If you like what you read, consider donating to help me support my family.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Science is God

I KNOW I have said this before, but I think it bears repeating...

I am watching a science show with Neil deGrasse Tyson, and I like him for the most part. I think he is quite valuable and a very smart man, but he has a fundamental flaw that ruffles my feathers, lol!

He seems very harsh against the possibility of a God - any God. His philosophy seems to be that if science can explain it, then God didn't do it, and if someone thinks God did it, then they just don't know enough about science yet to explain it.

I find his reasoning blatantly asinine, because he is in effect stating that there is no such thing as a God - any God - and that anyone who believes in God is "ignorant" - his actual word.

Here's my take on it, God is Science, and Science IS GOD! So, for example, let's say a child is born with a disability. We'll use Autism for an example because it is becoming very prevalent in this day and age. NdGT used epilepsy as his example. He says that in older times, when and BECAUSE people could not explain it scientifically, they automatically blamed the devil. But science has proven that it is simply uncontrollable neurons misfiring.

I am certain that any autistic children born in that same era would have been either reviled as devil children, or considered "special" and "Touched by God." Even IF science could definitively explain EXACTLY what autism is and how it happens (Science can explain much about it, but not all, yet), that DOES NOT take away the possibility that (one) God (or another) had a hand in the creation of that child. That does not automatically mean that a God did not stand over the parents at the time of conception with the soul that would be born discussing its future life and the challenges it would face. 

In that moment, it could have been decided that this conceiving couple would experience the relative "misfortune" of an autistic child. And from that moment on, every event that needs to occur for autism to become a possibility happens and the child becomes autistic. The parents then learn to care and provide for their beautiful and unique child, and they become more spiritual as people.

Why does the fact that science CAN (or will be able to in the future) explain something take the power of that thing out of God's hands? I mean let's say - for one moment - that the Christian God (my least favorite one) happened to create the entire universe. Then that means that ALL of the laws of the universe were created by him, and if he wants to do something - such as perform a miracle - then he does it by using the laws he created, which is then explained by science and dismissed as a rare but possible event.

Thus my statement that God is Science and Science is God! They are not mutually exclusive and the existence of one does not eliminate the existence of the other. Sigh...

Sunday, December 21, 2014

A Major Milestone!

Considering that it has been a while since I posted anything, I decided to make a quick update :-)

First of all, Blessed Yule! May today be magical for all who read this :-)

Secondly, I got a new computer for myself as a Yule present, HOORAY! :-D Hopefully, it'll make it easier to write more stories and thus post more to my blog :-)

But since I have a new computer, I just had to find a new background. I think this one is pretty, and so I'm going to share it with you all. Enjoy!

I did NOT make this! I found it on the web somewhere, but I don't know where or who made it. It was titled Sexy Witch, so I was probably looking on DeviantArt or simply searching for the actual words Sexy Witch and decided that I like this pic. It makes a pretty good background :-D

Have a happy day :-)

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Rewatching the entire Jem and the Holograms series - just because - while I crochet, and I remember that the reason I liked it so much as a child was that it doesn't appear to be one of those cartoons I hate in which it's the same episode every time, just slightly different. Think any cartoon in which the heroes decide to do something, the bad guys come in to screw it up, and the heroes defeat them and save the day. This cartoon is like that, but it gives a really good effort at trying to appear to have a different plot each episode.

I like how it tries to teach girls that they can have it all, a career, fame, love, civic duty/charity, etc. However, I think it does a BIG disservice to girls as well. Main character Jerrica has been together with her sweetheart Rio practically since the first day they met when she was a young teen. He went off to college for a while and came back and now works with her and they are officially a couple. Jerrica didn't go to college because her father owned a record company and she chose to change into her alter ego Jem and become a rock star. All good so far, except that Rio - without knowing that Jem IS Jerrica - has half fallen in love with her too, and Jem and Jerrica seem happy to share him. Still good because I think that's a valid option :-D

What bugs me is that - according to the backstory - Jerrica and Rio have been together for several years, and it shows them kissing and going on dates all the time. They are not ready for marriage, and that's okay, BUT they imply that nothing else has ever happened between them. Nothing. Yeah sure, it's a kids show and they don't want to tangle with the controversial subject of sex, but I think that it could have been added very subtly, such as mentioning that Jerrica spent the night at Rio's or maybe show her taking a birth control pill. There could have been one tiny scene in which she gave half a second's thought to what it would be like to marry Rio and have children someday, but no.

