- kittens
- last day of school
- a weeks holidays
- that giddy-girly feeling
- that distinct lack of ambiguity
- Canada day
- seeing my best friend after like, what, two years??
- mani-pedi day
- new guitar strings
- sexy underpants shopping
- little plastic spider-man dolls (edit: happy, Chris?)
- free comics that come with fun conversation
- new library cards
- cold beer
- The Comics Curmudgeon (seriously, I've been slowly giggling myself to death on this blog.. and I don't even read the newspaper comics. But now I want to.)
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Just a few happies...
There's been a lot of sociopolitico doom and gloom from me as of late, so I'm just taking a second after a rather long, emotionally-draining fuckwad of a day to reflect on some of the happy in my life, and general 'stuff-i-like' (in no particular order)
Monday, June 28, 2010
Adventures in home improvement, part one.
So the house I'm currently living in has been in my family for a few years, and has had my parents, my sister and now myself as tenants.
every so often, I am hit with a need to get all DIY with my home improvements. Let's make this clear, *name of carpenter chick from Trading Spaces whose name I can't be bothered to look up*, I am not.
It started a few years ago with some curtains. I bought some curtains but my apartment was not furnished with the.. erm.. furnishings, necessary to hang curtains. Normally, I would call up my dad for help in these situations, but let's face it, he's a busy guy and I found myself saying "For Christ's Sake, Andie, you are TWENTY-SIX YEARS OLD. You do NOT need to call DADDY to hang some friggin' curtains."
In a fit of 'I-can-do-it-myself-dammit-ness' I ran out to Canadian Tire and purchased a Black and Decker cordless drill, and some drill bits and some drywall plugs. I drooled in anticipation as I waited the requisite 12 hours for the battery to charge, before I could do any work. Not only was I going to hang curtains, but I had high hopes for a waist height coat rack in my front hall so the girls could finally hang their own danged coats. ooooh, it was gonna be SUH-WEET. However to my chagrin, I learned a horrible lesson.
Drywall plugs are sent to Earth by Satan specifically with no purpose other than to frustrate and annoy ME. True Story.
Horrible lesson number two? Drywall plugs don't do much when your drywall is only an inch or two above a layer of BRICK.
Long story short, my curtains lasted less than 24 hours. Luckily, where I lived two stories up, backing onto a large forested area. If anyone was going to go to the trouble of looking in my windows, frankly for their effort, they DESERVED a bit of a show. My coat rack lasted about a week. *sigh*
Not to say that it's all been failure. Since i've moved into my little dollhouse there has been cupboard doors hung, knick-knack shelves mounted that have not fallen down to this day, and I've even installed a nice little rack for my hair-dryers and other hair-phernalia. Holy hell, I love making up words.
Today I embarked on a mission to replace the doorknob in the back door that has never quit hung right since the house was broken into, so after a trip to the restore (where I managed to get a nice knob/lock assembly for about $2.50 - take THAT Home Depot) but I've run into a few issues.
A) The hole for the main assembly needs to be filed or sanded down, as the old hole is not quite big enough for the new assembly.
B) Whereas the old knob screwed right into the wood door, the new knob has two screw posts which go straight through the door so that the one side of the knob essential screws right into the other side of itself. In an epic fail on my part, I drilled the two holes about 1/4 to 1/8th of an inch too close to each other, so the posts are further apart than the post-holes. Go Me.
C) The door itself is about a million years old, and solid wood. Solid wood which has started to show some mild rot around the original door knob (which may have contributed to the general shakiness of the old handle).
So I figure my options at this point are:
A) Get a new door. Don't really want to do this, as it's probably pricey. Being me, I also stand a good chance of measuring improperly and ending up with a useless door.
B) Redrilling the whole slightly closer (the difference is almost imperceptible until you try and jam that sucker into the drill holes), running the risk of cracking through the soft wood.
C) Filling in the holes and trying again a couple inches down, which could prove to be a pain in the ass, ergonomically, and especially frustrating if I Just manage to bork it again anyway.
Stay Tuned.. this could get interesting...
The original doorknob assembly, now detached from the door.
Brandspankin' new, only slightly dinged and irregular doorknob assembly.
The doorjam part. Hell, I don't know what it's called. The wood has been built up with scraps, since a good portion of it got ripped out when the house got broken into a few years back. That's the new piece in there.
Hole for the original attempt. Glad to see that whoever installed the original door was about as skilled as I am.
You can see the black from the wood-rot here. The hole on the left (the one that needs to be closer) is already precariously close to the main hole. Gooooood times.
every so often, I am hit with a need to get all DIY with my home improvements. Let's make this clear, *name of carpenter chick from Trading Spaces whose name I can't be bothered to look up*, I am not.
It started a few years ago with some curtains. I bought some curtains but my apartment was not furnished with the.. erm.. furnishings, necessary to hang curtains. Normally, I would call up my dad for help in these situations, but let's face it, he's a busy guy and I found myself saying "For Christ's Sake, Andie, you are TWENTY-SIX YEARS OLD. You do NOT need to call DADDY to hang some friggin' curtains."
In a fit of 'I-can-do-it-myself-dammit-ness' I ran out to Canadian Tire and purchased a Black and Decker cordless drill, and some drill bits and some drywall plugs. I drooled in anticipation as I waited the requisite 12 hours for the battery to charge, before I could do any work. Not only was I going to hang curtains, but I had high hopes for a waist height coat rack in my front hall so the girls could finally hang their own danged coats. ooooh, it was gonna be SUH-WEET. However to my chagrin, I learned a horrible lesson.
Drywall plugs are sent to Earth by Satan specifically with no purpose other than to frustrate and annoy ME. True Story.
Horrible lesson number two? Drywall plugs don't do much when your drywall is only an inch or two above a layer of BRICK.
Long story short, my curtains lasted less than 24 hours. Luckily, where I lived two stories up, backing onto a large forested area. If anyone was going to go to the trouble of looking in my windows, frankly for their effort, they DESERVED a bit of a show. My coat rack lasted about a week. *sigh*
Not to say that it's all been failure. Since i've moved into my little dollhouse there has been cupboard doors hung, knick-knack shelves mounted that have not fallen down to this day, and I've even installed a nice little rack for my hair-dryers and other hair-phernalia. Holy hell, I love making up words.
Today I embarked on a mission to replace the doorknob in the back door that has never quit hung right since the house was broken into, so after a trip to the restore (where I managed to get a nice knob/lock assembly for about $2.50 - take THAT Home Depot) but I've run into a few issues.
A) The hole for the main assembly needs to be filed or sanded down, as the old hole is not quite big enough for the new assembly.
