Sunday Funday

I'm going to take a break from my regularly scheduled programming of political rants to instead discuss something a little lighter!

One thing I've noticed while writing is that I frequently talk about my experience being in America, and I relate my political opinions back to things there, but surprise, I live in London. To be fair, I've only "lived" here for three weeks so far, and then for three months when I was here last year, but I feel like most people in my situation might blog about where they live.

I find cities to be a fascinating cultural experiment, and London is certainly cross-cultural in many ways. Generally as a student of theatre, I suppose the thing I'm most drawn by is the artistic culture, but I've been having a blast just toeing the edge of all of the vast resources that living in a major metropolitan area offers.

London has over 1000 times the population of the town I'm from, and while there is a lot of urban sprawl here, the county I'm from is still rather sparsely populated. There is some theatre that happens, but it's pretty easy to see all of the local productions without going crazy. Here, I could never have enough time or money to possibly see every show, and rather than being intimidated, I'm just thrilled by the plethora of options I have at my feet. The phrase "the world is my oyster" comes to mind. Is that why they call them oyster cards? I've always kind of wondered.

I digress. In all honesty, I think it's kind of refreshing to know I always have something to do. This weekend I popped over to Camden Market just for the heck of it, and it was kind of fun to be able to just people watch for a while. I've also given myself London camouflage, since I got a very trendy haircut, and I feel less and less like a tourist and more and more like I've found a city I'd very much like to consider home.

Can I take a second to rave about the fact that their museums are free? How cool is that? If I decide one afternoon that I'm bored, I could hop on the easy-to-use and readily available public transportation and go to see rare artifacts and priceless works of art. Plus there's no guilt about not getting my money's worth, and thus feeling obligated to spend hours looking at items I'm only cursorily interested in. Neat. And the free health care isn't bad either, imagine that.

I do miss Mexican food though. At Camden, my curiosity was piqued by a food stall offering "fajitas", but you can tell by my use of punctuation that I wasn't highly impressed. The man who took my order asked if I was okay with "hot" food, and when I encouraged him to hit me with his best shot, he was fairly generous with Cholula. If you are familiar with Cholula, you may know it's not really spicy, if you're anything close to accustomed to spice. The next thing that worried me was the texture of what they called guacamole. It was more of an avocado dressing, somewhat similar in texture to ranch. The final straw was the lack of salsa. I may not be a true gourmand, being that I have only had limited years to develop my palate, but seriously? At least cut up some tomatos with cilantro and onion and pretend it's pico de gallo. The scandal. There were also no beans (either pinto or black) to be found in the stall, nor any spanish rice. I will have to risk trying a slightly nicer establishment next time, to see if the results are any better. We shall see, London, we shall see.  For now, curries and the large collection of foods baked in pastry will have to do.

Now that I mention it, though, those foods baked in pastry will be the bane of my existence. Why are sausage rolls, pasties, and pies all so damn tasty?

In any case, I have no idea if this post is anything close to interesting, but thanks for reading anyway!

P.S. If you ever want an "alternative lifestyle" haircut, or even just a haircut involving clippers in any fashion, check out the Barberette, Klara. Awesome work, as you can see.

Stigma

When I consider all of the things that make up my identity, I generally come up with an amalgamation of nerd, alternative, lesbian, atheist, liberal, and a whole bunch of things that cannot be qualified by a single word. I'm not against labeling myself, but I think that no one should have labels thrust upon them, nor should anyone change themselves to fit into a group, if it's not part of their natural growth as a person.

One label that I have a really, really hard time admitting to myself, and only a slightly less hard time admitting to others (hello, internet strangers!) is one that I tried to avoid for a long time. I still try to avoid it because of the stigma associated with any 'invisible' problem. That's my euphemistic way of saying I have a mental health disorder. It's something no one can see, and is frequently mistaken for the sufferer's personality.

