caliarch.net

Ingredients:

1/4 cup margarine or butter

1 med green Bell pepper

1 med onion

1 can cream of mushroom soup

1 can cream of chicken soup

1 can Rotel

2 cups cooked / canned chicken

2 cups cheddar cheese

12-18 corn tortillas

Instructions:

1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees.

2. Chop Bell pepper and onion. Sautee in butter/margarine.

3. Mix together in a large bowl: Bell pepper, onion, both cans of soup, Rotel.

4. Cut corn tortillas into strips. Cover the bottom of a casserole dish with strips of tortilla. Spread 1/3 of soup mixture on top of tortilla, then top with a layer of cheese. Repeat for 2 more layers.

5. Bake at 350 degrees for 40 minutes or until hot & bubbly. Let cool for 10 minutes before serving.

An amazingly quick read (350 pages) compared to some of his other works, and maybe a little more approachable, especially for someone new to books of the magical realist ilk. On the other hand, though, if you *luvs* you some magical realism already, you might agree with a reviewer who described Sheep Chase as “less stylistically evolved” than Murakami’s other works. If that’s you, you might prefer The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. It was a perfect read for me on the the first five days of my vacation: interesting & engaging, but easy to read and without too many existential mind-benders. Up until the last couple of chapters, there isn’t too much existential-dreamlike-surrealist craziness, other than a woman with vaguely magical ears and a sheep-spirit with a penchant for occupying various people’s minds.

Next up: Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World. Apparently that one’s supposed to be the *real* mindjob.

“The gays are ruining our marriages!”

Really? I mean, seriously?

All the hullabaloo in CA (& elsewhere) lately reminded me of this book by Stephanie Coontz (who also wrote, “The Way We Never Were: American Families & The Nostalgia Trap”). Such a great read. & when she says “Marriage, a History,” she means it — the book includes a full-on rundown from prehistoric times to the controversial issues of our day & covers just about every culture & geographical region I can think of. As one reviewer put it, “*the* resource for anyone who is married, was married, wants to marry, can’t marry, hates the very thought of marrying, or thinks they know what the one right kind of marriage is.” Also highly recommended for “every policy and law maker who would have us believe they have a monopoly on the truth.”

[Related quote of the day:  “Against gay marriage?  Then don’t get one & shut the f*** up.”  I love Howard. ]

Many people engage in premarital sex for very good as well as very poor reasons. Likewise, there are people who choose not to have premarital sex for some very good reasons, and some who make the same choice based on quite poor ones. Whatever. That’s not what today’s rant is about.

Among the many reasons for waiting until marriage for sex (and I’m talking about intercourse here specifically) is the fear of being seen as dirty, damaged, or unclean by one’s family, future spouse, and sometimes society at large. A recent article in the NY Times discussed what has become a new cosmetic trend in Europe, mostly among unmarried, somewhat Westernized but still culturally Muslim, young women who have had premarital intercourse. The procedure is known as “hymenoplasty” and is purported to restore a women’s hymen to its original, unbroken state.

I could rant about the growing obsession that women have with surgically altering their bodies in order to meet unreasonable and sexist expectations. I could even rant about what a travesty it is that young women are having this procedure because they fear social stigma, physical abuse, and sometimes even death should a future spouse discover that they’ve had sex before, and how, even now, in the 21st century, some women are still treated like property and held to a ridiculous double standard that requires being, ahem, “inspected for quality assurance.” But that is not today’s rant either.

Today’s rant focuses on the sheer, pervasive ignorance that the world at large still has about women’s bodies and how they work with regard to sex. And it’s not just the male, the uneducated, and the religiously fundamental that are working with (and propagating) bad or incomplete information; no, more and more, I’ve begun to realize that this particular brand of ignorance crosses all kinds of boundaries. One expects certain myths and antiquated ideas about the female body to be alive and well in cultures whose treatment of women has not (or barely) improved in the last few hundred years, but when the NY Times cites some of the same statements as if they’re facts, I can’t help feeling a bit frustrated.

So, once and for all, let’s clear some things up, shall we?

1) Women do not have “big” or “small” vaginas. When there’s nothing in it, it has essentially no dimension at all, and a normal, healthy, relaxed vagina is extremely pliable and can stretch to accommodate pretty much anything of reasonable size.

2) Vaginas do not “loosen up” with time or use, except in some older women who don’t get much sexual activity. The vagina is made up of muscles; using them actually keeps them toned. Thus, you can’t tell how much sex a women has by how “tight” or “loose” she feels. In fact, the looser she feels, the more relaxed, comfortable, and aroused she probably is.

3) Although most women are born with some sort of hymen, most have pretty much disintegrated altogether by age 15 or 16. While some women may still have enough of a hymen to feel some pain because of it by the time they first have intercourse, most don’t. And…

4) …you can’t tell by a gynecological exam whether a women has had sex or not. Not even a doctor can tell for certain. Sure, if there’s been rape or otherwise particularly violent sex, there will be visible trauma, but plain old ordinary sex doesn’t leave any discernible sign. Thus, the idea of performing an examination in order to provide some “certificate of virginity” makes almost no sense. The only way someone, even a doctor, can tell if a woman has had sex is by asking her.

5) Bleeding from first intercourse is NOT usually due to a torn hymen (for the reasons stated in 3), though it is possible. Also, not all women bleed the first time they have sex. Most bleeding is a result of vaginal trauma, usually due to poor communication with a partner or a partner who is unresponsive, or a women trying to have sex before she is really relaxed and aroused enough for it to be comfortable. Thus, the idea that you can tell that a women was a virgin by whether or not she bleeds is a myth. Not all virgins bleed, and it’s entirely possible for women who have had sex to bleed to some degree as well.

6) Along the same lines, first intercourse is not always painful. Sex should only be painful when a women is not completely relaxed or aroused, and since most people find it a little difficult to completely relax the first time they have sex, most women do experience some degree of discomfort. This can be compounded by poor communication or an unresponsive partner. It is entirely possible for a women to have sex for the first time and experience absolutely no pain or bleeding whatsoever. This does not mean that she wasn’t a virgin.

Clear enough?

Good.

So, the next time you hear someone propagating falsehood about women & sex, do try & set them straight, will you?

I am embarrassed to learn that the Texas State Board of Education is considering a science curriculum that purports to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution.  The chairman says that this offers the advantage of being able to teach TWO kinds of science in the classroom — “naturalist” science as well as “creationist” science.

Here’s the thing; see, we already have a word for “creationist science.”  It’s RELIGION.  We also have another word for “naturalist science,” and it’s SCIENCE.  You can have your religion if you want it, but you DON’T get to rename it and teach it in science class.

A retired gynecologist in his 80s recalls the state of his profession pre-Roe v Wade.

My favorite quote:  “It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.  What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such.”

It’s crushing because it’s true.

Kindergarten teacher invites students to tell autistic classmate why they hate him.

Are you effing *kidding* me??? Has she met children???