The reason I think this is a disservice is that it very falsely implies that a man in love would be willing to wait many years (an excessive amount) to go beyond the kissing stage. I think this is wrong, and that he would eventually get tired of waiting for her to be ready for him. I ALSO think it's a disservice because it implies that a girl should not be interested in anything more than kissing until she's ready to get married. That implication shames girls who think they might want more than kisses and makes them feel bad about themselves. As I said, it's a disservice.

To me, a good cartoon would model realistic choices. Such as Avatar the Last Air Bender. They made it clear from almost the first moment that Aang was in love with Katara and would like to marry her someday. She made it clear that she wasn't ready to think about that, and when he pushed her to say how she felt about him, she stated that she was confused. After the first series ended, they got married and had kids.
SEE? They didn't have to imply that anything was happening, but they didn't deny that it could or would eventually. They even have a scene in which Sokka was clearly waiting for his girlfriend to visit him in his tent. That's it and all that's really needed to show that they had a realistic relationship.

I know y'all are probably dying to tell me that it's a kids show and not to take it too seriously, but it's shows like this that provided a role model for a generation of girls. Rather than be a truly positive one, they decided to avoid all real issues and focus on showing girls that they could only be loved if they were beautiful, fashionable, and famous - not to mention sweet, kind, and willing to work themselves to the bone in order to get ahead.

What is that really teaching our girls?

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Why you shouldn't jump on the bandwagon to cancel the Duggars

So there's a petition going around to cancel 19 Kids and Counting. I've only watched the show a little bit, but my mom absolutely LOVES the show. I can totally see why because its a wholesome show that emphasizes treating people with kindness and respect.

So, in my opinion, if you have never seen the show, you should NOT be allowed to sign any petitions to get rid of it!

But here's the crux of the situation: Michelle expressed a very real concern, and then suddenly everyone lost their minds thinking she was anti LGBTQ when she's not.

Here's a whole conversation I had on it on Facebook:

A friend posted a petition to have the show cancelled. A couple of her friends liked the post.

Woman 1 posts: Good!
Woman 2 Posts: just change the channel. They believe in something and stand up for it just as we all do. I dont agree with it but they have the right to believe as they wish

I post: Thank you ******. I'm getting sick of people who don't even watch a show petition to have it taken off the air because they have an unpopular opinion. What are we, in high school? I have watched this show and they are a very loving and kind family. The people petitioning to take this show off the air will be committing a grave crime if they have their way.
I'm firmly pagan and into free love - and freedom of everything for that matter - and even I am saying that this show should not be cancelled!

Woman 1 posts: When they are breeding hate it's a whole different story. Shall we be subjected to a kkk show as well?

I post: They are not breeding hate. Watch the show, they are breeding love and kindness.

Then I decided to try and clarify the situation by posting: Let me put it this way: I am a nudist. Let say I had a ton of money and poured that into campaigning for laws to make it legal to tan naked in public parks. Let's say that I even manage to get popular support. Should I then petition to remove anyone on TV who thinks that being naked is a bad thing? Should I claim they are spreading hate because they want people to wear clothes in parks?
No, I have my opinion and they have theirs. Just because an opinion is popular, doesn't mean that the unpopular opinion should be punished. Just my two cents...

Woman 1 posts: Quote from the article:
It specifically calls out matriarch Michelle Duggar for her efforts to stop an LGBT-inclusive antidiscrimination ordinance in Fayetteville, Ark. Over the summer, she recorded a robocall warning that if transgender people are all
owed to use the restroom most appropriate to their gender identity, it will enable sexual predators to assault women and children. The ordinance passed nonetheless, but now, Wissick says, the Duggars are bankrolling an attempt to repeal it.
“The Duggars have thrown massive amounts of money to repeal this law so business owners and land lords can evict and fire people solely over gender idenity and sexual orientation!” Wissick wrote in an update. “They need to be taken off the air!”

Then to reply to me directly, she posts: Agreed but that situation is NOT discriminatory against ppl being who they are from birth genetically. Being a nudist is a lifestyle preference. Big difference!