There's a lot of misunderstanding surrounding mental health, and I'm not really qualified to speak to other people's experiences, but I know from personal experience that many people judge those afflicted with mental health disorders very harshly. People bandy about the phrase 'x must be shizophrenic' or 'y is so bipolar' when they clearly have zero understanding of the actual experiences people living with such disorders have. Lots of people joke about being 'so ADD' or having 'OCD' or any number of other popularly recognized social disorders.

I find this troubling. The psychiatric community assigns those diagnoses after long periods of study, after going through years of education, and exploring what other disorders or common behavioral issues the patient may have. It helps no one to self-diagnose, even in a humorous way. All it does is increase the misunderstanding that people have about what it is to live with a mental health problem. I'm one of the lucky ones, because my issues are fairly easy to hide, thus making my handicap, as it were, even less noticeable. There are lots of people who cannot avoid recognition, and I have watched, and even occasionally intervened, as they were harassed and mocked by "regular" people.

Mental illness is a serious issue that affects millions, but there is very little attempt made to understand or empathize with the plight of those who are afflicted. It's shocking when you consider the numbers- an estimated 26% of adult Americans suffer from a diagnosable mental illness, and about 6% have a serious mental illness. How can it be that when a quarter of the population is diagnosable there is so much stigma associated with having a diagnosis?

Maybe it's because we care too much about having, or not having labels. There is a sense of status associated with the labels we wander around with, and there is a loss of status when those labels have negative implications.

In the queer community, we talk about visibility as a way of promoting tolerance. I came out at a young age, even lept out of the closet, in some ways, and never really doubted myself. It has worked, being visible, to prove to others who may have held certain stereotypes about my lesbian label that I am, in fact, "normal" and worthy of respect. I wonder if it could be the same way for mental health disorders. If I stood up and proudly told everyone about my illness, explained what my life has been like (if they want to listen), and stopped hiding, and if others also did so, would it help?

I don't know. I've told my close friends, I occasionally tell my bosses and coworkers (if I feel it's necessary), and if asked, I wouldn't deny it, but I still feel like there is a part of me that cannot publicize my inner demons. Maybe it's because I don't want this particular label, or that I judge myself too harshly. Maybe it's also that I think there are some things that are hard to come to grips with for anyone, and they shouldn't have to announce their labels in order to receive acceptance and understanding.

Stop perpetuating the stigma of mental illness- it's pointless, and only shames the people who are afflicted. There's no stigma to be accepting and tolerant of differences, whether they be 'visible', or 'invisible', so perhaps it's time to turn over a new leaf.

On the Politics of Lies

Information rarely comes to us immediately. Even if we are eyewitnesses to an event, our backgrounds, the reactions of others, and our memories later can be affected by the method in which we remember or retell a story.

As a practitioner of theatre, it becomes easier to understand politics in terms of performance. Politicians have an objective (presumably to be elected, at this time of year), and their circumstances dictate that they should use any means necessary to get there. As such, their tactics largely center around lying, which is highly problematic for those voting.

The majority of people whom I have heard discuss the presidential debate have discussed that Romney seemed like a viable candidate at last, and his rhetoric was as effective as that used by Obama, if not more effective. While they both used half-truths and in some cases, blatant lies, sites like factcheck.org,  skewered Romney for being a 'serial exaggerator'. If this is what it takes to be President of the United States, there must be a reason.

The unfortunate truth is that the American public is at fault. The other unfortunate truth is that the American media machine is at fault, and can never not be at fault. Merely by choosing what is and is not newsworthy creates political bias from the top down, and the public feeds this negative feedback loop by eagerly appreciating aggressive lies. Until we move to a system of total information, which some may have thought was promised by the internet, we cannot have a political conversation without lies.

What's hard to comprehend, however, is that there can never be a world without bias. I am biased. You are biased. The various mediums in which any opinions or facts can be presented are biased. Later, when I click the publish button at the top of my editing page, this post will be 'live' on google, but it will only come up in the top of the results if it has been seen a large amount of times from various sites, or if I were to pay for the privilege. Additionally, even though I will post this on facebook, like the great social media giant encourages, this will only be seen by those online at the exact time I post, and only remain in the top of the newsfeed if many people 'like' or comment on the post. Google also alters results pages depending on location, as well as analytics it collects on you as an individual, so I am unlikely to get any results that are conservative, which is actually somewhat disappointing.