B) Whereas the old knob screwed right into the wood door, the new knob has two screw posts which go straight through the door so that the one side of the knob essential screws right into the other side of itself. In an epic fail on my part, I drilled the two holes about 1/4 to 1/8th of an inch too close to each other, so the posts are further apart than the post-holes. Go Me.
C) The door itself is about a million years old, and solid wood. Solid wood which has started to show some mild rot around the original door knob (which may have contributed to the general shakiness of the old handle).
So I figure my options at this point are:
A) Get a new door. Don't really want to do this, as it's probably pricey. Being me, I also stand a good chance of measuring improperly and ending up with a useless door.
B) Redrilling the whole slightly closer (the difference is almost imperceptible until you try and jam that sucker into the drill holes), running the risk of cracking through the soft wood.
C) Filling in the holes and trying again a couple inches down, which could prove to be a pain in the ass, ergonomically, and especially frustrating if I Just manage to bork it again anyway.
Stay Tuned.. this could get interesting...
The original doorknob assembly, now detached from the door.
Brandspankin' new, only slightly dinged and irregular doorknob assembly.
The doorjam part. Hell, I don't know what it's called. The wood has been built up with scraps, since a good portion of it got ripped out when the house got broken into a few years back. That's the new piece in there.
Hole for the original attempt. Glad to see that whoever installed the original door was about as skilled as I am.
You can see the black from the wood-rot here. The hole on the left (the one that needs to be closer) is already precariously close to the main hole. Gooooood times.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
So much for an apolitical Sunday..
.. however, it's raining and I can't mow the lawn, so what the hell.
I got some interesting responses to my last post, and to a Facebook thread on the same subject. One of my complaints regarding the G20 protests was that the message was getting lost in the shadow of destruction and mayhem, to where it was unclear as to what the message was.
A good friend of mine outlined the issue nicely, and has given me permission to reprint her comments here:
"How many countries currently exist? A hell of a lot more than 20. Many people are angry because some of the biggest global decisions are being made by only the most privileged countries (with some of the most corrupt leaders) and the leaders of the majority of the world's population are not even invited to the table. The issues discussed will effect the globe and include policy decisions that effect whether or not people can eat, afford health care, drink clean water, or have a mine or oil field in their backyard.
The issues on the table and the decisions that are being made without most people's knowledge or input are terrifying. People are resorting to violence because real people's lives are at stake in the decision-making process, especially the most marginalized people around the globe(People with NOTHING who can't afford for their lives to get worse because of policy decisions that result in ever-growing poverty).
I don't believe in thoughtless violence or romanticizing violent resistance, but I agree that the meeting must be stopped or held up and that some kind of force might be necessary (this is not to say that I agree with some of the current antics). This isn't a dumb protest or just an issue about money being spent on a meeting. When the most privileged countries in the world decide to alter international environmental laws, for example, it means that rural indigenous people in Latin America end up with an open-pit copper mine in their backyard which ruins their soil and drinking water and gives them cancer. The protest is becoming violent because people's lives are at stake -- a point which is getting lost on both sides of the media hype."
The bold emphasis was added by myself, because this is the misguided impression I was under.
Another interesting point was brought up by another friend of mine - so many people are quick to condemn the actions of the radical protest groups (just want to differentiate from the peaceful protesters) but will either support, or refuse to comment on state-sponsored military violence such as Iraq and Afghanistan. I will put on record here that I do NOT support our military interference, but granted, I'm less than vocal about it.
Another interesting thing that was brought up (although the thread no longer exists) was a statement that the 'Black Block', which to the best of my understanding is one of the anarchist groups at the G20 protests, feel a moral obligation to smash or destroy symbols of corporate greed and corruption (not a direct quote, I'm trying to go from memory here). This is where I call shenanigans. Smashing a scotiabank storefront downtown is not going to bring down these corporations any more than burning a local catholic church is going to bring down the Vatican. Once again I reiterate, this type of action only serves to alienate the general public, which in turn causes them to turn away and close their eyes and ears to the cause.
I'm inclined to agree that change is rarely ever affected by simply writing letters. However, I believe that acts of civil disobedience (from Martin Luther nailing his grievance to the cathedral door to Ghandi's hunger strike) are effective because they invoke curiosity, and make people question WHY, instead of alienating the general populace. When we are civil, we cannot be demonized by the powers that be, because we've done nothing wrong. Violence and aggression only serve to allow the governing bodies to invoke fear as a justification in increasing their own power in the name of our own so-called 'protection'.
I got some interesting responses to my last post, and to a Facebook thread on the same subject. One of my complaints regarding the G20 protests was that the message was getting lost in the shadow of destruction and mayhem, to where it was unclear as to what the message was.
A good friend of mine outlined the issue nicely, and has given me permission to reprint her comments here:
"How many countries currently exist? A hell of a lot more than 20. Many people are angry because some of the biggest global decisions are being made by only the most privileged countries (with some of the most corrupt leaders) and the leaders of the majority of the world's population are not even invited to the table. The issues discussed will effect the globe and include policy decisions that effect whether or not people can eat, afford health care, drink clean water, or have a mine or oil field in their backyard.
The issues on the table and the decisions that are being made without most people's knowledge or input are terrifying. People are resorting to violence because real people's lives are at stake in the decision-making process, especially the most marginalized people around the globe(People with NOTHING who can't afford for their lives to get worse because of policy decisions that result in ever-growing poverty).
I don't believe in thoughtless violence or romanticizing violent resistance, but I agree that the meeting must be stopped or held up and that some kind of force might be necessary (this is not to say that I agree with some of the current antics). This isn't a dumb protest or just an issue about money being spent on a meeting. When the most privileged countries in the world decide to alter international environmental laws, for example, it means that rural indigenous people in Latin America end up with an open-pit copper mine in their backyard which ruins their soil and drinking water and gives them cancer. The protest is becoming violent because people's lives are at stake -- a point which is getting lost on both sides of the media hype."
The bold emphasis was added by myself, because this is the misguided impression I was under.
Another interesting point was brought up by another friend of mine - so many people are quick to condemn the actions of the radical protest groups (just want to differentiate from the peaceful protesters) but will either support, or refuse to comment on state-sponsored military violence such as Iraq and Afghanistan. I will put on record here that I do NOT support our military interference, but granted, I'm less than vocal about it.
Another interesting thing that was brought up (although the thread no longer exists) was a statement that the 'Black Block', which to the best of my understanding is one of the anarchist groups at the G20 protests, feel a moral obligation to smash or destroy symbols of corporate greed and corruption (not a direct quote, I'm trying to go from memory here). This is where I call shenanigans. Smashing a scotiabank storefront downtown is not going to bring down these corporations any more than burning a local catholic church is going to bring down the Vatican. Once again I reiterate, this type of action only serves to alienate the general public, which in turn causes them to turn away and close their eyes and ears to the cause.