I post: So you would rather judge the show based on bad PR than on the actual merit of the show? I can totally believe that Michelle Duggar might believe that transgender people could pose a threat to normal people, but she would not be rude or mean to them in person. She would treat them with kindness and respect.
And I would argue that being a nudist is something a person is born with every bit as much as being bisexual or transgender is. All I am really saying is watch the show a lot AND THEN judge it. Do not believe every article that says something is bad if you haven't seen it yourself.
Peace and have a happy day - night, whatever, lol!

Woman 1 posts: I have watched it and all that is for the sake of the camera and a paycheck. I mean do we really watch tv shows and believe what we see is true? Cmon!

I was in the middle of typing up a post when she posted that, so I didn't really respond to it. But here's what I posted: Last thing, laws are very multifaceted. In one single proposed law you could have:
1 - the right to know what you are eating
2- Money to pay homeless veterans rent

3- A law to make it legal to shoot convicted sex offenders while in jail
4- And a suggestion to take away the right to defend yourself on your property if the person assaulting you is a different ethnicity.

If a person opposed just one part of the law, they would then have to oppose ALL of the law. So maybe they are against part 4, but then the media gets a hold of it and says: SO and SO voted AGAINST knowing what's in your food AND giving homeless veterans a place to live!!!
Now I know I have listed some fairly outlandish examples, but if you actually read every proposed law - especially when it comes to defense spending, they try to slip a LOT of bad shit in there.
So according the to article, Michelle has only ever expressed concerns about transgender people being molesters, but the media then made it into a much bigger issue by claiming that she opposed the REST of the bill too. She never said that. Not even in the article you quoted.

Woman 1 decides to add another article to prove her point: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5689840
She is spreading ignorance and fear lumping transgendered and pedophiles into the same category. Are women not able to violate young girls? Her argument is ridiculous

By her standards, nudists should be able to be fired or evicted because there's a chance they might reveal themselves in an inappropriate place or around minors like in the bathrooms.

Except that it actually proves MY point (I'll get to that in a bit). I post:  I totally agree that her argument is ridiculous! I know trans people and they are usually very sensitive and loving people. I think that Michelle is in the wrong by saying that they are likely to be pedophiles. I never argued with that. All I am saying is that she is entitled to her opinion and that just because it is unpopular, it is being blown way out of proportion. I myself will always vote FOR LGBTQ rights, but she shouldn't have to change her beliefs because people don't like it.

Woman 2 comes back into the conversation: They believe what the majority of Christians do. The only difference is they have a tv show so what they believe is openly out there. I don't agree with their stance on the LGBT community but again they have a right to their beliefs. My daughter is a lesbian so it does hit home for her and our family. If you throw the hate logic out there then most of the reality television shows should be canceled as they do spill hate on different topics. imo

Woman 1 posts a response to my last post: No she shouldn't but she is using tv money to push her agenda

So here's where I get around to explaining why the article she posted actually proves my point: Again, she never said anything about firing or evicting, here are her exact words: Hello, this is Michelle Duggar. I’m calling to inform you of some shocking news that would affect the safety of Northwest Arkansas women and children. The Fayetteville City Council is voting on an ordinance this Tuesday night that would allow men – yes, I said men – to use women's and girls' restrooms, locker rooms, showers, sleeping areas and other areas that are designated for females only. I don’t believe the citizens of Fayetteville would want males with past child predator convictions that claim they are female to have a legal right to enter private areas that are reserved for women and girls. I doubt that Fayetteville parents would stand for a law that would endanger their daughters or allow them to be traumatized by a man joining them in their private space. We should never place the preference of an adult over the safety and innocence of a child. Parents, who do you want undressing next to your daughter at the public swimming pool’s private changing area?

She is simply concerned that a convicted sex offender will use the excuse of being transgender to go into a women's bathroom or locker room and molest people. I can see that as being a valid concern no matter WHAT you believe about transgender. I believe trans to be beautiful people. Never the less, pedophiles will take advantage of this law if they can.

Once more, Michelle herself never said anything else. But because she is opposed to THIS part of the law, people are claiming that she WANTS people to get fired or evicted for being trans. She never said that!

Woman 1 understands me, but basically agrees to disagree: Until I see just as much effort on her part saying I have no problem with trans folks, I just worry about my kids safety from this MINOR possibly. ...I will continue to believe this to be a pr smoke screen because she can't just come out and say trans ppl and gays are bad

I liked her statement because I do actually agree with her in that I believe this whole thing to be a smoke screen to distract from the REAL issues.

