The age old question

Since the dawn of time there have been good girls and bad girls. Since the dawn of time, men have been asking each other which they prefer, virgins or sluts… or to put in terms of the complex, Madonna or Whore. This question has had many faces over the years. Two of the most famous are Ginger or Mary Ann.


There have been magical choices like Samantha or her cousin Serena.


There has even been a cartoon choice with Betty or Veronica.


The faces may change but the question remains the same, would you rather be with a virgin or a slut? On its face, the question is highly insulting, as it only takes into account a woman’s sexuality (or lack thereof). As a feminist, the question is offensive… but it’s hard t be offended when… women are guilty of the very same behavior.

We choose between the nice guy and the Lothario. We have made this choice since the dawn of time. This question has had many faces over the years. One of the most famous examples is Danny or Tom.

Olivia Newton John and John Travolta in 1978  movie " Grease"


A very young Lorenzo Lamas as Tom in the movie Grease.

Of course Sandy picked the bad boy, Lothario, Danny and she changed for him, even though he was willing to change for her. The better choice would have been Tom because neither of them would have had to change who they were… but it wouldn’t have been as entertaining. There is a correlation between a woman’s age and the choice she will make when faced with these two stereotypes. When a woman is under the age of 35 she will be much more likely to choose the bad boy. Some young women choose the bad boy because he represents danger and adventure, some will choose him because they have this delusion that they can change him or save him from himself. Once a woman is past the age of 35 she is far more likely to choose the nice guy because she has known nothing but heartache at the hands of the Lothario and she now sees what should have been obvious from the start, that a more quiet life with the nice guy who will treat you well is a better long-term bet. Excitement and danger is fun for a while, but you wouldn’t want to live there.

I wonder if the choice between virgin and slut also has an age correlation? Do younger men prefer the virgin because they too are inexperienced? Do older men prefer the slut because they are looking for someone with a more open mind, sexually? Or do men just like what they like from cradle to grave? I would be very interested to hear thoughts from some of my male readers on this topic. Please feel free to post a comment below.

All In


Many religious types, when arguing with an atheist cite Pascal’s wager as an argument for a belief in god. Let’s take a closer look at what Pascal actually said.


I find this attitude to be not only disingenuous, but if there is a god, highly insulting to him/her. If there is a god and he/she is omniscient, then don’t you think they know that your are just hedging your bets. If only true believers are to go to heaven, then this type of behavior would be seen as a one way ticket to a flame filled afterlife. At least atheism is honest.

I see three camps when it comes to belief in a deity. The first group doesn’t know, but believe with all their being that a god exists. The second group doesn’t know, but due to an overwhelming lack of evidence choses not to waste their time believing. Then there’s the third group who doesn’t know and doesn’t care (agnostics). There is currently a battle waging between the first and second groups. The believers believe that they are being persecuted (IRONY!!) for their beliefs. The second group just want the beliefs of the first group to stop hindering their lives via the government or any other area of life that has been taken over by religion and are willing to stand up and fight against the first group. I don’t understand why the religious types need so much for everyone else to believe as they do, but they do. Hence they are constantly trying (and failing) to convince us atheists that their god exists via arguments like Pascal’s wager and sayings like “There are no atheists in foxholes”. This saying basically means that in a life and death situation everybody turns to god and prays.

As an atheist who has been in a life and death situation, I can tell you, that is simply untrue. A few years ago I was diagnosed with breast cancer. Due to the position of the tumour, there was some question as to whether or not a mastectomy would be necessary. As I went under the anesthetic, I had no idea if I would wake up with breasts or not. For those of you who have read my post entitled, I hate my big breasts you know which way I was rooting. It had been discussed that if the doctor had to take the breast, that he would take both. When I awoke after surgery, I looked down and saw to my dismay, that both my breasts were still there. My doctor then gave me more bad news… chemotherapy would be necessary. This whole cancer ordeal took a lot out of me over a period of months, but not once did I find myself talking to an imaginary person in the sky. I was insulted when friends told me they would pray for me, for I see the act of praying for an atheist as, not only insulting, but purely selfish and more than a little smug. Instead of wasting your time praying for someone who does not believe in your god, perhaps you could spend that time making sure there is plenty of ice cream available for after the surgery (or whatever hardship they are facing), or just being there and listening to your friend as he or she goes through a difficult situation. Instead, some believers feel this is a situation in which their friend is ripe for conversion and they are ready to take full advantage. I actually had one friend who, before I went into surgery, told me that maybe I should get myself right with god. Way to be there for me! Not wanting to hurt his feelings (said the cancer patient to a perfectly healthy individual), I told him that I had come to terms with god. Not a lie, as my terms were that god doesn’t exist, but it seemed to make him feel better (because, of course that was what was important… that he feel better).  With actions like these, I don’t understand why believers think that they should not be persecuted. It’s really tough to get on board with the whole, “we’re the good guys” thing when you act like this… or worse.

Another part of religion that I never understood is the need for an afterlife (or reincarnation). This seems very egotistical to me… and entirely exhausting, not to mention unnecessary. Again, if there is a god, it’s like you are saying to him that this gift of life he or she has given you is great and all, but there should be something more. (Gee Grandma, thanks for the 50 bucks in my birthday card, but why didn’t you get me a present too?) Talk about a slap in the face. I take great comfort in knowing that after this life is over, I will cease to be. This life was more than plenty, why would I ever want more? I have suffered in this life, I have known joy in this life. I have laughed and I have cried. I have experienced most of what this life has to offer and I am good with that. When I die, even if that may be tomorrow I feel that I have lived my life to the fullest and have absolutely no need of more as neither a reward, nor a punishment. I have gone all in and when the game is over, I will fold.

And now for something completely different…

Notice how the shop owner never argues that the parrot has gone on to a better place?

The “Poor” Pope


This new Pope is trying to brand himself as the Pope of the people. The dangerous thing is it seems to be working. New Pope Francis was quoted a few days ago as saying,  “Oh, how I would like a poor Church, and for the poor.” He also reportedly, bowed to the crowd as he was presented as the new Pope and asked for their blessing before he would bless the people. While these acts are charming on the surface and are winning the hearts of the gullible, to me they seem like shallow attempts to seem different. I see this as ‘Meet the new Pope, same as the old Pope’ (to paraphrase The Who).

This new Pope has been very open in regard to his feelings on many social issues including the four big ones, homosexuality, abortion, birth control and the rise of women in the Catholic church to positions of power. In all four cases, like the Popes who came before him, his stance is a firm NO. So apparently the old ‘every sperm is sacred’ motto is still in effect, except, of course if that sperm creates a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered person.

I don’t quite understand why people are acting as if the Pope talking about how the church should be helping the poor is such a new and controversial concept. Was it not Jesus who took the poor under his wing? This idea is older than the church itself. This new Pope says he “would like” a poor church, and for the poor. He doesn’t say he will make this come to pass. This is an easy thing to say when you are literally living in a golden palace. It comes off as ridiculously insincere when he says this with the vast wealth of the Catholic Church as his backdrop.

Then there’s the quandary of women. To this new Pope, we are still seen merely as baby making machines with no say as to what happens with our own bodies. We are still second class citizens who, unless we are virgins, are either mothers or whores… both being unfit to hold the priesthood, let alone any higher status within the church. Ah, yes the new pope is of the ‘keep them down’ mindset, just like his predecessors.

So here’s to the new Pope…

Vatican Pope

a man who was called a bishop, drinks from a golden chalice, wears expensive and flamboyant clothing and keeps women ‘in their place’. Remind you of anyone?

USA World's most famous Pimp

Famous pimp, Don “Magic” Juan calls himself the Bishop, wears expensive and flamboyant clothing, drinks from a golden chalice and keeps women down too. Though he is possibly more likely to be tolerant of the GLBT community than Francis.

How the letter N made me popular on Twitter


I have had my twitter account for about as long as long as I have been writing this blog. I use it to post short little bon mots and, of course, to publicize my blog. I also like to participate in trending topics (hashtags) from time to time, if the subject is fun or interesting… or annoying. Such was the case last night when a trending topic appeared in my timeline. It should be noted that I am a grammar and spelling geek of the highest order, so when I saw this was trending, you can imagine how annoyed it made me.


 immediately took to my keyboard and fired off this little shot at whoever came up with the above bastardization of the English language.

#MentionAAttractiveFollower Any follower that I would consider attractive would know that there is an ‘n’ missing from this hashtag.

I didn’t think any more of it until I awoke this morning to see that I had an inordinate amount of email from twitter. It seems that, overnight, my little tweet had taken the top slot for that topic (or hashtag, if you will) and it had been the recipient of 114 retweets and 42 favourites. This is astonishing, as the majority of my tweets get no attention whatsoever. On any given day, I am lucky if more than one person decides to retweet anything I say and now this!

Alas it’s now a new day and this hashtag has disappeared from the trending list and I must slink back into obscurity, but I will always have the memory of that night fleeting fame and how great it felt to be at the top for one brief, shining moment.

Truly Iconic Swimsuits

Back in October, I wrote a post as a rebuttal of sorts to and their list of “the most iconic dresses of all time”. To this day, it is still one of my more popular posts. As spring is just around the corner, and soon it will be bathing suit weather, I thought I would do a follow-up to my Truly iconic dresses post and explore what I consider to be the most iconic swimsuits of all time. To be on this list, each swimsuit must be recognizable and spark a memory to be considered iconic.

So, without further ado, and in no particular order, here they are.

ursula andress in the james bond film doctor no

Ursula Andress in the first James Bond movie, Dr. No

This was a bikini so iconic that it spawned a sequel.


Halle Berry in Die Another Day


Raquel Welch in One Million Years BC. Need I say more?


Betty Grable’s famous Pin Up kept more than just the morale up during WWII


Hair, teeth and nipples made Farrah Fawcett a triple threat in the 70s


Not to be outdone, Cheryl Tiegs gave us this other decade defining moment of the 1970s


Fans of the Mickey Mouse club had their dreams come true when Annette sported this two piece number.


Marilyn Monroe proved that you don’t have to put on a bikini if you want to know How to Marry a Millionaire


Goldie Hawn before she went Overboard in this high cut, thong backed, one piece.


Famous Pin Up, Bettie Page goes wild on the beach.

I found it to be rather eye-opening as I was collecting the images above that the majority of these women are curvy to say the least. Perhaps we should be re-thinking our definition what is sexy when it comes to the female form.

As a feminist and therefore equal opportunity exploiter, I would be remiss if I didn’t include some famous moments in male swimwear too.

From Here To Eternity

Burt Lancaster had all the girls swooning in From Here to Eternity.


Miles O’Keefe may not have been the most famous Tarzan, but he sure did that loincloth justice.


Speaking of loincloths, who can forget Christopher Atkins splashing around in the Blue Lagoon?

And then there’s this…


Sacha Baron Cohen, as Borat in possibly the most iconic swimsuit of them all!

Go west, middle aged woman

It seems as though I have been restless for the past while. By ‘while’, I mean my entire adult life. I have a tendency to hop from place to place every few years, starting fresh each time. Others may look at this behavior and think I am crazy, but I like to live a nomadic life and I like beginning new adventures. Sometimes I feel a little bit like Dr. Sam Beckett on the excellent TV series, Quantum Leap, only I control where I land. For the past four years, I have lived in Southern Quebec, which, when I left last week, looked like this.


At the age of 47, I have come full circle. Last week I moved back to the British Columbia town in which I was born. It welcomed me with rain (but, as those in B.C. are fond of saying, “at least you don’t have to shovel it”). The past few days, however have looked more like this.


It’s that time of year when the snow drops and the daffodils are both in bloom, the leaves are coming back onto the trees and the air smells clean and fresh. A wonderful time of year to start anew.

I am back to looking for work, but at least this time I don’t have to do it in more than one language and walking all over town doesn’t feel like such a chore. I am looking forward to my adventure here, wherever it takes me.



Ken Taylor, the real life hero of the story.

By now you have likely heard all about how Ben Affleck has earned the ire of former Canadian ambassador to Iran, Ken Taylor for minimizing Canada’s contribution to the rescue of six US diplomats from Iran. Mr. Taylor has been quite vocal about his disapproval and rightly so. Even Former US President, Jimmy Carter (who was President at the time that this whole mission took place) has publicly said that it was 90 percent Canada and 10 percent CIA. Not to mention the fact that John Sheardown, who, along with Taylor masterminded the whole scheme, was left out of the movie entirely.What you may not know is that Canada isn’t the only country to get the fuzzy end of the lollipop in this movie. There is another country whose role in the film was not just minimized, but an outright lie


In the actual rescue mission, New Zealand offered to help. They even sent their ambassador, Chris Beeby to visit the hostages and rent a house that the hostages could hide in if they were discovered. In the movie, New Zealand is lumped in with several other countries who refuse to help, saying their reason was that Iran was one of their largest importers of New Zealand lamb.

The only thing I see wrong with all of this is that Argo is marketed as being “based on the true story” of this mission. The phrase ‘based on’ does not give you licence to tell half-truths and complete falsehoods about the true story, as Mr. Affleck seems to think. If you are going to make the true story of something/anything then, rule number one is, you had better get your facts straight and tell the truth the way it actually happened. Affleck had an advantage in that Ken Taylor was still alive and willing to help him. Sadly Affleck didn’t bother asking for Taylor’s help until the movie had been completed. The only input Ken Taylor had, was the change in the postscript of the film… a small concession at best. Affleck has been quoted as saying he loves Ken Taylor, he loves Canada, he loves New Zealand. I really don’t want to see how he would portray people he hates, if this is what he does to people he professes to ‘love’. Or perhaps he was just being a condescending Hollywood phony, lobbying for an Academy Award.


Affleck could have just as easily done what Law and Order SVU and Criminal Intent frequently do and rip a story from the headlines and write a ‘what if’ kind of storyline about how it could have been and call it fiction… well, aside from calling it fiction, I suppose that’s what Affleck actually did do.

There is one question I still have about this whole debacle. Why did Michelle Obama present the award? Obviously the Academy got her to present because they knew that Argo (a film about American heroics) was going to win. I am all but certain she would not have been tapped to present the award if the winner was going to be Django Unchained, Beast of the Southern Wild or Lincoln. The fact that the First Lady presented the award, even via satellite, not only legitimizes the content of the movie, but effectively puts a presidential seal of approval on it as well.

You might be asking why the hack does any of this matter… it was a movie. Well, I will let Ken Taylor answer that in his own words. “As long as people realise that this isn’t the historical record. And that is difficult to do because movies leave an impression. Particularly with young people – they weren’t around when it happened.” Movies do have the ability to change a generation’s view of what actually happened, to water it down, or to change it entirely. The sad part is that unless you were old enough to remember what actually happened, you will likely see this movie and believe that everything in it happened the way Affleck said it did because it was marketed as ‘based on a true story’.