NOTE TO THE YOUNG WOMEN WHO MAY BE VYING FOR A "MISS AMERICA TITLE": Nude/topless photos=Bad Idea.

NOTE TO ANYONE WHO PLANS TO REFER TO THEIR "CHRISTIAN VALUES" ON NATIONAL TELEVISION: Nude/topless photos=Bad Idea

I am now, as I ever have been, in the corner of "I might not agree with what you say, but I’d be willing to give my life to protect your right to say it". This is how I feel about Miss Prejean’s expression of her opinion. Anyone who has read any of my replies here on wOw knows what I personally think of what she said…I couldn’t disagree with her more…But, she answered the question she was asked. This is not why she should lose her crown. The photos, however, are the sole reason she should be stripped (ahem…no pun intended) of her crown.

Yes, Christianity is about forgiveness,;but I haven’t heard of Prejean even speaking to the less-than-wise decision to pose. She broke her contract—simple as that. This regrettable decision she made, in the wake of her speech about values, does smack of hypocrisy. While I am not necessarily disparaging  this young woman’s sincerity regarding her beliefs, I can’t help but note that actions do speak SO MUCH LOUDER than words. As we say in the south:"Sugar, I don’t think I’d have done that!". It takes neither a rocket scientist nor a historian (remember Vanessa Williams) to know that such photos are a violation of contest rules.

I am the proud mother of both a boy (18 years old) and a girl (15 years old). I remember having ultrasounds with both pregnancies….I didn’t want to know the gender of my first child, but he (typical boy) quicky whipped around for all to see that he was a male. The second time around, I desperately wnted a little girl (I am not one of those strange women who love being pregnant, and say they feel ‘great’ in that condition). As the tech moved the probe towards the baby’s bottom she told me: "you know, I really think it’s a girl, but she keeps scooing her bottom away everytime I move the probe near!" I said "Great! I hope she keeps that tendency in her extrauterine life!" I was so excited that I went right out and bought the biggest "Hello Kitty" stuffed toy in Birmingham, Alabama!

I have to say that baby dolls in strollers, as well as barbie dolls withhigh-fashion garb, were popular with my little girl, and I see that they remain popular with the little girls who are my patients today. Certainly the ‘princess’ type dolls are as popular as ever. So, no fear, all! Hopefully the ‘tramp-stamped’ Barbie will be swiftly cast upon the scrapheap of time (along with many of the more suprising incarnations of years’ past). After all, the Barbie doll is a doll which, primarily, allows a girl to play out a fabulous ‘fantasy future’, complete with a dream house, lamborghini, and the latest haute couture. My daughters’—as well as my own—Barbie collections certainly had all those things! The content of those future dreams are not only influenced by the media, but by PARENTING. I taught my daughter, as was shown to me, that she can live a life that in which she can be self-determined and successful if she concentrates on getting a good education and works to build a future that she can be proud of. This certainly has NOTHING to do with ‘branding’ a man’s name anywhere on her body.

I told both my children that, in order to live a good life, they must realize that it must be built by them. I also—admittedly—begged them to NEVER get tattoos, as they are today’s flight of fancy which will be carried (often embarrasssingly so) throughout life for all the world to see; emblazoning a love interest’s name on yourself is ALWAYS a bad idea (I don’t care if Barbie has been with Ken for 50 years…My Barbie always had trysts with the various G.I. Joes I had inherited from my brothers…and Ken who knows what Ken was doing with Midge, Skipper, or P.J. while Barbie was off on her own adventures…But, I digress…).

In sum, I wouldn’t worry too much about tramp-stamped Barbie, the loss of innocence among the young of our society, etc. Little Girls are still little girls. All children learn from their parents. If you don’t want your child to be ‘tramp-stamped’, don’t but the tattooed Barbie (and—for Gods-sake—don’t be tramp -stamped yourself!). Mattel eventually gets the idea of what sells, and what does not…They’ve kept our girl Barbie around these fifty years! Now if they have a successful edition of "crack-whore Barbie", inspired by Amy Winehouse, THEN maybe we should worry….

When we lament that our ‘disposable society’ as why marriages don’t last ‘forever’ in this day and age, we must stop and realize that—never before in human history—have we been exposed to more romantic possibilities. In addition, life expectancy is much longer than in times past. These factors MUST be taken in account when evaluating the state of the institution of marriage today. 