Woman 2 ends the conversation with this: ******, i can understand your worries especially with the restroom issues  

So if you have made it to the end of the conversation, you'll realize that people have taken what Michelle Duggar actually said WAY OUT of context. I still firmly believe that the show is a great show and should not be cancelled. I also challenge YOU to actually watch the show for at least 10 episodes before you even consider signing a petition to have it cancelled based off of bad PR and political smoke screens. Base your decision off the actual merits of the show, NOT what every one says happened.

Good night all! 

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

What is erotica anyway?

So today I had a comment on my blog from what appeared to be a real person. This made me so happy at first because I don't get near enough comments on my blog. But then, I read the comment...

It was the first 3 sentences of a story with a link to read the rest. I deleted it within a second. WHY? Because it was pornographic.

Whoa whoa wait? What? I deleted something for being pornographic?!?! I know y'all are confused by this because - lets face it - I have plenty of things on my blog that contain, describe, or somehow feature sex. I'm probably the last person people would expect to be mildly offended by someone posting porn on my blog, but I am.


Well, here's the thing, I'm kind of a grammar snob. I am a writer in the true sense, meaning I devote a lot of time and effort into creating something that most people will enjoy. I add graphic sex scenes to some of my writing because I fully believe that sex is a big part of life and that no story talking about someone's life would be complete without a little - or a lot - of sex.

In short, I do write some erotica, and I'm pretty good at it, but it's not the only thing I write.

So wait, back up. What exactly IS erotica?

Let's take three types of stories and compare them. Romance, erotica, and pornography.

Pornography is probably the easiest to describe. Here's an example:

He walked into the room and saw her in the middle of getting undressed, so he walked over to her, lifted her into his arms, tossed her on the bed, and proceeded to fuck her until the headboard banged into the wall. She was naturally delighted and moaned and gasped out her pleasure repeatedly. The fucking took all day, and then when he had finally gotten his rocks off, he left her in bed while he went home.

The entire story exists ONLY for sex and it is graphically described (maybe not so graphic in my example paragraph), but it has no real emotion to it. It's usually a product for men to read or watch so they can masturbate to it. From beginning to end, it has no story but sex, and if it does have a story, it's only to explain why this sex is new and different or enviable.

ROMANCE - on the other hand - is a story that talks about how the couple met, the things they did, and how everyone felt. The story revolves around them falling in love and very likely overcoming some obstacles to be together. It may contain sex, and heck! Very often contains graphic sex. But the sex is not the crux of the story. It's not the reason the story exists.

Erotica is fairly hard to categorize because it is a mixture of the other two genres. It usually has a story, but the story either revolves around sex or it relies heavily on sex to fill the gaps in the plot. It could go something like this:

A man and woman met for the first time because they were set up on a blind date. Both had fun on the date and found the other person funny, but they felt no beginning pangs of love. After a couple of hours, they ran out of things to do but didn't really want to go home and be alone, so they decided to go back to his place and have sex. The sex turned out to be epic, so they had more sex. Then, the next morning, they decided to exchange numbers and call each other if they ever wanted a booty call. For the rest of the story, they run into troubles finding love, so they hook up to have sex at least once a chapter. By the end of the story, they might actually be together, but their story was based on sex and love happened to be the product.

So, to recap: Pornography equals no real story for the sake of sex. Romance equals story for the sake of love, and erotica equals an actual story for the sake of sex, complete with plot that makes sense but isn't intended to have the characters fall in love.

A LOT of times - especially in my writing - romance and erotica end up being the same thing, lol! But the most important thing of all is that I as the author get to decide what category my story falls into, lol!

So anyway, the reason I am against pornography posted to my blog is this: I want a story. I want the characters to get to know each other and fall in love - or at the very least a very solid friendship. I want my readers to be happy and feel good after they read one of my stories (most of the time, lol). I also know that there are times when a reader wants to read something without sex, so I have separated my stories into sections for that very reason.

So yes, it did actually mildly offend me when a man posted pornography on my blog. Sigh... Anyway, rant over. Have a happy day :-D

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Another Sunday Night Photoshoot

Why do we always end up doing the naughty stuff on Sunday? Lol! 

Okay well someone asked me to post a couple more of the pics that I took on this past Sunday night, and while some of them are a bit TOO nude for me to want to post anywhere online, some of them I actually am comfortable with sharing... Just so long as you understand that there is nudity involved :-)


I'll start this post out with a pic of me fully clothed because I'm pretty with my clothes on too, lol!

This was a simple test shoot to check the lighting, but it turned out pretty good :-)
I'm going to work into the nudity slowly to give y'all time to prepare, lol! Remember, you will be seeing rolls of fat, lol

An unplanned shot of Blizzard the Snake :-)

He apparently liked my necklace, although my husband says he just wanted a better view of my ladies, lol!
Okay, I know at least a couple of you are protesting: Stop editing out the ladies, damnit! You tease!
So here's another shot of the same pic that shows quite clearly that I am not joking when I say that my breasts hang down to my knees, lol!

The next pic is of my and a different snake - also topless :-)

Rubix the Corn Snake :-)

Now that you've seen me topless, I have a couple others I like that don't have a snake to distract y'all, lol!

It's a FRANKENSWEATER! I was so damn excited!

I love the expression on my face :-)
And that's all for now. I do have a couple more pics that I might post later on, BUT they feature someone else in a state of undress, and I have to get permission from her first before I can even think about posting them. It's called consent, ya know?

Have a happy day!

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Warning: Unpopular Opinion Alert

So I read this article: http://nypost.com/2014/10/21/ex-gym-teacher-busted-for-having-sex-romps-with-student/

I resisted reading it at first because I just knew it was going to piss me off, and I was right. It did...

I know, you're thinking: "How dare that teacher take advantage of her student like that! She should be severely punished! She deserves what she gets!"

Yeah... that's NOT why I'm pissed. Let's take the whole teacher student thing out of the picture and think of it like this:

A woman meets and spends a lot of time with a man. Over time, their relationship develops into something more and they fall in love. Let's say she's purple and he's chartreuse, so people think that they don't belong together. People try to pull them apart and shame them for being together. People get mad that they are in love and happy.

Oh go eff yourselves people! It's nobody's business but theirs. They are in LOVE!!!

But he's 16 and she's 24! She should have known better!

Yeah and so? When was the last time your heart didn't fall in love with someone because you should have known better? May as well say that he's an alcoholic and she should have known better than to fall in love with him. It doesn't work like that.

At 16, he's old enough to consent to sex. He's old enough to want it, and he's old enough to brag about it to all his friends. He was in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM RAPED!! Poll all the 16 year old boys and ask them if they want to have sex with their prettiest teacher. What do you think the answer will be?

So basically, you are saying that it is illegal for Purple female to love Chartreuse male because it makes you uncomfortable. I say grow up! The only person that should have the right in this case to even consider pressing charges is the 16 year old boy. I am willing to bet that all he really wants is for the government to drop their charges and let his girlfriend go.

But there's 8 years difference in their age! The relationship could never last!

Well, you may be right about that but so what? Most relationships don't last until death do they part. At least give them a chance to try it. Maybe they'd be one of the lucky couples that lasts forever. I think it is really stupid and selfish on the part of the government to make them go through years of hell for being a horny couple experiencing the first rush of new love. Effin' prudes...

And then there's this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/10/teacher-may-be-pregnant-with-teen-baby/17030889/

Finally, let's not forget that in this famous case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kay_Letourneau

The couple got married when she got out of jail. SOOOOO, instead of letting them be together and raise their children, the state had to be an asshole about it, tear them apart, and put them through hell for years before they could no longer interfere. It makes me so mad! Let me repeat, they were in LOVE!!! There's absolutely no rhyme or reason to love, and there should be no laws about it either.

Don't get me wrong. In cases where an adult really does sexually assault a child, they should be forcibly neutered (spayed) and tossed in jail to rot, but these were not cases of abuse, these were cases of love. By all accounts, Mary Kay and Villi are still married, and so do prove the point that sometimes people fall in love very young and stay in love despite all odds.

Anyway, I just had to get that off my chest. NO, I am NOT advocating regular sex between adults and young teens, but I do however have the open mind necessary to be enraged that the law would rather ruin these people's lives than allow for the possibility that no crime has occurred.

Lastly, has anyone else noticed something strange that all these female teachers who sleep with their students have in common? They're all... Catholic... Just an observation.

Charts and Readings