I'm inclined to agree that change is rarely ever affected by simply writing letters. However, I believe that acts of civil disobedience (from Martin Luther nailing his grievance to the cathedral door to Ghandi's hunger strike) are effective because they invoke curiosity, and make people question WHY, instead of alienating the general populace. When we are civil, we cannot be demonized by the powers that be, because we've done nothing wrong. Violence and aggression only serve to allow the governing bodies to invoke fear as a justification in increasing their own power in the name of our own so-called 'protection'.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
G8, G20 and General Jackassery.
The inmates are running the asylum down in the big city of Toronto as we speak, as people gathered to protest the G20 summit.
First off, let me say I agree that the G20 is a big fuckoff waste of time and money and resources that could be put to far far better use. Look at all the money and prep time that went into the G8 'pre-game' up in Huntsville, for a meeting that took less time than the average Tay Township council meeting (according to my dad, anyway).
So, let me make it clear, I don't have a THING against protesting this thing. No way. Free speech, says I.
Rioting, destruction and general fucking-up-of-shit is a whole other story. Toronto Mayor David Miller (a guy I've otherwise been pretty much unimpressed with) has it bang on when he said that this kind of idiocy (my words, not his) by so-called protesters puts the real protesters in a bad spot by giving those who practice civil disobedience a bad name.
Oh wait, my mistake. there's nothing remotely civil about smashing windows, lighting police cars on fire and general rioting. And guess what? Your messages? LOST. All those causes these folks are fighting for? IRRELEVANT.
People aren't going to remember what you were fighting for.. (what are you fighting for, again?). They're going to remember how you all fucked up a bunch of businesses that are filled with people trying to eke out a living, and how their insurance rates go up.. and the blame won't go where it rightfully goes, to the people who organized this ridiculous 'summit' - it'll go squarely on your shoulders.
What does this accomplish? Next time, people arent' going to listen to you. And when your message is overshadowed by your actions, you FAIL.
So what has been accomplished by all the destruction and mayhem? What will happen because of this? Do you think it will stop another G8/G20? No. Did 20,000 strong in Seattle do eff-all to stop more waste? No. Because all it does is give the politicians reason to waste MORE money and MORE resources and MORE time to protect themselves from the evil, bad, evil, evil scary protesters next time they wanna have their little do.
Bravo.
To the people with full intentions of a peaceful protest, you have my pity for having to deal with these jackasses giving you all a bad name.
A friend just suggested that people are sick of Harper and want to see him embarassed on an international playing field. Well, I don't know about him, but I've never been more embarassed to be a Canadian. And from me, that's saying A LOT.
First off, let me say I agree that the G20 is a big fuckoff waste of time and money and resources that could be put to far far better use. Look at all the money and prep time that went into the G8 'pre-game' up in Huntsville, for a meeting that took less time than the average Tay Township council meeting (according to my dad, anyway).
So, let me make it clear, I don't have a THING against protesting this thing. No way. Free speech, says I.
Rioting, destruction and general fucking-up-of-shit is a whole other story. Toronto Mayor David Miller (a guy I've otherwise been pretty much unimpressed with) has it bang on when he said that this kind of idiocy (my words, not his) by so-called protesters puts the real protesters in a bad spot by giving those who practice civil disobedience a bad name.
Oh wait, my mistake. there's nothing remotely civil about smashing windows, lighting police cars on fire and general rioting. And guess what? Your messages? LOST. All those causes these folks are fighting for? IRRELEVANT.
People aren't going to remember what you were fighting for.. (what are you fighting for, again?). They're going to remember how you all fucked up a bunch of businesses that are filled with people trying to eke out a living, and how their insurance rates go up.. and the blame won't go where it rightfully goes, to the people who organized this ridiculous 'summit' - it'll go squarely on your shoulders.
What does this accomplish? Next time, people arent' going to listen to you. And when your message is overshadowed by your actions, you FAIL.
So what has been accomplished by all the destruction and mayhem? What will happen because of this? Do you think it will stop another G8/G20? No. Did 20,000 strong in Seattle do eff-all to stop more waste? No. Because all it does is give the politicians reason to waste MORE money and MORE resources and MORE time to protect themselves from the evil, bad, evil, evil scary protesters next time they wanna have their little do.
Bravo.
To the people with full intentions of a peaceful protest, you have my pity for having to deal with these jackasses giving you all a bad name.
A friend just suggested that people are sick of Harper and want to see him embarassed on an international playing field. Well, I don't know about him, but I've never been more embarassed to be a Canadian. And from me, that's saying A LOT.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Today has been a fucked up day.
The sign is nigh?
Something strange is going on, for sure. Today at about 2 in the afternoon I noticed my computer monitor wobbling. After checking to make sure no one was kicking my desk and that I wasn't having some kind of seizure, others in my office affirmed that yes.. the building was shaking. Being a pretty sketchy old building we work in, the assumption was that a large truck had driven by, but the shaking seemed to last too long for a simple lack of structural integrity.
within minutes we were getting calls from other people, in other buildings which quickly confirmed that what we were experiencing was a 5.0 level earthquake. People oohed and ahhed and then, got back on with their day.
Funnily enough, news of the earthquake was all over facebook and twitter before the news stations even got a hold of it.
But wait.. there's more. At about 6:30 this afternoon as I stood in the living room of my ex-husbands house, soaking wet from trying load groceries in the car in the pouring rain, waiting for my children to get ready so we can get home because frankly the sky was looking ominous and I wanted to get home before the meteorlogical shit hit the fan, a tornado touched down in the southeast end of Midland.
Armageddon, much?
I had no idea myself. I saw as I tried to make my way out of town that there was some heavy traffic, which I attributed to power being out due to the heavy rain. As I tried to make my way up king street I grew uneasy as firetrucks and police cars made they're way up the hill, sirens blaring.
The thing that struck me though, were the people. There were dozens and dozens of people in the streets, making their way from their homes, pointing towards the horizon and heading south... You would think it was woodstock or something.
I got a call from some friends telling me midland was basically cordoned off and my chances of getting out were pretty much nil, and that I should head to their place in penetang and wait out the storm. I turned around and headed there. The power being out, we each still had out cell phones with us and the place was crazy with beeps and rings and conversations as we each received intermittent updates from friends and loved ones.
The majority of the damage was in the industrial and commercial section of the south end of town, although in what almost seems like a sick joke, in true stereotypical tornado fashion, a local mobile home park was also hit. So far there have been about 20 people admitted to hospital, with only minor injuries reported.
The geography is unfortunate and it saddens me to think of the devastating effect this will have on an area that is already economically depressed. Three of the major factories in the area suffered damage, and i fear this could mean lost jobs.
