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!

The Wife and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day...

You know, a lot of people believe that ADD or ADHD aren't real. That they're the result of bad parenting. Or it's just normal, active kids with lazy parents who want to dope them up so that they don't have to be bothered. Or that teachers want to sedate the kids so that they'll sit quietly at their desks during the school day.

But if you've ever seen a child who genuinely has one or the other, you know it's very, very real. The Boy has ADHD. It took me years to accept that fact. He's brilliant and he's very sweet, and he's always been very, very active. But we could handle it. Even though, when he turned 10 months old, he started throwing tantrums so badly he would hold his breath until he would pass out. This happened 3 or more times PER DAY, for OVER A YEAR. Through constant adaptations in our parenting techniques, through constant and consistent discipline and guidance, he functioned. But after years of coping with these kinds of behaviors and seeing them gradually worsen, we finally gave in and, after evaluations and tests and psychiatric appointments, we put him on Ritalin. He's still a sweet and loving child, and he's still very active, but he can FUNCTION. But even though we've made progress, we sometimes have terrible, horrible days. Today was one of them.

On Tuesday evenings we go to Chick-Fil-A for kids' night. They have arts and crafts, sometimes a magician or face painting, they have balloons and the "cow" comes to visit, and they have a nice, clean, indoor play area. Since The Boy's long-acting dose has worn off by then, he takes a "booster" dose of short acting Ritalin as well. Despite that, despite having all of these outlets for his energy, he threw a tantrum. For over 30 minutes, in the restaurant, in front of people we see every week.

Think you know what a "tantrum" is? Probably not. For those of you who don't understand what it's like to live with a child with ADHD, I video taped some of his tantrum. This is only about 7 minutes of it, after I called for Uncle Walter to come get him but before he arrived to pick him up. Though he says he's "hungry," please note that his food had been available for nearly an hour, but he hadn't wanted to eat before then. He only mentioned that AFTER I restrained him.

Also, understand, I am physically pretty injured. My wrist is weakened and has lost a good portion of its mobility. My back, which had already been giving me long-term problems, was injured worse in the car accident that also injured my wrist more and gave me "Post-Concussion Syndrome."  So it's not like I could just get up and carry him out. And holding him, trying to keep him from flailing and kicking, is physically hard enough as it is.

People think AD/H/D means the kids can't focus, that they lose interest immediately in things. Well, sometimes that's right. But the flip side is that the kids canNOT control themselves. They lose control over their emotions, over their body, over the volume of their voice. Additionally, once they get an idea into their heads, it's nearly impossible to get it OUT of their heads. If that idea is to throw a tantrum, well, you haven't seen a tantrum until you've seen one that's lasted 5 hours. This one didn't, but this also isn't nearly the worst tantrum we've had.

So... before you insist that AD/H/D is a figment of someone's imagination, before you decide it doesn't exist or it's just a result of bad parenting, watch this video (or, rather, listen to it, since all you really see is my pants leg). Think REALLY HARD about how YOU think YOU would handle this. Would you raise your voice? Would you spank? Sure, it's easy to say you'd just leave, but aside from the fact that it would mean that The Girl would have to go when she was otherwise having fun, *I* couldn't GET HIM OUT THE DOOR because of my physical limitations. Hard to carry a SIX AND A HALF YEAR OLD while walking with a cane! I did the best I could by restraining him and by having Uncle Walter come get him. And the place was pretty loud, so it's not like we disturbed *everyone* (a lot of the people who worked there didn't know what had happened until well after the fact).

After he left, I cried a bit. It's so physically exhausting and emotionally draining to deal with something like this. It makes you feel like a bad parent. It makes you feel like there's something WRONG with you and/or your child. The looks other parents give you, when they have no idea what is actually wrong... Well, like I said, it's hard. It's hard to cope with it, and it's hard to face that kind of condemnation. Being a parent is difficult enough without also having to cope with the emotional issues of our children -- and then face condemnation and judgment for it.

I swear, if it weren't for the fact that The Girl is so well behaved, so articulate, so "normal," I would wonder what the fuck I was doing wrong.

 

If it ain't broke...

One day my then 4 year old son was in my bedroom, playing on my laptop or watching tv or something. And he was naked, of course. Because he was a 4 year old boy and 4 year old boys like to be naked.

Anyway, I was cooking lunch and I hear him screaming for me in an absolute panic. I go running into the room and find him, completely distraught, with a raging baby-boner.

"What's wrong?!"

"It broke!"

"What broke?"

"It broke! It broke!"

"What broke, baby? What's wrong?"

Pointing at his penis, in tears, "It broke!"

"Do you mean that it's hard? And it won't get soft again?"

*sniff sniff* "Uh-huh."

"Oh, honey, it's okay. I promise. It will go down."

"No!  I broke it!"

Hugging him, "Sweetheart, it's okay. I promise, it will go down."

Shaking his head, half hysterical.

"Really. All you have to do is leave it alone. Don't touch it. It will go down again."

He finally calms down, promising to leave it alone. So I go back out to the kitchen. A few minutes later he comes out and gives me a great, big hug.

"It went down?"

"Uh-huh! Thank you, Mommy!" Hugs and kisses abound.

Ah, the joys of motherhood.

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.

"Cock-a-doodle-do" or "Any cock'll do"???

This may come as a surprise to you, but *I am not a man.*  Thus, while my interests are many and varied, they are probably a bit different than they would be if I were penile-y endowed.  So you must forgive me for not automatically grasping all the nuances of what catches the male eye.  On a whole, however, I think (being the smart cookie that I am) that I can make some educated guesses as to things that men might like.

1) Sex

2) Gadgets

3) Sex

4) Outdoorsy-type-stuff

5) Sex...

Okay, maybe I'm harping on too many stereotypes, but you get the idea.

That being the case, imagine you are me.  While at the bookstore, you espy the following:

A simple magazine display, correct?  Ah, but check closer!

Now scan down a bit:

Do you see it?  First, let me say, I was a bit surprised to discover that men would be so interested in animals (dogs in specific).  I mean, I guess dogs can be used for... hunting and stuff.  And that's cool!  Don't get me wrong here!  Horses?  Sure, I dig the cowboy thing!  But do you see what I saw?

Let me get this straight...  While I've been assuming that men would be drawn to something like this:

They're really hankering for a bit of this?

Oh, yeah, baby!  That's one sexy chick!  In the context of what might be of interest men, I sure hope this falls under #4, "outdoorsy" -- 'cause I'm not sure I want to visualize the other options.  (Unless it's a ROBOT chicken, I doubt it falls under #2!  Ha!  I'm funny.)

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?

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.