 For example, if one was a farm wife in a ‘little house on the prarie’ where you might get to ‘town’ once a month, traveling by wagon, without any real mass media, there just were not very many OPTIONS available. You married and you had children. Your life totally revolved around scraping out a living for yourself and your family, and…well…you died.

Today we have much more ‘leisure’ time for romantic pursuits, and—through mass travel—we have unprecedented opportunities to interact with a wide variety of people. In the past, women like me either languished in misery married to men that nature and providence preventedx them from BEING ABLE to love in a romantic sense, or they chose to be ‘old maids’. Today, I will not remarry a person I can and do love because my state (Alabama) will never allow me to do so.

So, I believe, chalking up the state of the marital institution to societal shallowness or lack of values is a gross over-simplification. Technology has provided us with lives that can be much more complex than those of our predecessors; the desire for contentment is basic to the human condition.  We simply don’t have to settle for or accept a life in which we are unhappy because of limited/non-existant choices. Modern life may have changed, but human nature has not!

No Libra, they are not. For example, if someone is murdered because they walk in on a robbery, the killing is not motivated by hate, persay. It is a case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Specifically seeking out a ‘queer’ to bash is another matter entirely. I have felt unsafe more than once because someone has percieved the fact that I am gay, and I have been threatened. This is a reality for gays and lesbians, and I daresay that most homosexuals have had their physical safety threatened at least once for no reason other than their sexual orientation. Tell me, when was the last time YOU were jeered at, threatened, and chased for walking down the street with your husband or boyfriend ? For the record, there was no hand-holding or ‘PDAs’ involved in the incident that happened to me.

Here’s a description of an incident which happened to a patient I had many years ago. This man was drinking at a local gay club when he was approached by another young man who, after some drins and conversation, said he wanted to go home with the first man. The two walked out of the bar together, and two other young men walked out close behind them. The next thing the first man knew, the guy who had ‘picked him up’ was joined by the two men who came behind  as they dragged the gay man into an alley. To make along story short, the three young men beat the gay man (nearly to death), and they castrated him. When I had this individual as a patient, he needed surgery but was terrified of being anesthetized—of being made vulnerable in any way. Tell me, don’t you think what happened to this man constitutes a HATE CRIME?

This story is 100% true. and when he told me this I couldn’t help but wonder if his ambushers were anyone I’d gone to school with….In the suburban High School I attended there were some jocks who would go to the gay bars to pick up gay men to beat up. Yes, beating up a ‘fag’ was a rite of passage back in the late 70s/early 80s. The sad fact is that this type of mentality is still alive and well in 2009.

In my home state of Alabama, there were two seperate cases which recieved moderate in-state coverage: the murder of Billy-Jack Gaither, and the killing of Scotty-Joe Weaver. In both instances these young man were murdered because of their sexual orientation. The heinous murder of Matthew Shepard was one high-profile case. Unfortunately there are many, many more victims in many more places whose stories are not widely told.  I do not know what plane of reality that Rep. Foxx operates on, but I can assure her homosexuals are singled out and victimized (to varying degrees) every day, and in every state across the U.S. One only needs to look at the latest antics of Fred Phelps and his ilk to see the hatred which is directed towards gay people, as well as their straight supporters. Also, she can read the latest news about children who commit suicide because they can no longer endure the taunts of "fag", "queer", etc. If Foxx thinks these issues of hate are hoaxes, she needs to be transported to the nearest rubber room where she can have a nice long "rest"…She obviously isn’t playing with a full deck!

http://gaynorfolk-net.norfolk.on.ca/life-on-brians-beat/weaver.html

There is some fairly damning evidence which has been found to indicate Markoff’s guilt. However, as Mommy Dearest said, he does deserve his day in court. The description of Markoff’s probable motivation reminds me, not only of Ted Bundy, of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. This muderous pair were wealthy, and both supposedly had genius I.Q.s, but the lure of trying to commit the ‘perfect murder’ (i.e. a murder they would have gotten away with) lead to what the two described as an "intellectual exercise" (i.e. the brutal murder of Bobby Franks—a boy who was a close friend of Loeb’s younger brother). It is amazing that wealth and bright futures are not enough to disuade such people from crime. It would be interesting if the sciences of forensic psychology/behavioral science, along with genetics, could accurately predict which individuals are likely to become offenders. The flip side, however, would be answering the question of how we as a society, and as individuals, should deal with such data. It would create an ethical quandry indeed!