for making money -- and thus allow for breastfeeding lobbying and support.  And maybe will encourage others to use the milk that they were built to use, rather than the animal milk that some company sells us with the lies that it's as good as human milk -- or even close.

So KUDOS, Mr. and Mrs. Angerer.  For what it's worth, you have my support and my respect.  Good for both of you!  And yay for little Arabella/Caroline for getting the nutrition she needs and deserves.

And, just 'cause it's me: To anyone who thinks there's something wrong with this: Screw you.  As the name says, if you disagree with me, you're wrong.

You can pick a lover, and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your lover's... you get the idea...

What really did happen to the sexual revolution?  Did AIDS destroy it?  Because, dear readers, believe it or not, there was at one point a whole... society of people that recognized that SEX IS NOT A BAD THING.  And, more than that, SEX CAN BE FUN.  And even MORE than that *sex need not be limited to one relationship consisting of 2 people of the opposite sex.*  Knowing that, many people were able to have fulfilling sex lives with a single person of their choce, or many, many people of their choice -- sometimes at the same time -- or any number in between.

The biggest problem is my younger eyes, since I not only missed the revolution but I missed the war.  I can only see the effects that the ending had on the rest of us. And the ending is a bit of a "one step forward, two steps back" kind of thing.  We, as a society, made leaps and bounds, but then we turned our backs on what we found.  The players got older and success required them to play by certain rules. Personally, I've never been good at following rules.

Wesley L. Ford has written a book for a personal sexual revolution for women, Picking a Lover.  I haven't read it yet, but feel a compulsive need to talk about it.  See, Mr. Ford posted a question related to his book on an Amazon.com forum and received an obnoxious "welcome" by some people who consider themselves the forum police.  Oh, and my stalker!  So between the two of them, this poor guy was lambasted.  Once for having an opinion that frightens a lot of people, and again for associating with me (by responding to my comments on his post).

Since we can't discuss the book over there without risking the wrath of the mighty "report abuse" button, we're continuing the discussion in our forum.  If you'd like to hear more on my thoughts about sex within or outside of the confines of marriage, and my opinions on the benefits of lovers, please leave a comment -- or better yet, join our forum and discuss it with the author himself!

The lips are connected to the clit, and the fingers are connected to the moneymaker...

So, if you can believe this...  Uncle Walter picked up a couple of old Penthouse magazines the other day.  I know!  I couldn't believe it either!  Anyway, I was thumbing through one from January 2007.  I won't give you the old BS about only reading it for the articles.  I mean, I DO read the articles, but the pictures are still nice.  In this particular issue, like others, the articles are all sex themed.

The first article is titled "Five Ways to Supersize Your Sex Drive," which primarily involves food.  There is advice such as to get sweaty during sex so that your skin will be more receptive to sensation.  This is followed up with the brilliant realization "don't overdo it -- if you get too hot, you'll feel burned out instead of turned on."  Uhhhhh.... duh.

This article is on the left page.  The right page has "Top 10 First Date Conversation Killers."  Like don't talk about death.  Again, shockingly obvious!  Really, don't bum out your first date?  Then again, you're not supposed to talk about your family or the weather, either.  Or Religion.  Or Politics.  Or your childhood.  Or your health history.  Or Money.  Or Sex.  So... um... what ARE you supposed to talk about?  Quite frankly, I disagree with every single one of these things.  These are some pretty heavy deal breakers (well, except for the weather, unless you find the temperature offensive).  I think you SHOULD talk about these things, or at least touch on the topics, so that you can find out if you're compatible at all.  But I tend to be a bit more realistic than most.  At least theoretically.

The next article of note is about that mythical event (for others -- Uncle Walter is a pro!): Foreplay. and the fabled Manly "Moan Zone."  Yes, this is as absurd as it sounds.  Especially with the androgynous diagrams that Penthouse includes.  You should also... get this... listen carefully because it's a big secret... HUG!  GET OUT OF HERE!  Really?  Nah!  Really?!  And some men like nipple stimulation.  But some men don't.  But you won't know which until you try.  But he might not like it.  You just can't tell.  They even delve into the (shhhh!) naughty, by indicating that some light slapping may be in order.  What a daring magazine Penthouse is!

And finally, there is "Surprisingly Sexy."  Where we discover "unusual" things that are erotic.  Like the missionary position.  Or fingers.  Or...  ding ding, we have a weiner!  "Teeny Weenies," those poor, misunderstood miniscule manroots.  Do you know why men with tiny penises are good?  Because they try harder at things like oral sex.  Hmmmm...  This is some pretty hard-hitting discoveries there, dear Penthouse.  I can't imagine the research that must have gone into this. 

Overall I rate the educational value of this magazine at a D-.  It's not clever.  There's nothing new to be told.  And the illustrations are poor.  If you need some real information, let me know and I'll give you some.  I don't need to sugar coat sex to make it more palatable.

I really don't give a crappity smack if I hurt your feelings...

You know, hard as it may be to believe, I get really tired of trying not to offend people.  I hate feeling as if I have to placate people just because they're uncomfortable with themselves and their decisions.  What, you may ask, am I talking about?

Well, let's say... for just a random example... I post something extolling the virtues of breastfeeding.  Obviously there's nothing about that to argue with:  breastfeeding is better for a baby.  Formula is a far distant second.  Keeping that in mind, if you choose not to breastfeed, you should be comfortable with your decision.  Or, if for some reason you feel that you were *unable* to breastfeed, then you also need to be comfortable with that.  I mean, if *I* had been unable to breastfeed, I would at least rest easy knowing that I'd tried my damnedest to do so -- as should anyone else who's done their best (and yes, I DO know some people who've been unable to nurse).  I might feel sad, but I sure as hell wouldn't feel defensive.  What's there to defend against if you gave something your all?

But what if, say, you DIDN'T give it your all?  What if, despite knowing how much better breastmilk is, you tried but in a half-hearted attempt?  Or didn't try at all for purely selfish reasons?  Well, then you WOULD feel pretty defensive eh?

You know what?  THAT AIN'T MY PROBLEM.

What IS my problem is when said people feel the need to clutter up my space with their political correctness bullshit.  NO, I *don't* have to also add that NOT breastfeeding is okay, too.  No I DON'T have to say that it's okay to make whatever choice you're comfortable with.  No I DON'T have to suck up to you just to make you feel better about your own decisions.  If you're that insecure about it, then deal with it on your own.  I'm not your fucking therapist.

This isn't actually a rant about breastfeeding.  This is about the stupid need some people feel to qualify their opinions.  Fuck political correctness.  Either feel good about the choices you make, or shut the fuck up when I think you're wrong.

And just for the hell of it, here is the image that appeared when I did a search for "politically incorrect" images:

 

You were warned...

A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language was pointed out to me today.  And I am pleased.  Because sometimes something just resonates with you, something that describes you, your life or your family.  This comic did just that.

When I meet people I feel like I should warn them.  They either get very confused or very annoyed, sometimes both.  I don't *try* to be annoying and/or strange.  I can't help it.  But it's inevitable and impossible to avoid.  I think preparation may just help people not have such a strong visceral reaction.

On another note, this one resonated with me, too: