Tag Archives: history

Stop advertising your sex, unless you want to

2 Sep

A friend of mine recently posted the story of a woman who thinks that ladies should not be forced to wear bras. I agree. Very specific items of clothing should only be stipulated in very specific environments. Like contour-covering tops in a school, or their absence in a topless bar. But although I merely expressed that I found the whole discussion ridiculous, the argument quickly escalated into a discussion regarding the public display of sexuality. Naturally, most commentators chose to misunderstand my thoughts.

Clothes set people apart, and women are way more aware of that than men. Just look around the local mall. Almost all of the younger men wear jeans and t-shirt, and as they age they replace the latter with a chequered shirt. This is what men wear. Most of the time we don’t put much time into choosing our wardrobe, because we simply don’t know any better. We wear jeans and t-shirt, because this attire is nearly always appropriate.

Alyssa - Goemon5 autumn guitar 08

For a man this attire is already very inventive. The occasions on which I wear a tie are very rare indeed.

Women, however, have to make a statement with their choice of clothing. They cannot bear wearing the same outfit as any of the other two thousand ladies at the mall, so they go through great lengths to select very specific items of clothing.  They don’t usually think of it in this way, but they do want to look different. There really is nothing to discuss here. Clothes set people apart, and women are aware of it.

Lack male white pants sexy

Men don’t wear pants like these for reasons of comfort.

Some clothing is functional, like the brightly coloured attire of a fire fighter. Some clothing is unifying, like the uniforms of store clerks. Some clothing is sexually suggestive, like the shiny pants that outline every crevice of the bum.

During mating season the ass of baboons swells up and reddens. This is to inform the other sex that it is time to choose a partner for collaborative efforts of saving the species. During mating season most male song birds are brightly coloured, and perform crazy dances or songs. The lady birds choose their sexual partners based on this display. Male deer wear elaborate displays of antlers, for the same reason.

This is what the biologist calls a sexual display. The display sets the individual apart from all other animals, and signals that this might be the right mate. “You like my grand display of antlers? Then come over here for some sweet loving, chiqua-deer!”

Primates do not have antlers, or feathers, so they rely on other visual clues to advertise their sexuality. In baboons it’s the ass. In humans it’s breasts. Big breasts promise a great survival rate for the offspring, so they are favoured over smaller milk-producers. Again, this is a simple biological deduction. You don’t need to be aware of it; it happens anyway. Just the same, women prefer muscular men as partners, because they promise a great degree of protection. These are simple sexual cues that most people react to.

Many women use make-up to accentuate their lips, or cheeks, or eye lashes. These women are “advertising” their lips, cheeks, or eye lashes. They intentionally set these things apart from everything else, and thus advertise them. This is not really subject to debate; there is nothing detestable about wearing make-up. If you want to show a big mouth, or small eyes, or clumsy legs, you can totally do that. This is your choice, and you shall have it. Just be aware that biologists call this “advertising”. It has nothing to do with market goods or sell-outs. You are merely putting a specific part of yourself on display. And there is NOTHING wrong with that.

You cannot detest the word itself, because it has the right of seniority. “Advertisement” is derived from the Latin advertere, meaning “to draw one’s attention towards something”. Contesting the meaning of the word puts you in one line with ignorant push-bullies like Donald Trump or Kellyanne Conway. Words have meanings. You can’t change those meanings just by ignoring them.


When the heirs of Fukushima chose the name of their new mascot they obviously did not care about words and their meanings. Please don’t make that mistake.

When you are wearing a muscle shirt, or a crop top, or ass-hugging pants, you are calling attention to those particular aspects of your body. You are “advertising” them. Many people do this on purpose. A magician, for example, advertises his hands, to distract you from the cards hidden on the table. A cop advertises his arsenal of weapons and utilities, in order to discourage violence. A stripper advertises his massive penis, to create sexual tension among the onlookers, and challenge them for a bigger tip.

None of this is new; none of it is in an ordinary way problematic. Women nowadays call attention to their breasts and booties through tight-fitting clothes, or “scandalously” short pieces of cloth that leave very little to imagination. Most women know fully well that specific items of clothing make them sexually more attractive, and they chose these items for that effect. You don’t wear low-crop pants because your vagina needs the extra air; you wear them because you “look good in them”. In other words, you are calling attention to your reproductive organs and your buttocks; you are advertising your sexuality. Men do the same when they stuff a sock down their pants, or wear shirts that are one size to small for them.

Low crop Rise Lack pants

If you don’t want people to talk about your bum, maybe don’t wear these pants.

Mind the difference between advertising sexual attractiveness, and advertising sex. You can “look good” without promoting coitus. You can look “slutty” without creating personal attraction. These are two very distinctive concepts. It is acceptable to look sexy in public, it is not acceptable to “look for sex”. The latter would either be called sexual predation, or prostitution, depending on which end of the condom you’re on. Neither of which is acceptable outside of the Red Lights District.

Now, I agree that people have a right to dress sexy in public. But this must be open for commentary. If you are carrying your melons to the market, the customers are allowed to debate their shape and size. Likewise, if you have really big breasts, and you conceal them only behind a string bikini, you are making your breasts a discussable subject. Everything that is different, particular, or extraordinary is open for public commentary. This is called “freedom of speech”.

The fruit vendor won’t forbid you to talk about his discoloured melons just because he finds that conversation uncomfortable. If he wouldn’t want people to talk about his melons, he would have covered them up. Similarly, the only way to prevent people from talking about your booty is by hiding it.

If you don’t want people to talk about your body, then don’t advertise it. If you want to discourage comments about your lips, don’t colour them brightly red. You have no reason to feel offended, repressed, or objectified, if you cover your breasts with a latex top that lifts your breasts, and shows your nipples. The owner of a fancy restaurant has any right to refuse you entry in such attire. You chose that garment because it makes you look sexy, so don’t complain when people say you look sexy. You cannot dress in a way that draws looks, and then forbid people to look.


If you dress like this, and claim you don’t want to be looked at, you are being extremely dishonest.

This is not taking away from any debate on sexual predation. Rape is bad; there are no valid excuses. I am only saying that women who utilise particular garments to advertise their sexual traits have no claim to innocence in a verbal argument. In an open society it is always allowed to talk about noteworthy things, be it the size of a sports car, the voice of a busker, or the shape of buttocks. If you put it on display, it is fair game for conversation. If you don’t want it talked about, don’t put it on display.

Die CSU gehört nicht zu Deutschland – König Horst und sein Gefolge

26 Jun

Im Jahre der Kanzlerin 2007 wurde ich zum ersten Mal auf die CSU aufmerksam. Ich hatte mich schon vorher mäßig für Politik interessiert, aber die fadenscheinige Debatte um Jugendschutz und Gewalt in Videospielen die von der CSU damals losgetreten wurde hat mir dann doch erhöhte Aufmerksamkeit aufgedrängt.

Dabei gab es durchaus schon vor der pseudo-Christlichen Machübernahme Grund zur Besorgnis. Zum Beispiel als Stammel-Stoiber 2005 der politischen Bewegungen in den neuen Bundesländern gewahr wurde und proklamierte er „akzeptiere nicht, dass der Osten bestimmt, wer in Deutschland Kanzler wird.“ Als er dann in seiner Entschuldigung (!) mehrere Tage später meinte, dass es ja keine Probleme gäbe, wenn es überall so aussähe wie in Bayern, ahnte man doch wo der politische Horizont der CSU endet.

Pünktlich zum Landtags-Wahlkampf 2007 entdeckte dann Bayerns Innenminister Günther Beckstein das Thema Jugendschutz für seine Parteiklientel, und behauptete, entgegen jeder wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnis, der Konsum von Actionspielen würde „die Hemmschwellen für die eigene Gewaltbereitschaft in der realen Welt“ verringern. Becksteins Kampagne war so erfolgreich, dass die CSU bei der Landtagswahl erstmalig unter die fünzig-Prozent-Marke rutschte, wohl auch weil Deutsche Spielemagazine die Worthülsen erkannten und die „Killerspiele“-propagierenden CSU-Hirsche als „Spielekiller“ entlarvten. Das Jugendschutzgesetz blieb übrigens von der Aktion weitgehend unberührt. Einzig, USK-18-Spiele dürfen nicht mehr frei beworben werden, was Versandhäusern wie Amazon Rücken und Brieftasche gestärkt hat.


Beckstein Spielekiller-Debatte 2007 offenbarte erneut die Sinnlosigkeit der CSU. Na, wer erkennt alle vier Prollos?!

Nennenswert waren auch die Beiträge der CSU-Ministerin für Verbraucherschutz, Nahrung und Agrarwirtschaft, Ilse Aigner, die wie kaum ein Minister zuvor die Agrarfunktionäre vor den Verbrauchern schütze. Nahrungs-Ilse hat die Agrarwirtschaft in dermaßen viele freiwillige (!) Selbstkontrollen gezwungen, dass die meisten Massentierhalter und Wurstfabrikanten mittlerweile zweimal täglich in ihrem Geldspeicher schwimmen müssen, um den Geruch vor Tierfäule und Pflanzengift abzuschaben den sie kontrollfrei auf den Deutschen Markt schieben.

Und nun auch noch König Horst. Der Innenminister der sich fast ausschließlich mit den Europäischen und Deutschen Außengrenzen beschäftigt. Der Heimatminister der den Zusammenhalt stärkt indem er Menschen muslimischen Glaubens explizit ausgrenzt. Der Bauminister der sich noch 2013 gegen die Nutzung von Windenergie und den Bau von Stromtrassen in Bayern einsetzte, wohl in der Hoffnung die Bayrische Industrie würde von fröhlichen blau-weißen Kälbern auf ihrem Weg zum Schlachthof mit Batterien versorgt werden.

Neuerdings fordert der egozentrische Platzhirsch auch noch EU-rechtswidrige Zurückweisungen von Flüchtlingen an den in Deutschland nicht-vorhandenen Grenzübergängen zu Nachbarstaaten. Die von König Horst angeregte Debatte/Erpressung vor dem Hintergrund der Flüchtlichgsverteilung innerhalb Europas ist symptomatisch für alle politischen Themen die die CSU in den letzten zwanzig Jahren angefasst hat – die Diskussion ist einseitig uninformiert; sie wird ohne tatsächliche Argumente geführt; und die angepriesenen „Lösungsvorschläge“ erfüllen keinerlei Zweck außer der temporären Gewinnung rechts-konservativer Wähler im eigenen Bundesland.


Die CSU macht sich mit ihrer rechten Polemik in Deutschland nicht viele Freunde. via paolo-calleri.de

Seit zwanzig Jahren führt die CSU mit ihren konservativen Balzritualen die verbündeten Kollegen der CDU vor, und den Deutschen Wähler an der Brieftasche herum. In zwanzig Jahren gab es von den unchristlichen Asozialen keine Gesetzesentwürfe die nicht in erster Linie dem Wahlkampf im eigenen Bundesland dienten. Seit 1949 spukt die gemeinschaftliche Bundestagsfraktion von CDU und CSU im deutschen Bundestag umher, und spätestens seit der Jahrtausendwende zeigt die CSU keinerlei Interesse am Bürgertum das über solide Nazi-Polemik hinausginge.

Die CSU will auf Bundesebene nicht mitgestalten, hat nicht das Interesse des Bürgers im Auge, und setzte sich nicht für den wie-auch-immer-gearteten Schutz des Bürgers ein. Ansonsten hätten die Bayern ihre politischen Ämter dazu genutzt die Energieversorgung zu gewährleisten, Polizisten einzustellen, oder Lebensmittelhersteller zu kontrollieren. All diese Themen lagen und/oder liegen in der CSU-Kompetenz; blieben aber in Ermangelung echten Interesses unberührt. Jüngste Äußerungen führender CSU-Politiker haben erneut gezeigt, dass diese Partei ausschließlich mit ihrem eigenen Machterhalt beschäftigt ist. Dieses Problem lässt sich nicht spontan lösen, da sich Dummheit und Arroganz nicht verbieten lassen.

Aber zumindest kann die CDU den angerichteten Schaden stark begrenzen, indem sie die Koalition mit jener Partei aufkündigt, und die Kampfhähne der CSU zurückschickt in ihre Heimat, wo sie auf immer ihren Machtkampf gegen die Realität weiterführen mögen. Ganz im Sinne der eigenen Außenpolitik – egal was aus den Problemkindern wird, Hauptsache ich muss die nicht mehr sehen.