The mayor has declared a state of emergency. I made it home safe with my girls and am feeling fairly secure in my little stone house that has withstood 100 years of whathaveyou already. We will sit tight and see what tomorrow holds. If work is cancelled I will probably volunteer to help with cleanup.
Everyone out there, I hope your friends and family are all safe.
Something strange is going on, for sure. Today at about 2 in the afternoon I noticed my computer monitor wobbling. After checking to make sure no one was kicking my desk and that I wasn't having some kind of seizure, others in my office affirmed that yes.. the building was shaking. Being a pretty sketchy old building we work in, the assumption was that a large truck had driven by, but the shaking seemed to last too long for a simple lack of structural integrity.
within minutes we were getting calls from other people, in other buildings which quickly confirmed that what we were experiencing was a 5.0 level earthquake. People oohed and ahhed and then, got back on with their day.
Funnily enough, news of the earthquake was all over facebook and twitter before the news stations even got a hold of it.
But wait.. there's more. At about 6:30 this afternoon as I stood in the living room of my ex-husbands house, soaking wet from trying load groceries in the car in the pouring rain, waiting for my children to get ready so we can get home because frankly the sky was looking ominous and I wanted to get home before the meteorlogical shit hit the fan, a tornado touched down in the southeast end of Midland.
Armageddon, much?
I had no idea myself. I saw as I tried to make my way out of town that there was some heavy traffic, which I attributed to power being out due to the heavy rain. As I tried to make my way up king street I grew uneasy as firetrucks and police cars made they're way up the hill, sirens blaring.
The thing that struck me though, were the people. There were dozens and dozens of people in the streets, making their way from their homes, pointing towards the horizon and heading south... You would think it was woodstock or something.
I got a call from some friends telling me midland was basically cordoned off and my chances of getting out were pretty much nil, and that I should head to their place in penetang and wait out the storm. I turned around and headed there. The power being out, we each still had out cell phones with us and the place was crazy with beeps and rings and conversations as we each received intermittent updates from friends and loved ones.
The majority of the damage was in the industrial and commercial section of the south end of town, although in what almost seems like a sick joke, in true stereotypical tornado fashion, a local mobile home park was also hit. So far there have been about 20 people admitted to hospital, with only minor injuries reported.
The geography is unfortunate and it saddens me to think of the devastating effect this will have on an area that is already economically depressed. Three of the major factories in the area suffered damage, and i fear this could mean lost jobs.
The mayor has declared a state of emergency. I made it home safe with my girls and am feeling fairly secure in my little stone house that has withstood 100 years of whathaveyou already. We will sit tight and see what tomorrow holds. If work is cancelled I will probably volunteer to help with cleanup.
Everyone out there, I hope your friends and family are all safe.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
This is what happens when I actually pay attention to current events..
Extra sleepy after a big dinner, but felt the need to do a little blogging on some subjects I've seen popping up in other blogs as of late.
FLIBANSERIN
So there's a particular blogger over at BUST magazine who seems pretty excited about the possible FDA approval of Fliberasin, a female libido enhancing drug.
Me, I'm not so convinced it's a good thing. I don't mean enhancing libido is a bad thing.. I mean A) medicalizing a low sex drive and B) treatment through the use of behaviour modifying drug.
This particular blogger's use of the term Lady Viagra is misleading, because the two drugs work in very different ways. As most know, Viagra works by increasing blood flow to the genitals, for greater sexual stimulation and longer erections. What you may not know is this works for women as well, FYI. So I've heard.
Flibanserin was original designed as an anti-depressant.. so basically what we have here is a behaviour modifying drug that creates sexual desire.. in your brain.
Am I the only one a little disturbed by this? A little stepford wives anyone? Is the pharmaceutical industry (and mass-marketing) going to dictate what constitutes a "healthy" level of sexual desire? Where does this leave self-described 'asexuals'?
In my opinion, there's a very distinct different between using a medication to treat a physical issue in someone who desires sex but is physiologically incapable, and using a behaviour modifying drug to create desire in someone who may otherwise be disinterested. I'm not saying it shouldn't be available to the public, but I am saying we should be aware of the can of worms we are opening when it comes to medicalizing and compartmentalizing something as individual and diverse as one's libido. I mean, as if we don't have enough issues and hangups about sex as a society as it is.
RAPE-AXe
Okay, this one threw me for a loop. A scientist in South Africa has invented a rape-defence weapon in the form of a female condom lined with a number of 'teeth' that will embed themselves into an attackers penis.
The hell...?
First off, let me say this thing is a masterpiece of design and engineering. Please keep in mind that I have no background whatsoever in design OR engineering. Basically, the teeth latch onto the penis, without breaking the skin so there's no fear of fluid exchange, and the more struggle to remove it, the tighter it gets. AND it's only removable by a doctor. Crazy right? Like a chinese penis trap. Serious.
Here are my issues on this though:
1) Once again, rape prevention is the responsibility of women.. how about men just.. oh.. not rape people? Let's educate. And guys.. yeah, you good guys who don't rape women, I know there's lots of you out there.. spread the word, spread the love.. speak up. No means no may have more credibility coming from you other men, since it's fairly obvious that in a rapist's eyes, women are of no consequence and not worth listening to anyway.
2) The rape axe is suggested for situations like when you're on a blind date, or wandering dark alleys, or attending World Cup soccer games.. (okay I'm exaggerating) but basically it still plays on the assumption of the 'stranger-in-a-dark-alley' scenario, when as numerous studies have shown, most cases of rape are committed by people the victim trusted. No, I'm not citing sources, this is my personal blog, not an academic paper.
3) I can see something like this turning a lot of rapes into rape+attempted murder/murder. Like, really, unless this thing is painful enough to totally incapacitate a rapist, I'm sure these folks who are already hopped up on adrenaline and rage and power and whatever sick shit they get off on, are going to be pretty pissed off to find themselves all caught up, and probably wouldn't think twice of beating their victim within an inch of their life in retaliation, or worse.
Anyway, I'm interested to hear what others have to say.
FLIBANSERIN
So there's a particular blogger over at BUST magazine who seems pretty excited about the possible FDA approval of Fliberasin, a female libido enhancing drug.
Me, I'm not so convinced it's a good thing. I don't mean enhancing libido is a bad thing.. I mean A) medicalizing a low sex drive and B) treatment through the use of behaviour modifying drug.
This particular blogger's use of the term Lady Viagra is misleading, because the two drugs work in very different ways. As most know, Viagra works by increasing blood flow to the genitals, for greater sexual stimulation and longer erections. What you may not know is this works for women as well, FYI. So I've heard.
Flibanserin was original designed as an anti-depressant.. so basically what we have here is a behaviour modifying drug that creates sexual desire.. in your brain.