I think, however, that there is a distinct, tenable difference between lies and political bias. I may look at the world with an alternative viewpoint, with distinct opinions and experiences that shape the facts I receive, but I recognize this. When a politician lies, whether it is to protect the platform they are a part of or to further their own interests, it takes away from productive discourse.

It's part of why America is incredibly bi-partisan. Both parties get more caught up in defending the actions of their party than looking at the facts and examining results. Though much of the news has a bias, there are ways to glean information from statistics taken by non-partisan groups. At the very least, there must be a way to improve the situation, and honesty might actually be the best policy. It's frightening, especially when one realizes how little truth is floating around in the public eye, and how mediated our information has become, but not impossible.

I do not think we can ever give up bias, because humans love having opinions and beliefs. Where the bias end and lies begin may be solved in American politics at first by abandoning the lie that our country can never be more than a two-party system. Attack the media for only allowing two of the 411 candidates currently running for President to be heard, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. Do not buy in to the fear-mongering and lies that are touted to make the American public believe it only has two choices.

Most importantly, vote. Presidential elections in America rarely result in a turnout of more than 55% of those eligible to vote, and have dipped below 50% before. This is pathetic. Apathy might seem like the logical reaction, but only by participating do we truly create change. Could you imagine if the 45-50% of eligible voters who either are disenfranchised, unmotivated,  or do not see where they fit in the bipartisan model suddenly stepped up and all voted for 'third' party candidates? Maybe I'm being idealistic, but I think that would be a massive sign for politicians that they cannot continue to get away with this.

Perhaps the introduction of more parties into the political system will inject a much needed sense of purpose, a sense of clarity, or at the very least, become a wake-up call to the two political parties who have coasted by on lies and deceit for so long.

And yes, I am biased, but I am not willfully informing those who do not agree with me that they are wrong. I am only encouraging the public to take back America.

Active Consent

"Well, you know how men are. They think 'No' means 'Yes', and 'Get lost' means 'Take me, I'm yours.'" -Meg, Disney's Hercules.

Clearly the issue of consent was one so universal it had become the subject of a one-liner in a children's movie, released in 1997. One would assume, then, that huge steps had been made to eradicate the style of thinking and behaving Meg so succinctly illustrates. It wouldn't be "humor" if it wasn't relatable, so therefor Disney writers were aware of the culture of consent at the time.

But 15 years later, it feels like not much has changed. We discuss rape and its punishment in terms of the victim. Rights are repeatedly taken away from women and men who suffer sexual assault, though most of the legislation suggested by the conservative party attacks women specifically. As Paul Ryan so kindly pointed out, "Rape is just another form of conception.", thus implying that a woman is worth nothing besides producing children. We hear comments like these from politicians, the people who are supposed to be more worthy to lead and make decisions than the masses.

There was, and still remains, a strong campaign to popularize the phrase "No means no.", but I posit that merely defining one method of refusal is not enough. Street harassers rarely evaluate the willingness of the woman to hear how "hot" she is, and sometimes a word is not the only way that someone could choose to "say no".

This is why I promote active consent, both in my own life and to my friends. Yes, it can be a little bit "unsexy" to ask for permission, in terms of what society has deemed attractive, but we all know that I am generally not pleased with what society finds appealing. What's much, much less attractive is not having consent. There's an article trending on my Facebook newsfeed regarding the famous "Kissing Sailor" photograph, and in the evidence presented, it's clear the nurse had no time to say no before the the sailor decided his happiness was more important than her consent. Sometimes when we are caught up in the excitement of a moment, things happen, but it's a cop-out of the highest order to suggest one cannot control their own actions under any irregular circumstances, such as being drunk or excited.

