There's Nothing Sexier Than Having to Talk Somebody into Sex, I Guess

Guys, at some place called "Reason" there is a nightmare of a blog written by some lady named Shikha Dalmia: "California's Sexual Consent Law Will Ruin Good Sex for Women. (And it won't stop rape)." Go look at it. (Or don't.) Stab something non-living. Then come back and spend some time with me. Here are some of my initial responses:

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME WITH THIS SHIT?

LIKE SERIOUSLY, IS THIS A JOKE?

IS THIS WHAT PEOPLE CALL "TROLLING"? IS SHE DOING A TROLL ON US?

I CAN'T EVEN FORMULATE THE WORDS TO EXPRESS ALL OF THE PROBLEMS HAPPENING HERE.

I WILL EVEN USE THE WORD "PROBLEMATIC" TO DESCRIBE IT.

This is how all of this makes me feel.

Guys, California has a new law! If a college student accuses another student of sexual assault, the disciplinary board of the college or university must apply a standard of affirmative consent to their investigation. "Did (s)he want to have sex?" (new standard) vs. the traditional question of "Did s/he say 'no' out loud?" This is a good development because of how lots of time people (mostly ladies) are taught to be polite and use nonverbal cues or redirection or other methods besides outright refusing a Man. This is also good because even if that issue is not in play or a very minor concern, people who are being assaulted often know or suspect that if they do say "no," things will not go well for them. It can be easier (and even safer!) sometimes to give in. Or, say, you may be unconscious and never even get the chance.

Many rapists don't think that they are rapists, even if they know the things they do aren't okay, so they continue to believe and/or at least argue that the out-loud word "no" is the Gold Standard of All Consent. Or they argue that "She only said no at first" or "She said no to that one thing, so I did this other thing" or "She said yes to some stuff early on, so any other words afterwards I couldn't hear because of how I didn't want to" are legitimate claims to make. These are not legitimate claims to make. The new law does not require that consent necessarily be verbal, but it does have to be "affirmative, conscious, and voluntary" and given at every stage of the sexual encounter. This is like when you are making out with somebody and it's getting hot and heavy and you're pretty sure you both want to have sex, but you are not a mind reader, so you say, "Do you want to have sex now?" And then they say yes or no, and if they say yes, you get out a condom and do it. If they say no, you negotiate whether to keep making out and only making out or to stop and do something else. It is very easy and it even works on strangers (who are not rapists). Even if you are both drunk (I should know)! Shikha Dalmia seems to be confused about a lot of these things, like how rapists and rape culture operate. Perhaps even more troubling (for her personally, anyway), she doesn't seem to understand what "good sex" might actually look like.

Here, I plucked some Choice Passages to yell at on the internet. I will try not to recap her entire terrible essay to you, but there were a lot of bad parts. (Hint: all of it.)

Gem #1: "To the extent that the law works, it will actually ruin both good men and good sex." 

This is a thing that makes no sense and also is not true. And she never argues how it will supposedly ruin "good men," just FYI. I'm pretty sure good men are just, like, good, and aren't rapists anyway, so...?

Gem #2: "The obvious problem with the law — which many other states are considering as well — is that it assumes that sexual assault, already a crime under multiple laws, is the result of miscommunication. The assumption is that somehow one partner (and let's be honest, it is overwhelmingly the one with a Y chromosome) didn't ask or realize that the other wasn't into it. But the fact is: Most assaulters know exactly what they are doing. The vast majority of campus rapes are committed by a small minority of repeat offenders who give not a damn about what the woman wants. And if they can threaten violence, they can also lie about obtaining consent."

L;KJAREGPOIAGNJKAG;KAGJKDG. Oh my god, the idea that sexual assault is just "one big misunderstanding OOPS how'd my dick get in there?" is a rape culture myth, not something that feminists/anti-sexual assault activists promote or buy into. Yes, most rapists* are repeat offenders (though they don't like to use the icky "R-word" to describe their actions) who don't care about what women want. Yes, criminals and exploiters can, do, and will lie about what really happened. The thing is, they are now going to have to make a better argument than "I never actually heard the word 'no.'" The point of the law is to kick one of the legs out from under rapists' arguments. They will have to explain how they knew their partner was actively consenting. "She stiffened up and wouldn't make eye contact" or "She said, 'I don't think we should' but not 'no'" or "She asked me to at least use a condom" or "She was pretty drunk, but I could just tell she wanted it" are no longer good arguments either! Those actions do not say "yes."

Maybe the new law won't scare most rapists at all. But knowing that the legal (at least on campus) requirement is affirmative consent is good for everybody! Like, if there is a sweet boy who is shy about talking about sex, but gets scared when he is fooling around with his girlfriend that she is not that into what they are doing right now and he doesn't want to be a rapist, so he forces himself to ask her out loud if it is okay, THAT IS A GOOD THING. More communication is always positive. If she says, "Yes, it feels good!" Yea! If she says, "It's fine," maybe he should ask her more questions about what she would like better. If she says, "I don't really like this, " then he should stop that immediately and also ask more questions about what she would like better. That is how sex works. Good sex, anyway. And I'm not just being reverse sexist! She should ask him the same things. Same goes for partners of any gender/orientation/number. If your partner(s) doesn't seem engaged physically, then use your words. It's called adulting. Like, a good relationship allows for you to be honest that not every sex position or strange Pinterest recipe your partner tries is your jam. Only assholes will be mad that you told the truth.

Gem #3: "So how will the law change anything? But by effectively changing the assumption from 'presumed innocent' to 'presumed guilty,' this new standard will inevitably snag some guys who earnestly meant no harm. Over time, of course, an industry will emerge to coach the accused on how to game the law and get away. "

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? No. No. No. If a guy "earnestly" thinks fucking a girl who clearly isn't actually into it will do "no harm," then he needs to learn that it is NOT OKAY. It is not worse to be accused of assault than to be a victim of it. Go fucking read Mallory Ortberg's opus on victims and what "counts" as a crime and then come back and finish this shit.

But SRSLY, UGGGGGHHHH. Defense lawyers and rape apologists will always be around, this law will just make it harder for them to argue the encounter was consensual. This is the main reason why sexual assault cases aren't pursued/punished: the issue of consent is supposedly "unclear." If there was no consent, it was a crime. These new guidelines make the definition of consent narrower, meaning it's HARDER to slip out of. (And also a college disciplinary committee is not the same as a court of law, so maybe let's not completely conflate the two?) I don't give a fuck how earnest you are if your partner didn't want it. Also, we don't avoid making laws because some people will find away to get around them. That is not how legal codes work, Shikha Dalmia.

Then the really revealing part happens.

Gem #4: "The truth is that, except in the first flush of infatuation, both partners are rarely equally excited... What's more, whether due to nurture or nature, there is usually a difference in tempo between men and women, with women generally requiring more 'convincing.' And someone who requires convincing is not yet in a position to offer 'affirmative' much less 'enthusiastic' consent... initially one has to be coaxed out of one's comfort zone. Affirmative consent would criminalize that."

NO. Negotiating a disparity in desire and sexual coercion are NOT THE SAME THING. Let us discuss how. It is true that rarely are two people exactly in sync as far as desire goes, especially over the course of many years. These things ebb and flow for various reasons, many beyond our control. And what Dalmia is talking about here, the need to be "convinced," seems to be (I'm taking this in good faith) a reference to what amazingly smart and awesome sex educator/scientist Emily Nagoski refers to as "responsive desire." GO HERE NOW READ ALL THE THINGS. Those people who generally experience responsive desire (and it does seem to be more common in women) don't usually want to have sex just spontaneously. Their desire is heavily context-dependent and comes in response (see?) to sexy stimuli. Some of us have always been like, or at least sometimes feel, "It is a Day, I want to bang." But many others sometimes or usually feel like, "I am stressed out or tired or kind of sick or just doing this other thing and I can't imagine feeling sexy right now how could you possibly want to bang at this moment?" This is a great post where Nagoski talks about how to ETHICALLY initiate sex with a partner who experiences responsive desire. It's about creating an environment in which s/he will not just begrudgingly agree, but actually WANT sex. It's also not quid pro quo, though. Just because you did the laundry for your over-stressed partner when it was her turn doesn't mean her underwear is just going to fall off next time she sees you. "Convincing" both in this context and in Dalmia's description has an awfully coercive feel to it.

Responsive partners may not be actively feeling horny, but if they are feeling "open" to sex because you've helped put them in the right frame of mind, then you are working together to make it happen. They will not necessarily feel like having sex until the sexy is already happening sometimes, but that still has to be consensual. Like totally consensual kissing! Eventually, if things are not progressing beyond that on their own, you may want to ask your partner if s/he is still into this. If they're still just warming up, great! If they decide that's all they've got in them for now, that sucks, but that is that. And if your partner is not in the mood, s/he is not in the mood, so maybe ask them what you might be able to do to create the right mood and LISTEN and DO IT WITHOUT EXPECTATION OR IMPLIED OBLIGATION, don't just grope them until they give in. This is just good relationship advice. And as Jill Filipovic pointed out on Twitter earlier, if it's your personal jam to be nagged into sex with guilt, then that's your thing, and is presumably a consensual, pre-agreed-upon kink you've worked out with your partner and is therefore also not rape. If what Dalmia means by "convincing" is actually foreplay, then well, I'm just saddened that she doesn't consider that part of the fun. One still has the ability to consent to particular acts and/or whether things will go further at any point. Still so much not-rape.

Gem #5: "The reality is that much of sex is not consensual — but it is also not non-consensual. It resides in a gray area in between, where sexual experimentation and discovery happen."

No. If many of your sexual encounters are "gray" or not-NOT-consensual, then maybe you should reevaluate your life choices.

Gem #6: Obligatory reference to women's "sexual liberation" and then, "It won't help their sexual actualization now to enchain their partners in ill-advised lines that limit their moves."

ENCHAIN? How dare we venture to SHACKLE THE DICKS OF AMERICA'S COLLEGE MEN? Kill me now. SRSLY. If women and men are all sexually liberated, then anybody can initiate sex or particular sexual moves, so why do we have to worry about "limiting" dudes? For the sake of the Sexy Gay Jesus, lady, "limiting" men (and women! All people!) to sexual conduct that is consensual and therefore legal is not a real limitation, anyway. It is what a civilized society does to protect its citizens from exploitation. How does making exploitation harder hurt anyone? Oh boo hoo hoo, it's not cool for a dude to just "accidentally slip it in"! Have we destroyed experimentation by having to ask first? No. Even scientists have to ask first before they do an experiment. Mostly for funding, but the analogy stands. If you're sexing with other humans, their needs and desires are no less important than your own. Why would you want to have sex with somebody who doesn't want to have sex with you anyway? (Unless you are an actual rapist, in which case, go to hell, and I hope we're making your business more difficult.) Agreeing to fuck is great! Let's all do it!


*Here's some stats and facts from Science about sex offenders.

Did you hear about that musical douchebag?

Why Jay Smooth is one of my internet boyfriends: John Mayer's "white privilege is a wonderland." In a rivaling awesome move, one of my internet girlfriends, Melissa McEwan, in response to Robert Pattison AKA the Emo Prince saying some ignorant misogynist shit: He has "evidently decided to use his interview with Details to apply for the hotly-coveted apprentice douche position at John Mayer Industries." Oh the funny. <3 interwebz

Manly Man Man Commercials During Football but WHAT ABOUT THE (GIRL) CHILDREN?!

Covered all over the interwebz are discussions of the particularly pathetic and desperately misogynist commercials shown during this year's Super Bowl. Via Jezebel, I quite enjoyed this flow chart to analyze the masculinizing effects of television commercials. As Amanda Marcotte from Pandagon, puts it, these commercials would have us believe that modern masculinity is barely surviving a vagified assault. Heehee. VAGIFIED. That Dodge Ram Charger (ladybrains have trouble keeping track of all those different types of cars!) commercial ("Man's last stand") was so sad, I didn't even want to punch anyone. 'Cause I mean, SRSLY? Dear sirs: No one can MAKE you eat fruit or not act like an asshole in front of your girlfriend's parents, but they are generally advisable actions. Also, why is Dove marketing man-soap? But I digress. But anyway: the problem with the Super Bowl's "I'm a MAN" commercials is not so much that they are insulting to women (though they are) or even that they are insulting to men (which they most definitely are also), it's that a huge (inter)national media event like the Super Bowl reaches its icky, capitalist-fueled gendered message tentacles into the homes of millions: millions of CHILDREN. Though I do a kind of disgusting amount of research on the gendering of boys and the devastating effects of hegemonic masculine ideals enforced by peers, parents, and fucking football commercials on young men, I want to talk about the lady children. Yes: GIRLS. Though I am now a dirty, hairy-legged feminist academic elitist man-hater who is able to view cultural productions like advertising and pick apart the gendered messages therein and sometimes make oversimplified jokes to my gentleman consort like, "Get it? 'Cause [insert consumer good here] is totally like a PENIS!" I was once a young girl. Ahhh, those were the days.* (The following discussion is incredibly heteronormative, so sorry lovely gay readers, I am not quite so familiar with how gendered media messages fuck with your relationships too--or not! Feel free to lay some knowledge on me in the comments.) Growing up in my pre-ex-Mormon days as a kind of proto-feminist girl, the messages I received from role models, peers, and the media made me kind of terrified of men. And I don't mean in a child molester kind of way, though getting leered at by teens and adults while still in elementary school and reading too many of my mother's Woman's Day and Better Homes and Gardens magazines certainly made me aware of my inherent vulnerability to assault or abuse because of my gender. No no, I mean in a "I really like boys and I want to get married one day and hopefully have a boyfriend as soon as I'm allowed to date when I'm 16 and whatnot, but from what I understand, male people are assholes who are stupid, lazy, mean, and just want to fuck me." Though this sentiment probably manifested more as a kind of nebulous, anxious discomfort and with less swearing in my head. See, I have older brothers, and though they are far more masculinely gendered than really seems necessary, they are, after all, PEOPLE with all the complexity that that entails and I experienced the good and the bad the way you do with regular, three-dimensional humans growing up with them. My dad is also happens to be an awesome guy who clearly has feelings, cares about people, is very smart and competent, and appears to be the best kind of partner to my mother. So when my (kind of proto-feminist herself) mom would say things like, "[Mormon] men have to have the Priesthood because it forces them to help people." I thought, "WTF? Like dudes are incapable of caring about people or something? That doesn't jive with the masculine-identified human beings I am acquainted with." Something really rang false when responding to some friends and me talking about a teenage boy we knew being creepy to a younger girl, she said, "All boys care about is sex. If they didn't, they wouldn't ever want to get married and have kids." As much as I cringe at thought of my own our anyone else's parents' sexuality, I (internally) called bullshit even then. I'm pretty sure my dad WANTED to marry my mom and WANTED to have kids for other reasons besides being able to get it on. Gross. And though in elementary school the occasional asshole boy in my class would try and tell me girls were bad at such-and-such task, it always sounded particularly stupid since I was inevitably smarter than whoever was saying it and probably most if not all of the other kids in my class too and I assumed it was mostly motivated by jealousy. Don't worry, my self-esteem took the culturally-sanctioned nosedive at puberty. So while the sexist messages that got blatantly expressed didn't seem to gibe with reality, they caused me a good bit of anxiety (shock, shock). I knew plenty of stupid dudes, immature dudes, creepy dudes, etc., but I figured that any place before college wasn't really the place to find the semi-gender-nonconforming man of my dreams. I think being friends with/having crushes on/being like by so many cool dudes who ended up eventually coming out as gay helped me keep hope alive for men who did not adhere to the arrogant, violent, insensitive dude stereotypes I had been taught were the inevitable elements of masculinity. And though I've never gone for the manly-man type and they're not likely to go for me either, it did take me a few relationships to figure out that just because someone doesn't overtly present as super-masculine doesn't mean they don't buy into certain stereotypes of acceptable male behavior. Casual misogyny in the guise of intellectual arrogance, "irony," or complete inability to comprehend the emotional life of others does not a feminist man make. And while I realize everybody has their flaws and it is difficult to just shrug off our life-long gender training, it becomes clear, at least in retrospect that shit I put up with from men was due to (at least) these three factors:

1. Insensitivity, cluelessness, or even cruelty become self-fulfilling prophecies for men who grow up in a society in which these attributes are if not exactly encouraged, then at least tolerated as unalterable parts of the male psyche. Being a terrible and immature partner is CUTE and ENDEARING, see? Just ask Judd Apatow!
2. Male privilege insulates young men and boys from being called on certain behaviors that are unhealthy and I would say unacceptable in interpersonal relationships. Because jackassery has been tacitly or overtly condoned by parents, teachers, previous partners, and probably mostly male peers, many men think that being a jerk is the appropriate masculine performance for heterosexual relationships. Heaven forbid you become "pussy-whipped" and learn empathy! But can I just point something out? Acting like an asshole doesn't make you more of a man, it makes you more of AN ASSHOLE.
3. Perhaps most troubling, us ladies grow up if not exactly believing in these stereotypes in full, at least having been beaten over the head with them so often as to be complacent when they may be enacted in our real-life relationships. I put up with unacceptable treatment from male partners who were supposedly pro-feminist or at the very least "progressive" because I expected such behavior to a certain extent, and figured that at least they were liberal dudes who didn't REALLY hate women and I couldn't really do better anyway.

Do you see how these things are fucked up? Not only do we (the culture at large AKA advertising executives I HATE YOU ALL) stunt men emotionally and then encourage them to act out like whiny babies who are supposedly victimized and emasculated by the lady-run world that is tragically not just like an episode of Sports Center on loop, but we tell women that this is what men are "just like," that we should accept this, roll our eyes, and clean the toilet our own goddamn selves. NOBODY WINS IN A PATRIARCHY. Duh. And since changing the definitions of masculinit(ies) is a slow and difficult process, the least we could do is find a way to reach out to those young girls and women who are watching the Super Bowl (They exist! Shocking!) and teach them to critically read the media. Most importantly they need to know that they deserve better than what society wants to offer them in the form of romantic relationships. Because as man-hating as these commercials are, women are the ones who inevitably have to clean up the messes (emotional, household, etc.) caused by dudes who have soaked up the cultural stereotypes that allow them to be lazy and reckless because, hey, they can't help it. CARS PENIS STEREO HOT CHICKS FOOTBALL PORN ELECTRONIC GADGETRY BACON SEXBOTS EXPLOSIONS FAST CARS HAMBURGERS CONTROLLING WOMEN'S BODIES BEER CHIPS BEER CHIPS BEER CHIPS. *At 26, I still think of myself and most of my female friends as "girls" as opposed to "women" most of the time, but I would be pissed if someone who had power over me and/or I didn't like called me one. I think that's part of the reason I've latched onto "ladies"--it is kind of silly but still sounds more mature than "girls" without having to claim the full adulthood that "women" entails. I THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS, PEOPLE.

A conspiracy in the works

Why is my student health insurance (through Aetna, who by the way, once claimed on a statement that the student health insurance that I buy through the school and am required by the school to have doesn't cover visits to the student health center, you know, on campus, but I digress) charging me $23 for a seasonal flu shot I got a couple of months ago when I was able to get an H1N1 vaccine for free last week? Also, why did the regular flu shot make me feel ill for 12 hours and like I got punched in the arm, while the H1N1 shot just itched a little bit the next day? When I find out whichever government agency is harvesting my genetic tissue for nefarious biological weapons research, they'd better not have charged me for it. Assholes. I can has move to Canada now, plz?

I flatly refuse to be stigmatized

Apparently some asshole thinks that the government shouldn't give out food stamps because it makes us too lazy. SRSLY. Unfortunately for John J. Miller, I am NOT ASHAMED of receiving food stamps, they are awesome. I am in grad school so I don't have to get a real job. The state of Ohio is funding my education and paying my measly assistantship stipend anyway, so why not keep mooching off the government for my groceries too? I like my dependency just fine, thank you very much. See for yourself: In Praise of Stigmas. (John J. Miller at The Corner, National Review Online) Don't worry, I don't actually read the National Review, my friends at Sadly, No! brought this gem to my attention.

TMI Alert: It's Not Pissing, People

Apparently British Film censors are among the many people who are under the erroneous assumption that "female ejaculation" is just pissing during sex. From what I understand, the phenomenon is far from universal, but still quite common. And can I just say? Yes, I can. This is my blog, I can: as a lady who sometimes ejaculates, um, it is so not urine. How can I know for sure? First of all, if it is urine, I should really be doing a lot more laundry. Second of all, as a human being with a normally-functioning bladder, I'm pretty familiar with urine. It has a color. It has a smell. In fact, in females, it comes out of a TOTALLY DIFFERENT ORIFICE than lady juices. I would know if I were peeing my pants or my sheets or whatever, and it would not make me happy, even if I were simultaneously orgasming. It's as if no one actually believes that female sexuality can be independent and/or different from anything involving sperm. "No, honey, you just lost control of your bladder, that's all. It must be so rare for you to orgasm since for a lady IT TAKES FOREVER and is only achieved by mysterious means. You must've just gotten excited and wet the bed." Assholes. P.S.: There are people into actual urine play in sex, and to that I say, "Gross." But whatevs, as long as you take a shower before we hang out, it's not really any of my business.

Top 5 Crappy Joes

I'm going to make a sweeping, baseless generalization: dudes named Joe suck at higher levels than people with other names. Here are some important examples to back my assertions up: 5. Joe Lieberman- "Democratic" douche 4. Joe Wilson- Yelly Republican douche 3. Joe "the" Plumber- NO EXPLANATION NECESSARY 2. Joe Jackson- Exploity/abusive douche 1. Joe Francis- RAPIST/PORNOGRAPHER DOUCHE Am I right? Douchalicious Joes.

Andrew Jackson: Old Dick-ery, if you know what I mean

You're an Indian and no one's completely disenfranchised you yet? Here, let me take care of that.

Andrew Jackson is one of our country's most beloved asshole-presidents. He displayed many of the qualities so admired in people of the masculine persuasion: blind prejudice and racism, sleaziness, gun-savviness, general douchebaggery, aggressively violent tendencies, a terrible temper, and a complete inability to comprehend a situation in which he might be wrong. Even a little bit. Born in 1767 in what is now North or South Carolina to a Scots-Irish immigrant mother (his father died shortly before he was born), Andrew was the youngest of three brothers. I'm sure Andrew Jackson was always so naturally manly that not having a father and having two older brothers to compete with abuse him act as shining examples and also being super-skinny his whole life never made him feel like he had to prove his masculinity constantly. Andrew Jackson didn't have much formal schooling because he lived out in the sticks, and besides, reading is for girls. At age 13, Andrew became a courier for a local regiment fighting in the Revolutionary War. He and his brother Robert were captured and held as prisoners of war. He developed a great hatred towards the British during his captivity, as the enemy forces starved him and his brother and also infected them with smallpox, of which Robert died while still a prisoner. Andrew had a temper even then and got slashed with British blades for refusing to shine somebody's shoes:

Apparently the war somehow also finished off his mother and other brother, so 14 year-old Andrew Jackson was left to fend for himself. He worked for a bit at saddle-making, then teaching, and eventually studied law as all good incipient assholes do.* He passed the bar and began working as a country lawyer in North Carolina. He practiced "frontier law," which is superior to prissy citified law because it deals with land disputes and drunken assaults and the like. He took part in the Tennessee Constitutional Congress in 1796 and was elected as a U.S. Representative once statehood was achieved. Then the next year he was elected U.S. Senator by the legislature, but he resigned after a year or something. U.S. Senate: BORING. Not enough "rough-and-tumble" for the likes of Andrew Jackson. So from 1798 to 1804 he served on the Tennessee Supreme Court, which I assume regularly held court in a rustic cabin and each of the justices wore the most luxurious of coonskin caps. Also during this time Andrew Jackson bought his plantation The Hermitage, where he eventually owned over one hundred human people! In 1790, Andrew came to be acquainted with a lady named Rachel Donelson Somethingorrather, who was separated from her asshole husband.** The ex was like, "Yeah, we're totally divorced now," so Rachel and Andrew got married. Turns out, not so much. The Jacksons were fake-married--que scandaloso! They got real married in 1794. They adopted one of Rachel's nephews and named him Andrew Jackson, Jr. and also a eventually a Creek orphan boy named Lyncoya who died of tuberculosis before he could fulfill Jackson's manly military aspirations for him. Apparently they also served as guardians to eight other children who just happened to be orphaned relatives. Which is, like, a lot. 

But huzzah! Life on the frontier can't be all fun and frippery sitting on the legal log bench and keeping black people like animals! No, there were Indians about. Indians who were, for some weird reason, not so pleased about the white settlers stealing all their lands and generally hating them and killing them and whatnot. Andrew Jackson was appointed a colonel in the Tennessee militia in 1801, the beginning of his illustrious military career. He led the fight against Tecumsah's forces during the Creek War sub-war to the larger War of 1812. Under his command at that time were other professional historical manly men Davy Crockett and Sam Houston. He helped screw over the Creeks with the Treaty of Fort Jackson, which pretty much stole 20 million acres of land from its native inhabitants. He was then promoted to the rank of Major General! He totes became an American military hero while commanding forces against the hated British in New Orleans. Supposedly he was all "tough as old hickory wood," which sounds less like a good nickname than a reason to visit a dermotologist to me, but whatevs, I didn't live in the 19th century for a reason. Jackson continued his Indian screwing-over career in Florida during the First Seminole War. At that time, President James Monroe was like, "Yeah, you should keep Spanish Florida from being a runaway slave refuge, and also, if the Indians and/or Spanish give you shit well, you should, like, *cough cough* you know." Anyway, Old Barkskin took that to mean that he should burn down Seminiole villages and crops, depose the Spanish governor, execute British allies of the Indians, and become Florida's military governor for a while in 1821. 

At some point the Tennessee legislature appointed him to be a U.S. Senator again, but he only stuck to it for like a year, and then ran for President in 1824. Jackson got a plurality but not a majority of the Electoral College votes, the election went to the House of Representatives, and in what Jackson would later call the "corrupt bargain," JQ Adams was ultimately elected. Anyway, Jackson teamed up with snazzy dresser and political strategeryist Martin Van Buren and they revived the old Democratic-Republican party as the Democratic Party, leading to a decisive win in the 1828 presidential election for Jackson with creepy, creepy John C. Calhoun as VP.

Pre-bargain 1824 election shenanigans. Explanatory notes.

But not before JQ Adams was like, "Your wife's a bigamist!" Which, as you'll recall, was true. And also which really pissed off Jackson, because he was devoted to his wife and was willing to defend his property her honor in up to thirteen separate gun duels, in which he was injured several times and once killed a man. But whatevs. It's not like he had an anger problem! He was just really romantic! But he was all popularly elected and the like, was nicknamed "King Mob," invited the public to the White House's inaugural ball, and also had access to incredible amounts of cheese. Rachel's poor health finally failed soon after the election, and she died before her husband made it to the White House. He was kind of upset about that. His niece and later his daughter-in-law would serve as White House hostesses in Rachel's stead. Andrew Jackson was against the Second Bank of the United States (fuck you, Alexander Hamilton!), and did everything in his power to abolish, including taking all the government's money out of it and making everybody have lots of physical coins on hand and blahblahblah whatever Congress censured him in 1834, and he totally caused the Panic of 1837. Andrew Jackson had interpersonal communication problems, and had some issues within the administration and eventually just started keeping his advisors in a tiny kitchen cabinet or something like that. Also, John C. Calhoun (a supreme asshole in his own right), was like, "Federal tariffs are oppressive, the Southern states are just going to not do them, mmkay?" Jackson attempted to solve the Nullification Crisis by threatening to send federal troops into South Carolina to force them to enforce the tariffs, which went over really well and resulted in Martin Van Buren's ascendency to the Vice Presidency in Jackson's second term in Calhoun's place. Fuck "states' rights."

But being POTUS isn't all fun in games, people. Sometimes you have to use your power and position to fuck over more Indians and remove them from their native lands so that more white people can live there. What was that? They tried to "civilize" themselves by giving up their native cultures and assimilating to mainstream white culture? TOO BAD: TRAIL OF TEARS AND BTW, FUCK YOU, SCOTUS. Also, during his terms of office, Andrew Jackson was assaulted by some guy and also was the victim of an incredibly unsuccessful assassination attempt by a dude who thought he was King Richard III of England.

I AM A MAN ON A HORSE, DAMMIT.

Anyway, Jackson anointed Van Buren as his successor and eventually died of chronic TB, dropsy, and also heart failure (he was REALLY dead) at The Hermitage in 1845. Many equestrian statues, cities, counties, parks, and federal monies have been dedicated to/are named after Andrew Jackson. Including the Confederate $1000 bill! He probably would've shot somebody over that, had he still been alive.

*I know some very fine non-asshole lawyers and law students, but I am saying it is a stereotype for a reason, people. If it doesn't apply to you, move along. 

**Her ex must have been, like, Joe Francis or Newt Gingrich bad if Jackson was a step up.

Last day of work, personal ramblings, and linkage

Fact: The Pretentious Ex-Boyfriend, the Perpetual Roommate, and I beat up an old printer of mine with a baseball bat that the PR had "borrowed" from the athletic department in front of the middle school across the street from our apartment one night. It was actually really hard to break pieces off of it, but we made up for it by playing "Damn It Feels Good to Be a Gangsta" on some tiny speakers. And then we properly disposed of the debris.

Hey kids,

So... this is my last day of work. At my grownup desk job where I occasionally do data entry but mostly just fuck around on the internet while being paid too much money. The last several months of blogging have been a godsend. Seriously. And maybe it has something to do with the fact that I went back on antidepressants right around the same time I got serious about the blog, but I'm just going to go ahead and give the interwebs some credit for keeping me from hating my job too much and letting it completely suck my soul away. But anyhow, I'm going "back to school," as they say. Which makes me feel kind of old. To be able to say that. But I am. Things are going to be a little crazy for the next month, so I highly doubt I'll be able to top July's 50 posts. Anyway, this weekend I'm going on a random trip to Chicago to visit A Certain Someone Who Has Requested to Never Be Mentioned on This Blog (CSWHRNBMTB) and the Perpetual Roommate. I'll be back late Monday probably, so don't cry if there are no posts. Then I will have a few days to get my shit together for the SCANDINAVIAN TOUR I'm taking with the Perpetual Roommate, after which I have to pack and move to Ohio. And start grad school. And pretend to know what I'm doing.