Am I the only one a little disturbed by this? A little stepford wives anyone? Is the pharmaceutical industry (and mass-marketing) going to dictate what constitutes a "healthy" level of sexual desire? Where does this leave self-described 'asexuals'?
In my opinion, there's a very distinct different between using a medication to treat a physical issue in someone who desires sex but is physiologically incapable, and using a behaviour modifying drug to create desire in someone who may otherwise be disinterested. I'm not saying it shouldn't be available to the public, but I am saying we should be aware of the can of worms we are opening when it comes to medicalizing and compartmentalizing something as individual and diverse as one's libido. I mean, as if we don't have enough issues and hangups about sex as a society as it is.
RAPE-AXe
Okay, this one threw me for a loop. A scientist in South Africa has invented a rape-defence weapon in the form of a female condom lined with a number of 'teeth' that will embed themselves into an attackers penis.
The hell...?
First off, let me say this thing is a masterpiece of design and engineering. Please keep in mind that I have no background whatsoever in design OR engineering. Basically, the teeth latch onto the penis, without breaking the skin so there's no fear of fluid exchange, and the more struggle to remove it, the tighter it gets. AND it's only removable by a doctor. Crazy right? Like a chinese penis trap. Serious.
Here are my issues on this though:
1) Once again, rape prevention is the responsibility of women.. how about men just.. oh.. not rape people? Let's educate. And guys.. yeah, you good guys who don't rape women, I know there's lots of you out there.. spread the word, spread the love.. speak up. No means no may have more credibility coming from you other men, since it's fairly obvious that in a rapist's eyes, women are of no consequence and not worth listening to anyway.
2) The rape axe is suggested for situations like when you're on a blind date, or wandering dark alleys, or attending World Cup soccer games.. (okay I'm exaggerating) but basically it still plays on the assumption of the 'stranger-in-a-dark-alley' scenario, when as numerous studies have shown, most cases of rape are committed by people the victim trusted. No, I'm not citing sources, this is my personal blog, not an academic paper.
3) I can see something like this turning a lot of rapes into rape+attempted murder/murder. Like, really, unless this thing is painful enough to totally incapacitate a rapist, I'm sure these folks who are already hopped up on adrenaline and rage and power and whatever sick shit they get off on, are going to be pretty pissed off to find themselves all caught up, and probably wouldn't think twice of beating their victim within an inch of their life in retaliation, or worse.
Anyway, I'm interested to hear what others have to say.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
I've been watching Movies lately
In recent months I've noticed that I don't seem to have the same attention span for movies that I used to... I don't know if it's restlessness or boredom or what.. but about a half hour in, I find myself wanting to go do something else.
This past week I've had a few lent to me and I've actually hunkered down on the couch and sat through them.
Welcome To The Dollhouse
One of those wonderfully sad, uncomfortable films. I enjoyed it and suffered through it at the same time, as I could relate so well to the main character. Dawn's plight felt like a thoroughly exaggerated version of my own pre-adolescence, so on one hand, it was uncomfortable but at the same time comforting, because yes, other children along with my own social awkwardness (if you have seen this, picture Heather Matarazzo about 20 lbs heavier and you basically have me as a seventh grader) made my tween years a veritable soul-crushing hell, at least my parents were cool enough, unlike Dawn's mother whom I wanted to repeatedly punch in the face, and I can honestly say that although other kids were jerks, none ever threatened to rape me. Basically I enjoyed the film a lot, even though the ending was possibly the most anti-climatic ending I've ever witnessed.. but even so, it's kind of symbolic, isn't it? Nothing is resolved, life goes on.. much like painful adolescence.
I have a grudge against movies where the lead character is continually shit-upon and just kind of takes it. Part of the reason I enjoyed this film is that even as a relatively powerless 11-year-old, Dawn shows silent resistance against the forces that try to break her will, such as refusing to apologize to her sister, or tear down her clubhouse for her parents birthday party.
City Slickers
I've seen this movie a number of times and somehow I always fall into the misguided notion that it's a family film. Granted, there's about a million worse movies for kids to see, but nonetheless, some of the dialogue, including the frank sex talk, made me cringe a little when I borrowed this from my mom to watch with the girls. There's something wholesome about cowboys and Billy Crystal that make you forget about when he and Daniel Stern and that other guy start talking about 'banging' the heck out of the lone woman at the dude ranch.
What truly amazes me is that I forget the cow birthing scene... I mean, I remember Billy Crystal's cute little baby cow, Norman, who toddles around and gets stuck in the river and Billy has to save him and has his big epiphany as to the meaning of Jack Palance's rather cryptic advice while rescuing said baby cow... but I somehow forget little Norman's birth.
I forget how GRAPHIC it is. I mean seriously. Here I am, on the couch with the girls and there's the money shot. "Well, girls.. that's how baby cows get born."
*blink*
Just Add Water
It showed a lot of promise.. It had Jonah Hill and Justin Long, and was described to me by my mom as "Quirky.. the kind of movie you'd probably like."
And she was right, kind of. I probably should have liked it, the plot, about a small town that is all but ruled by a gang of meth-dealers after being declared a drought-ridden chemical disaster zone, sounded interesting.. but I dunno.. It kind of left me cold.
The protagonists were kind of bland and one-dimensional. Male-Protagonist whose name I forget has an agoraphobic, emotionally fractured wife, crappy job (although I'm just assuming it's crappy) and emotionally fractured son, and a debilitating crush on the equally bland and forgettable female-protagonist whose name I forget, a crush that is the only this holding him to this toxic wasteland and his seemingly unending days of misery, which he faces with the same dopey resigned look of defeated acceptance of his shitty lot in life.
Meanwhile, any interesting characters, eg, his oddly rage filled son, played by Hill are relegated to the background.. and we never really find out anything about them.. okay, well, we do, but it all seems.. well.. convenient and glossed over.
I mentioned earlier my annoyance with underdogs who are underdogs as a result of their own self-defeatism and attitudes.. I think that was one of the things I disliked about this film. Not to give away any spoilers, but the resolution of the film kind of left me going "Well why the hell didn't they do that AGES ago?"
This past week I've had a few lent to me and I've actually hunkered down on the couch and sat through them.