2016 Retrospective – Why death is not the end

1 Jan Fire in Calgary

“The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend.” Robert Jordan is long gone from this world, but with The Wheel of Time he has left the world one of the best book series that the realm of Fantasy could ever imagine. And as the Gregorian calendar turns another full year we ask again whether anything we did will pass to legend, or if all we did was to feed the squabbling turmoil of the moment.


Shades of Black

To many the year 2016 will be something that they would rather forget. For instance, we saw the rise of right-winged populist politics, “the end of democracy” as left-winged populists called it. The British UKIP party celebrates itself for dragging Great Britain into political isolation. A notorical liar, despised by his own party, led the conservative Republicans to victory in the USA. And Putin’s military forces helped Assat’s band of alleged war criminals to reclaim the iron throne of Syria. Now, all of that sounds horrible to the thinking one who feels. But will we remember any of it long-term? I doubt it.

Horror is not something that people try to hold on to. It is something they try to forget. Twelve days ago a Moroccan asshole stole a truck from a Pole (Oh, the irony!), and drove it into a Christmas Market in Berlin. That guy killed about a dozen people, and is widely acclaimed to be a formidable terrorist. But who will remember him for it? Who but religious extremists will see his actions as memorable?

Christmas markets continue to exist. People continue to enjoy themselves outdoors. Except for those directly involved in the attack nothing has changed. Populist spokespersons often proclaim that “once the terror is at our door, it will be too late”. However, now that the terror has smashed our neighbour’s face in we still consider it a long distance away. We refuse to be afraid of it. Hear that ISIS; you cannot prevent the Western World from being jolly!

Not even two weeks have passed since that Islamist killed a dozen shoppers, yet most Germans don’t recall the name of the attacker, or even the specific Christmas Market that he blundered into. The terror is here, and we know it is real; still we try to forget, not to remember.


Fire in Calgary

Photo reporters flock around catastrophes, because they generate interest. But long-term those negative images don’t hold.

Evil never prevails

That is why terror organisations such as ISIS, UKIP, or AfD (our modern German Nazi party) are bound to fail. They pull off a few media stunts, blast a hole into our political fabric, and keep themselves in recent memory. But as the years go by they degrade to another speck on the colourful tapestry of world politics. People do not remember the destroyers. They commemorate creators.

The Maya, Inca, and ancient Egyptians all believed in something bigger, and modern man remembers them, because of the things that they created to glorify their makers. Few people recall the Mormon’s “Mountain Meadows Massacre”, despite its vileness. Yet, most North Americans know about the Mormons, because they are impressed by their huge and glorious temples that seem to pop up in everybody’s neighbourhood.


Goemon5 CD release poster

2016 saw the release of my first album. THAT is something I will remember.

Creators that last

That is why our children won’t remember ISIS, or UKIP, or Donald Trump. Because they have not (yet) created anything of value. They have not moved the world forward and therefore won’t stand the test against time. As soon as any of them dies their remnants will quickly be ground down and carried away by the great wind that rose in the Mountains of Mist; doomed to be forgotten as Ages come and pass.

So, which memories of our recent history do we keep alive? We will remember Malala Yousafzai for her courage; for wanting an education so badly that she faced gunshots to obtain it. We hold George Michael in memory for his work towards public acceptance of homosexuality, and for that horribly overplayed Wham! song.


Rollerderby rules. Enough said.

So, what of 2016?

2016 is a year of personal victories. I will remember it as the year that I released my first album, and the year I created my first professional music videos, in collaboration with multi-talented Natasha Sayer. It is the year I found Rollerderby, and watched the Calgary Allstars win Silver at the Championships. Granted, it’s a year of personal memories. But this is the kind of selfish positivity that hurts no one, and is far more encouraging than mourning over all the great musicians who are no longer with us.

Thus, I encourage you to do the same. If you can’t find any global and ground-shaking occurrences that keep the year 2016 in your positive memory, rather pick some personal ones. Come on, there has to be something about this year that you liked! Keep that one in mind. Stay positive. There is always tomorrow.