So here's some links to get you through the weekend. Don't miss me too much while I am off galivanting in my newly-unemployed state!

-Amanda posits the idea that if we're going to interpret the Bible and take Christian doctrine literally, it really looks like god is kind of an asshole. He's playing games, trying to keep the upper hand, making sure he's got control of the situation. Luckily The Sexy Gay Jesus is aware of his male privilege and doesn't abuse it. But then again, I'm not trying to date SGJesus, what with him being gay and all. And Jesus. God, who doesn't return your phone calls. (Pandagon)

-Rachel Sklar over at HuffPo's Eat the Press compiled a sweet set of clips showing how Jon Stewart and the Daily Show crew have been all over sleazy Ted Stevens and his craziness and corruption for ages. It's pretty great. Jon Stewart Knew Ted Stevens Was Up to No Good. (Huffington Post)

-Paul Campos has great take on the whole "OMG the kidz is too fat!" moral panic. Not only is it a manufactured "problem," but as always, the pharmaceutical industry is both the instigator and the benefactor. Check it out. The Real Drug War. (Lawyers, Guns and Money)

-Kieran Healy discusses how we deal with douchebags in public places. Like ones who cut in line and expect people's inclination to avoid conflict to outweigh their sense of fairness. I myself tend to go for the resentful passive-aggressive approach to assholes who stand in front of me at concerts when my friends and I were clearly here first, like, since before the opening band, and WHY IS YOUR BOYFRIEND SO GODDAMN TALL?! No I will not take a picture of you!* Anyway, it's interesting how angry those kinds of situations can get you; angrier than all of the great injustices in the world. Because it's immediate. It's blatant. And whatever it is, it's totally not worth them being a dick about it. Norm Enforcement Is Hard, But People Do It Anyway. (Crooked Timber)

-Over at Jezebel, SadieStein really gets to the heart of the "Pretty Girl" phenomenon. As in, some girls are "Pretty Girls," and some girls (who very well may be totally hot themselves) are "Smart Girls" and/or "Funny Girls." Some of us were a little awkward in junior high and spent our time trying to write the most morbid stories or wear the most random item of clothing taken from our parents' old '70s stash in the basement. But you know what, I had a lot of fun. And though I now recognize my inherent hotness, I'm glad I've got other shit going for me. I like to think about how I am an awesome internet blogger and about to be paid to be a graduate student and how the hottest/most popular girl in our seventh grade class married some guy from our hometown a couple of years ago, and they both work at her dad's restaurant chain. Not that I'm gloating. SMALL BUT RELATED TANGENT: I used to date someone who would constantly tell me how hot I was. That's nice, sure. But I definitely felt pressure to maintain it, you know? I'm pretty lazy, so I only took it so far, but if let yourself be valued for attractiveness like that, you start to invest yourself in it too much. And god knows I don't need to think about my appearance any more than I already do, which is too much. Anyway, I think Sadie's hit the nail on the head with her analysis: Pretty Is As Pretty Does: The Middle School Moment. (Jezebel)

My internet presence will be spotty for a bit, but I'll try and dig in when I get the chance. Happy August, everybody! And happy Lauren's Last Day of Work!



*False. I will. I will take a picture of you and your drunk friends, but I'll still be seething over your drunk, view-impairing ass while I do it.

Missives from Home: Douchebags in Vancouver, WA attract national attention

Ah, my hometown.

Pam Spaulding reports on some racist/homophobic, possibly anti-Obama vandalism back in the 'Couv. I could have told you it was full of conservative assholes. When the Mormon kid comes back from only one year of being indoctrinated by liberal arts college professors and realizes she's now one of the most liberal people she knows in town, well, that tells you something. Also, it cracks me up that the Pandagon commenters immediately get confused and think it's Vancouver, Canada. THIS IS AMERICA, PEOPLE. CRAPPY, OVER-DEVELOPED, STRIP MALL-AFTER-STRIP MALL, SUBDIVISIONS FILLING THE SPACE WHERE THE FOREST USED TO BE, SUBURBAN AMERICA. This is where I'm from.