Welcome To The Dollhouse
One of those wonderfully sad, uncomfortable films. I enjoyed it and suffered through it at the same time, as I could relate so well to the main character. Dawn's plight felt like a thoroughly exaggerated version of my own pre-adolescence, so on one hand, it was uncomfortable but at the same time comforting, because yes, other children along with my own social awkwardness (if you have seen this, picture Heather Matarazzo about 20 lbs heavier and you basically have me as a seventh grader) made my tween years a veritable soul-crushing hell, at least my parents were cool enough, unlike Dawn's mother whom I wanted to repeatedly punch in the face, and I can honestly say that although other kids were jerks, none ever threatened to rape me. Basically I enjoyed the film a lot, even though the ending was possibly the most anti-climatic ending I've ever witnessed.. but even so, it's kind of symbolic, isn't it? Nothing is resolved, life goes on.. much like painful adolescence.I have a grudge against movies where the lead character is continually shit-upon and just kind of takes it. Part of the reason I enjoyed this film is that even as a relatively powerless 11-year-old, Dawn shows silent resistance against the forces that try to break her will, such as refusing to apologize to her sister, or tear down her clubhouse for her parents birthday party.
City Slickers
I've seen this movie a number of times and somehow I always fall into the misguided notion that it's a family film. Granted, there's about a million worse movies for kids to see, but nonetheless, some of the dialogue, including the frank sex talk, made me cringe a little when I borrowed this from my mom to watch with the girls. There's something wholesome about cowboys and Billy Crystal that make you forget about when he and Daniel Stern and that other guy start talking about 'banging' the heck out of the lone woman at the dude ranch.What truly amazes me is that I forget the cow birthing scene... I mean, I remember Billy Crystal's cute little baby cow, Norman, who toddles around and gets stuck in the river and Billy has to save him and has his big epiphany as to the meaning of Jack Palance's rather cryptic advice while rescuing said baby cow... but I somehow forget little Norman's birth.
I forget how GRAPHIC it is. I mean seriously. Here I am, on the couch with the girls and there's the money shot. "Well, girls.. that's how baby cows get born."
*blink*
Just Add Water
It showed a lot of promise.. It had Jonah Hill and Justin Long, and was described to me by my mom as "Quirky.. the kind of movie you'd probably like."And she was right, kind of. I probably should have liked it, the plot, about a small town that is all but ruled by a gang of meth-dealers after being declared a drought-ridden chemical disaster zone, sounded interesting.. but I dunno.. It kind of left me cold.
The protagonists were kind of bland and one-dimensional. Male-Protagonist whose name I forget has an agoraphobic, emotionally fractured wife, crappy job (although I'm just assuming it's crappy) and emotionally fractured son, and a debilitating crush on the equally bland and forgettable female-protagonist whose name I forget, a crush that is the only this holding him to this toxic wasteland and his seemingly unending days of misery, which he faces with the same dopey resigned look of defeated acceptance of his shitty lot in life.
Meanwhile, any interesting characters, eg, his oddly rage filled son, played by Hill are relegated to the background.. and we never really find out anything about them.. okay, well, we do, but it all seems.. well.. convenient and glossed over.
I mentioned earlier my annoyance with underdogs who are underdogs as a result of their own self-defeatism and attitudes.. I think that was one of the things I disliked about this film. Not to give away any spoilers, but the resolution of the film kind of left me going "Well why the hell didn't they do that AGES ago?"
Conversations with my kid: Holidays
Reegs: Mommy, when is Veronica day?
Me: Veronica Day? What's Veronica Day?
Reegs: When you have a bunch of candles, and you use one candle to light all the other candles?
Me: Chanukah?
Reegs: Yeah, that's it.
Me: Veronica Day? What's Veronica Day?
Reegs: When you have a bunch of candles, and you use one candle to light all the other candles?
Me: Chanukah?
Reegs: Yeah, that's it.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Prozac Nation - Not a Movie Review... just so we're clear..
Today, a friend/co-worker of mine posted quite an interesting article outlining one man's struggle to get off anti-depressant medication after a number of years.
Read The Full Article
The article raises some interesting questions regarding the use of SSRI's for treating clinical depression, the main ones being (based on my interpretation of the article):
I am neither pro- or anti- medication. I have heard the argument that taking medication for depression is like a diabetic taking insulin.. you have a condition, you have to take care of it. Now, I think this is a fantastic argument for removing the stigma involved in being on anti-depressants. However, as far as an argument for whether or not to medicate someone who suffers from depression, it is faulty because it runs on the argument that all depression is biological in nature. I would argue that although it can be based on chemical imbalances in the brain, in many cases there are environmental influences that can only be treated through personal awareneness, psychoanalysis and cognitive therapy.
An example from my own life: Around the time my marriage ended, I sought counselling as, understandably, being not only on my own for the first time in six years, but pregnant and raising a toddler as well, I was understandably not in a good place. Stemming from a life-long tendency towards being hyper-sensitive and quick to upset, it had been suggested by a few loved ones that perhaps I was clinically depressed. From the counsellor I was referred to a psychiatrist for an assessment. Some unknown force smiled on me that day, because the psychiatrist, having done his appraisal, basically looked me in the eye and (in slightly more professional wording) said "I don't think you need medication. Your life sucks right now. Of course you're depressed. Who wouldn't be? If life improves and you still feel like this, then come back and we'll talk about medication."
Guess what? Life improved (with hard work) and so did I. The question of medication hasn't come up since then.
The problem is what is called 'diagnosis based on response to medication'. This is when a doctor (as mentioned in the article, many anti-depressants are prescribed by physicians, not psychiatrists) prescribes an anti-depressant to a patient, and if the patient responds positively to the medication he/she can then say 'well, then I guess it was depression'. But my question is, if an anti-depressant is supposed to even out a chemical imbalance in the brain then what happens if the anti-depressant is prescribed to someone who is not actually clinically depressed, but is simply depressed because they've been dealt a shite hand as of late? Would that not, theoretically, cause an imbalance in an otherwise healthy brain? This also is a situation that I've seen with a friend who was down, and was prescribed meds and shortly after seemed to go a little batshit crazy.
The litany of side-effects that I have heard through literature, as well as through personal anectdotes from friends and family who have experienced going through anti-depressant withdrawal, is all the more reason that diagnosis based on response to medication is such a problematic issue. By playing guessing-games with medication-based therapy, doctors and psychiatrists put patients at risk of a worse situation than they arrived in, especially if the case is where no actual chemical imbalance was present previous to the introduction of medication.
There are definitely people out there who require full-time medication in order to function, and this I do not deny. There are also a subclass who may require medicating in the short-term, if only to bring them to an emotional level that will allow them to deal with their issues through counselling and therapy. I should mention, that I think it's rare that any case of depression can be solved through medication alone. There should generally always, in my humble, non-psychiatrist opinion, be some type of cognitive therapy involved, if at all possible.
Read The Full Article
The article raises some interesting questions regarding the use of SSRI's for treating clinical depression, the main ones being (based on my interpretation of the article):
- If someone is medicated for depression is it necessary to be medicated for life?
- Does the use of anti-depressants actually inhibit the body's ability to deal with stress?