I know it can seem strange to other people to be "slow", because I have run into that issue as a practitioner of this method. My persona and image seems to be one of more dominance, rather than submission, and generally the women I have dated assume I will just do what I want to do when I want to do it. When I move only as slowly as is established, I am met with confusion, but it's simple enough to sit someone down and explain. Though it can be occasionally "frustrating" to move at a different pace than was originally expected, it is ultimately far more rewarding. It can also be very attractive to hear a partner ask for what they want and explain what they are comfortable with you doing, if it's phrased correctly.

By creating a more informed method of consent, hopefully we can avoid the pressure and stigma attached to saying "No". I find that even I think I owe someone physical reciprocity after going out to dinner, but that's very much not the case. Asking for a yes at every change in level of intimacy may seem droll, but I think it gives both parties time to think about what it is that they truly feel comfortable with. In the long run, it leads to deeper trust and understanding.

After all, the best thing to hear someone say is "Yes!"

Freedom of Choice

I will start this post with a preamble, because I think it is in fact important to address that I do not believe homosexuality is a choice. What I do believe, however, is that it shouldn't matter in the slightest whether or not it is a choice. Just to repeat- according to respected scientists, and in my personal belief and experience, homosexuality is NOT a choice.

We choose (arguably) what religion to prescribe to, and what political party we align with. These rights to decide are granted to us by the freedom guaranteed by our government. The privileges of certain religious groups may be sometimes be hindered, as live animal sacrifice is banned in most countries, along with polygamy, but the right of the individual to believe in that religion is not questioned. Other religious groups or society as a whole might in fact question their choice, but do not question their right to have it. Their privilege to practice their religion is perhaps what we could consider a 'non-issue.'

The same goes for membership in a political party. I hope that most people realize that party membership is a choice, even if a large majority stay in the same party as their parents. My father is a Republican living in one of the most liberal areas in California, and his right to be in the party is not questioned. His ideas, perhaps, but not his right to vote Republican or respond to issues differently than a Democrat might, or any other small political party in the United States.

We also choose how, when, and where to have sex, with some obvious exceptions. Rape is not condoned, nor should it be, because consent between adults is the single-most important thing in considering a sexual act's legality. This is why pedophilia, rape, and bestiality, to name a few, do not hold as comparable to any other sexual acts. They implicitly deny someone, or something, the right to choose. Clearly, taking away someone's freedom of choice is inherently harmful when it comes to their bodies and their minds.

So then why is it that a sexual act between consenting adults, acting on their FREEDOM of choice, forces those adults to give up the privileges that other consenting adults still enjoy? Can there be an evaluation of what occurs in someone's bedroom to somehow decide that they are no longer free to exercise the full rights of citizenship? I don't think it should matter. The government has no right to dictate or even show preference to what sexual act its citizens perform in the bedroom. And yes, denying homosexual couples the right to marry is explicitly showing preference to a style of sexual act, because gender and sexuality are completely separate. Two heterosexual men will not enjoy the same exact things as one another, so why dictate that all men and all women need to enjoy the same things?

The second important point to mention is that I don't think it should matter if friends get married, because again, you'd merely be policing what they do or don't do in the bedroom. Some heterosexual friends get married for the myriad of benefits it bequeaths, and there are various limitations, socially, that dissuade those who are not committed to each other from 'tying the knot', as it were. The gender of the participants should not really be questioned.

If I were to leave the house some morning, find some unsuspecting man, and somehow convince him to get married to me, my choice would not be attacked by society to the same vitriolic tune as my choice to marry someone I love. Marriage is a choice, just as most of the other things I have discussed are. Straight couples are not forced to get married, but homosexual couples are forced to abstain. Their choice was taken away from them.

I think we would find this country highly unpleasant if all of our major life choices were no longer choices, but rather dictated by society. If little Johnny wants to go to Harvard, has the qualifications required, and the financial means, gets in, but then is informed that they have chosen to refuse him because they found out his political party or religious affiliation, most people would be outraged. These things, however, are choices. Why does it somehow change when the choice is sexual? All of the arguments I have seen have to do with religious beliefs, but many heterosexuals getting married are not religious, and the government has general rules regarding how much influence religion should have.

This is not to say that homosexuality should be taken lightly as some sort of preferential lifestyle. Far from it. The fact that it is not really a choice makes the discrimination suffered by homosexuals much, much worse. Then little Johnny is being denied admission to Harvard because of the color of his eyes, the texture of his hair, the melanin levels in his skin. Things that seem absolutely ludicrous, insignificant, and inconsequential to a college application.

The bottom line is, however, that whether or not it is a choice belittles the central tenet to the American  governmental pedagogy- freedom. This is a country "built on freedom", that stands for "freedom" that is the "land of the free", and regardless of the paradoxical content that such statements eschew, the choices we make, assuming they do not explicitly harm others, are ours to make.

Is the idea of freedom of choice really so troubling to so many?

My Body, Myself.

I have always been fairly athletic. I like playing sports, being aggressive, and occasionally fitting into my butch lesbian stereotype quite neatly. I have played soccer (football) since the tender age of eight, and along the way played basketball, volleyball, tennis, flag football, baseball, done track and field, and wrestling. I was also an accomplished equestrienne (suck on that, stereotypes) with ribbons for dressage, show jumping, and eventing.

Because you clearly want to know insane amounts of information about me, I have a great set of health stats, including an insanely healthy blood pressure, low resting heart rate, and an excellent lung capacity. I can run a 5k without pushing myself in under 30 minutes, and then continue on to do hours of weight training and other fitness. I can do push-ups (including ones with my feet elevated) for days. I've got a great level of aerobic fitness and recovery.

On most days, I eat non-fat, plain yogurt for breakfast (generally about 200grams) with fruit, usually a nectarine or strawberries. Lunch is probably a lean protein and veggies, maybe with some rice or potatoes, and dinner generally follows in the same pattern. Usually my calorie count is somewhere under 1400 calories a day.

I exercise probably three to five times a week for about two hours each time. I also take the stairs instead of the elevator, in most cases, and I purposely set up situations where I can walk further away.

I'm 5'4" and I weigh somewhere in the range of about 160lbs. This makes me overweight- not exceptionally overweight, by any means, though I was once considered obese by the government (I did, however, have a nice extra 28 or so pounds on my frame). There was once a time when I really didn't care what I looked like, but starting in my stint at boarding school, I started to get more upset with my body as the years have continued. Maybe it was because I started putting on weight, but I was never 'slim' or 'skinny'. In fact, when I went away to school at 15, I weighed about as much as I do now. Then, I was happy with my body, and now I am miserable.

I have undergone various diets in attempts to lose weight, I have exercised more, and I have changed all sorts of habits and patterns in my life because I have been surrounded by a culture which informs me that my only currency is how I look.

I'm fairly intelligent and creative, as far as those things can be self-assessed, but if I state that I am "stupid" or most other derivatives surrounding my intellect, people will laugh as long as I say it with some humor. This occurs regardless of why I have decided to insult myself. It generally springs from self-consciousness, but society doesn't repeat it at me, so I can generally recover pretty quickly from bouts of insecurity about my brain capacity.

If I dare suggest that I am 'fat' or 'ugly' or 'overweight' I am treated to the chorus of society deniers who assure me that I am not overweight, fat, or ugly. I say that they are society deniers because pop-culture has informed me that I am all of these things. I struggle to find myself attractive in a world where beauty is assigned by physical qualities such as size and femininity. I constantly quantify my personal beauty by saying "I'm attractive to women who like women, but not men." or "I'm attractive facially but my body isn't." There is no space in my mind for me to be both overweight and attractive, now, because I have somehow internalized my culture's definitions of what it means to be a modern woman.

I have bleached my teeth, grown out my hair, plucked my eyebrows, shaved hair off of the majority of the places it grows naturally, used acne treatments, purposely lost weight, changed my diet and lifestyle,  my way of dressing, talking, acting, and even writing because the looming dictatorial presence of "SOCIETY" has informed me that I need to fit in to a mold that they have graciously created for me. Whether other people find me attractive or charming or fashionable is irrelevant because a good chunk of my life has been dedicated to having society as a whole find me attractive, charming, and fashionable.

I know that I am lucky in many ways. My parents are financially secure, I'm well-educated, white, and likely to also be financially secure because of the life my parents were able to provide. I am not generally discriminated against, because I live in a liberal city, and I have most all of the rights that a heterosexual in my situation would. I'm not large enough that I need to find clothes from plus-size distributers, and I am not generally looked down upon for my size in obvious ways.

The ways, however, that I am looked down upon, are there. Small but insidious, they creep under my skin. People do not believe me when I tell them my fitness level. Athletic organizations assume my skill must be lower than it is, or patronize me when it's high. I have heard people in day to day life, and seen people on the internet, refer to me as fat or ugly. It is easier to believe these small comments that sneak into my periphery because they match the image I am compared to. Beauty is being small, athleticism is having under 15% body fat.

I don't believe it's impossible to lose weight and keep it off. I was 188 two years ago and haven't been since I started trying to actively lose weight. It takes hard work, and I don't even care about that. I'm a dedicated person, and I will probably continue on the downward trend, weight-wise, I have started for myself.

I like my new eating habits, because I do feel more energy, and more healthy and nutritionally satisfied. I don't even miss most of the junky things I liked eating. I don't care that this journey has made me into a healthier individual, because that's a positive, and has improved my stability in mood.

What I do care about is how I feel like I cannot indulge in any vice of food without society judging my choices and telling me "That is why you're fat." I'm sorry, but the candy bar I have maybe (maybe) once a week or the ice cream I eat maybe once a month, if that, does not magically make me overweight, especially when I factor it into the daily calorie count I cannot help tabulating in my head.

I care that I am so guilty about it. I care that I have lost some of myself in the pursuit of being "better looking", because I know that once I've gotten there, all of the importance that I've assigned to being physically fit will not magically solve any of the insecurities I have. It will not make me more attractive or less attractive to anyone but this mysterious and poisonous "society". I care because of the countless other women and men that will be plagued with the same sensitivity to how they are perceived by others to the point of losing the trees for the forest. Even if I become "fit", I will have shown I do not regard myself as much as I regard what culture thinks of me. I will have shown that I am just another cog in the machine of image oppression, whirring away as I micro-analyze every inflated "imperfection" I have.

Behind my formulated appearance, what will be left? I don't want to be a person who makes choices based on media's pervasive influence, because it contradicts with my personal assessment of intelligence. I shouldn't feel this way, because everything about beauty and aesthetics is relative.

I should be the only person I try to appeal to. It is my body, after all, and it does not belong to "society." It belongs to me.

Fast Food

So my little brother really likes McDonald's, which isn't surprising, given that he's 7 and their food is basically the perfect to make your brain want more, since it has sugar, salt, and fat (the unhealthy trifecta). But I convinced him I didn't want to go there, so we went to Burger King, which I guess wasn't really a victory, but I was interested to see them marketing healthier options, like apple 'fries' and a garden salad, along with orange juice, water, and lower calorie meals. I decided to have orange juice and apple fries, which wasn't terribly satisfying, but were about the only two things I could purchase that wouldn't violate any of my rules. Technically the regular fries don't either, so I leeched some from my brother, but we can't be perfect all the time, can we?

I don't find meat terribly difficult to give up, but giving up all dairy has turned into a sport. My first choice of spaghetti sauce had parmesan cheese, so I had to pick a different marinara, which was kind of surprising. This morning I made pancakes with rice milk and bananas to replace the eggs- I think they were quite delicious. I topped them with margarine and some home-made jam.

However, I am now craving vegetables. Time to go hunting!

P.S. Corn syrup foiled my plans to have sweets, so I guess I'll have to get some sorbet or just make candy at home.

P.P.S. Fast food is terrible. I really dislike that I went to a fast food joint today, but I was at the behest of my brother. I feel like between the movie 'Super Size Me' and reading Fast Food Nation, I should never be willing to enter another fast food establishment, but man, do they get you when they convince kids to come. I feel like the toys and playplace areas need to go. Shouldn't there be some kind of regulation on advertising directly to children? At least when the product is unhealthy, anyway.