I am neither pro- or anti- medication. I have heard the argument that taking medication for depression is like a diabetic taking insulin.. you have a condition, you have to take care of it. Now, I think this is a fantastic argument for removing the stigma involved in being on anti-depressants. However, as far as an argument for whether or not to medicate someone who suffers from depression, it is faulty because it runs on the argument that all depression is biological in nature. I would argue that although it can be based on chemical imbalances in the brain, in many cases there are environmental influences that can only be treated through personal awareneness, psychoanalysis and cognitive therapy.
An example from my own life: Around the time my marriage ended, I sought counselling as, understandably, being not only on my own for the first time in six years, but pregnant and raising a toddler as well, I was understandably not in a good place. Stemming from a life-long tendency towards being hyper-sensitive and quick to upset, it had been suggested by a few loved ones that perhaps I was clinically depressed. From the counsellor I was referred to a psychiatrist for an assessment. Some unknown force smiled on me that day, because the psychiatrist, having done his appraisal, basically looked me in the eye and (in slightly more professional wording) said "I don't think you need medication. Your life sucks right now. Of course you're depressed. Who wouldn't be? If life improves and you still feel like this, then come back and we'll talk about medication."
Guess what? Life improved (with hard work) and so did I. The question of medication hasn't come up since then.
The problem is what is called 'diagnosis based on response to medication'. This is when a doctor (as mentioned in the article, many anti-depressants are prescribed by physicians, not psychiatrists) prescribes an anti-depressant to a patient, and if the patient responds positively to the medication he/she can then say 'well, then I guess it was depression'. But my question is, if an anti-depressant is supposed to even out a chemical imbalance in the brain then what happens if the anti-depressant is prescribed to someone who is not actually clinically depressed, but is simply depressed because they've been dealt a shite hand as of late? Would that not, theoretically, cause an imbalance in an otherwise healthy brain? This also is a situation that I've seen with a friend who was down, and was prescribed meds and shortly after seemed to go a little batshit crazy.
The litany of side-effects that I have heard through literature, as well as through personal anectdotes from friends and family who have experienced going through anti-depressant withdrawal, is all the more reason that diagnosis based on response to medication is such a problematic issue. By playing guessing-games with medication-based therapy, doctors and psychiatrists put patients at risk of a worse situation than they arrived in, especially if the case is where no actual chemical imbalance was present previous to the introduction of medication.
There are definitely people out there who require full-time medication in order to function, and this I do not deny. There are also a subclass who may require medicating in the short-term, if only to bring them to an emotional level that will allow them to deal with their issues through counselling and therapy. I should mention, that I think it's rare that any case of depression can be solved through medication alone. There should generally always, in my humble, non-psychiatrist opinion, be some type of cognitive therapy involved, if at all possible.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Five favorite movies
I posted my response to BlagHag's Five Movies, but didn't really go into detail on why my five were my favorites. So here goes:
Hard Core Logo: Everytime I watch this movie, I want to be in either A) a punk band or B) a Hugh Dillon/Callum Keith Rennie circa 1992 sammich. A mockumentary about a punk band who reunites after a long hiatus to go on tour in honor of the bands influence and mentor, Bucky Haight who has had his legs blown off by some crazy with a gun. I love the tension between the two front runners, Joe Dick (Dillon) and Billy Tallent (Rennie) - the juxtaposition of Joe Dicks punk-rock DIY ethic and Billy Tallent's goals to make an actual lucrative career of out his music, beyond the sketchy night clubs and ramshackle touring van. Not to mention the dynamic of these guys, who have been friends since grade school, that moves from affection to impatience and even some homoerotic undertones.
I've recommended this movie to a number of people and almost everyone I've recommended it to thought it was awesome. I've shamefully judged people on their reaction to it.
Juno - A lot of people have criticized this movie because of Juno's seemingly flippant attitude towards her pregnancy, deeming it unrealistic or innappropriate. I, personally, thought it was well done. You see, it's a front. You watch the scene in the van, and you realize this kid is scared SHITLESS, and is putting up this 'hey, it's cool, blah blah' as a defence mechanism. I also think Michael Cera conveys the confusion of a teen-boy who just doesn't quite know what to make of the situation, and is not really sure it's his to deal with, so is just kind of taking it as it comes.
I should probably mention I invariably cry for the last 20 minutes of the movie, without fail.
The Odd Couple: For some reason I love films that focus around a male-male friendship. They're interesting as they say a lot about expectations concerning masculinity. The night/day dynamic of two friends who are opposites in every way has become archetypal (along with the 'leader/sidekick' variation), but the Odd Couple does it exceptionally well. And the dialogue and comedic timing cracks me up.
Empire Records: I don't need a reason for loving this film, I just do. However, if I HAD to pick a reason it'd probably be Ethan Randall (or Ethan Embry as he's known now), or Rory Cochrane. "What's with today, today?"
Snatch: I don't know if this would be considered an 'action' film or not.. I'm inclined to think not, if only because I'm not generally a fan of action films, but I LOVE this one. I enjoy that this film manages to have a number of different storylines occuring at once, yet manages not to be headache-inducingly confusing. Jason Statham's deadpan, vaguely sarcastic performance and narration is fantastic. It's a well put together ensemble cast, well-written script, and not boring for a second.
Honoroble mention: Garden State Depending on my mood, sometimes my top five changes, and usually the one that gets on there is Garden State. I love this movie because I like the idea of two fundamentally flawed people finding each other by accident, immediately clicking and deciding to be together without either of them having to undergo any huge epiphany or metamorphosis. Okay, Zach Braff comes off his meds, but that's about it. It somehow manages to combine bleak existentialism with some kind of hope, that life can be bearable if you can at least find someone as messed up as yourself to enjoy the little things with.
Hard Core Logo: Everytime I watch this movie, I want to be in either A) a punk band or B) a Hugh Dillon/Callum Keith Rennie circa 1992 sammich. A mockumentary about a punk band who reunites after a long hiatus to go on tour in honor of the bands influence and mentor, Bucky Haight who has had his legs blown off by some crazy with a gun. I love the tension between the two front runners, Joe Dick (Dillon) and Billy Tallent (Rennie) - the juxtaposition of Joe Dicks punk-rock DIY ethic and Billy Tallent's goals to make an actual lucrative career of out his music, beyond the sketchy night clubs and ramshackle touring van. Not to mention the dynamic of these guys, who have been friends since grade school, that moves from affection to impatience and even some homoerotic undertones.
I've recommended this movie to a number of people and almost everyone I've recommended it to thought it was awesome. I've shamefully judged people on their reaction to it.
Juno - A lot of people have criticized this movie because of Juno's seemingly flippant attitude towards her pregnancy, deeming it unrealistic or innappropriate. I, personally, thought it was well done. You see, it's a front. You watch the scene in the van, and you realize this kid is scared SHITLESS, and is putting up this 'hey, it's cool, blah blah' as a defence mechanism. I also think Michael Cera conveys the confusion of a teen-boy who just doesn't quite know what to make of the situation, and is not really sure it's his to deal with, so is just kind of taking it as it comes.
I should probably mention I invariably cry for the last 20 minutes of the movie, without fail.
The Odd Couple: For some reason I love films that focus around a male-male friendship. They're interesting as they say a lot about expectations concerning masculinity. The night/day dynamic of two friends who are opposites in every way has become archetypal (along with the 'leader/sidekick' variation), but the Odd Couple does it exceptionally well. And the dialogue and comedic timing cracks me up.
Empire Records: I don't need a reason for loving this film, I just do. However, if I HAD to pick a reason it'd probably be Ethan Randall (or Ethan Embry as he's known now), or Rory Cochrane. "What's with today, today?"
Snatch: I don't know if this would be considered an 'action' film or not.. I'm inclined to think not, if only because I'm not generally a fan of action films, but I LOVE this one. I enjoy that this film manages to have a number of different storylines occuring at once, yet manages not to be headache-inducingly confusing. Jason Statham's deadpan, vaguely sarcastic performance and narration is fantastic. It's a well put together ensemble cast, well-written script, and not boring for a second.
Honoroble mention: Garden State Depending on my mood, sometimes my top five changes, and usually the one that gets on there is Garden State. I love this movie because I like the idea of two fundamentally flawed people finding each other by accident, immediately clicking and deciding to be together without either of them having to undergo any huge epiphany or metamorphosis. Okay, Zach Braff comes off his meds, but that's about it. It somehow manages to combine bleak existentialism with some kind of hope, that life can be bearable if you can at least find someone as messed up as yourself to enjoy the little things with.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
An incredibly belated grievance against the X-men movie franchiase...
Dear Producers of the X-men movie franchaise (after Bryan Singer, I really got nothin'),
I only have three words for you.
Rogue and Gambit.
Hello?
The bloody 'Ross and Rachel' of the Marvel universe and somehow they manage to go FOUR movies without ever managing to encounter each other? In what plane of existence does this even make sense?
I was bothered by the error in chronology when you made Bobby Drake a teenager like Rogue (whom I refuse to refer to as 'Marie' - everyone knows you're not supposed to know Rogue's name - sheesh), when he really should have been in the same age bracket as Jean, Scott and even the Beast. No, I left that one alone.
But it occurs to me with the latest film, Wolverine Origins, that myself and other fans of "Robit" (yes I am stealing the soap opera couple-name-contraction thing, because comics in so many ways are like soap operas - constant partner swapping, ambiguous deaths, far-fetched over-the-top storylines) are going to to be thwarted from ever getting to witness the wretched, frustrating, so full of sexual tension you can cut it with Psylocke's psychic knife (yeah, you see what I did there?) cat and mouse game that is Gambit and Rogues relationship in all it's live-action glory, and it's all because of this fundamentally flawed chronology you have created.
Let's recap:
X-men: Rogue is introduced as roughly 16, maybe 17 years old. She's place under the tutelage of the 'original' x-men, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Storm etc. Since they're teachers we can safely assume they're roughly 25-30 years of age (although Famke Janssen looks way older). Inexplicably, Bobby Drake aka Iceman is also a strapping young 16/17 year old.
We pretty much continue on under the same assumptions for the next two movies, so let's flash forward:
Wolverine: Origins; Here we are introduced to a rather smokin' hot Gambit, which is no less than would be expected, since as many would agree, Gambit's probably one of the MOST drool-inducing cartoon/animated characters out there.
This Gambit looks anywhere from 25 to 30.. one could even presume him to be a very fit 35. Granted, he could be a very wordly 18. One can only hope, since in this film we also meet a pre-X-men Scott Summers, who looks to be verging on the tender age of 15-18.
So assuming I'm correct, this puts Gambit anywhere from 20 to 30 years Rogue's senior. Which definitely puts an 'ick' factor on the whole thing.
Please, producers... tell me I'm wrong. Otherwise, I say "What the hell??"
P.S. A random, but related pet peeve of mine is when a movie comes out and suddenly the comic characters looks like the actors who play them. Who says I want to look at Anna Paquin when I'm reading?
I only have three words for you.
Rogue and Gambit.
Hello?
The bloody 'Ross and Rachel' of the Marvel universe and somehow they manage to go FOUR movies without ever managing to encounter each other? In what plane of existence does this even make sense?
I was bothered by the error in chronology when you made Bobby Drake a teenager like Rogue (whom I refuse to refer to as 'Marie' - everyone knows you're not supposed to know Rogue's name - sheesh), when he really should have been in the same age bracket as Jean, Scott and even the Beast. No, I left that one alone.
But it occurs to me with the latest film, Wolverine Origins, that myself and other fans of "Robit" (yes I am stealing the soap opera couple-name-contraction thing, because comics in so many ways are like soap operas - constant partner swapping, ambiguous deaths, far-fetched over-the-top storylines) are going to to be thwarted from ever getting to witness the wretched, frustrating, so full of sexual tension you can cut it with Psylocke's psychic knife (yeah, you see what I did there?) cat and mouse game that is Gambit and Rogues relationship in all it's live-action glory, and it's all because of this fundamentally flawed chronology you have created.
Let's recap:
X-men: Rogue is introduced as roughly 16, maybe 17 years old. She's place under the tutelage of the 'original' x-men, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Storm etc. Since they're teachers we can safely assume they're roughly 25-30 years of age (although Famke Janssen looks way older). Inexplicably, Bobby Drake aka Iceman is also a strapping young 16/17 year old.
We pretty much continue on under the same assumptions for the next two movies, so let's flash forward:
Wolverine: Origins; Here we are introduced to a rather smokin' hot Gambit, which is no less than would be expected, since as many would agree, Gambit's probably one of the MOST drool-inducing cartoon/animated characters out there.
This Gambit looks anywhere from 25 to 30.. one could even presume him to be a very fit 35. Granted, he could be a very wordly 18. One can only hope, since in this film we also meet a pre-X-men Scott Summers, who looks to be verging on the tender age of 15-18.
So assuming I'm correct, this puts Gambit anywhere from 20 to 30 years Rogue's senior. Which definitely puts an 'ick' factor on the whole thing.
Please, producers... tell me I'm wrong. Otherwise, I say "What the hell??"
P.S. A random, but related pet peeve of mine is when a movie comes out and suddenly the comic characters looks like the actors who play them. Who says I want to look at Anna Paquin when I'm reading?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)