Sex on the Friday is the greatest... think about it... No? Okay. I'll do it for you.
Sex on MONDAY is about getting the damn thing done. Its about trying to reverse the clock. Its like Dorothy...that writhing sexual motion just before the orgasm you're saying "there's no place like the weekend, there's no place like the weekend" and then you're done and you just waan cuss badwud.
Sex on TUESDAY is about facing the reality that you are really JUST one day closer to Friday. Its such a painful reality that you skip the foreplay.
Sex on WEDNESDAY is just angry sex. Its the sex you use to remind yourself that Friday is really coming and I should not quit tomorrow. More importantly that orgasm better not hold out pon yuh a rass. N.B (to orgasm) Its not about you; its about getting in a state of mind that I don't risk being fired at work tomorrow. So let's do the damn thing.
Sex on THURSDAY is like the day before August 1, 1834. You can taste the freedom but you still have to hear the official announcement before you know you are actually free. Thus on a Thursday you hold back cause you don't want it to steal the Friday orgasm
Sex on FRIDAY is everything. You take all the reasons why sex on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday fell short and throw it into Friday. Buddy a guh bruk pon Friday! And no you don't want foreplay on Friday yuh want the shit Vybz Kartel sings about. You want CENSORED sex! Jenna Jamieson nuh have a ting pon yuh! Because...
Sex on SATURDAY is for foreplay. Wi nuh have nuttin fi do a morning and we can late for Church God will understand.
Sex on Sunday is painful. Its so painful one would rather not have it because its just a reminder that you're preparing for the week ahead. But you're going to have it Don't fret! Yuh know why? Because without Monday evening yuh heading home jobless cause smaddy would a dead and is not you.
Thus SEX on Friday is the GREATEST!!!
Friday, February 25, 2011
Trapped in the Elevator 1: The Cokehead
So the other day mooretalkja blogged that you know you're Jamaican when the uninvited third party enters the conversation as if they started it. Sigh.
Well you know you're in Canada when someone randomly starts having the most meaningful of conversations with you. Why? the unfortunate situation is this- you are there when the thought crosses their mind.
So yesterday I am going to buy lotion. 10 flights down and maybe a hop skip and jump to the smoke and gift and this is an easily resolved problem. But yesterday the universe was against me.
I step outside and I find myself face to face with what looks like a recovering drug addict.A small white woman in twead green sweater, eyes-crossed but still very wide-eyed in combat mode with the elevator button. So I do the Jamaican thing. I put my hands in my pocket and look away with a fast prayer in my head saying "elevator come, elevator come".
So she begins to ask me if I was visited by a City of Toronto fireman and if he happened to give me his number. So I said "No." Al the while trying to give most unfriendly Jamaican face but I find Canadians them committed when dem a chat off yuh head yuh nuh. so the elevator comes and its full so her shutting up rests in the hands of maybe she won't want to tell the ENTIRE elevator. No such luck. This woman went on and on and to through salt, pepper and oregano into my wounds the elevator was in high demand- how it just a stop at every floor suh and a tek in people. by the 7th floor its 7 of us, a dog and all our winter garb huddled like chunk tuna in the elevator. BUT SHE IS STILL LOOKING UP, OVER AND AROUND THE WOMAN WITH HER DOG to talk to me. big Sigh. By the third floor she has decided she is telling her story to the entire elevator and when she laughs she looks at everyone in the elevator for laughter support. *straight face* *blank stare* *bitch shut up eyes* and my face is screaming *whhhhhhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyy meeeeeee?* kind of like the cartoon Lizzie Maguire who does what she really wants to do.
And we finally make it to the lobby and it seems we are heading our separate ways she touches me- the recovering cokehead with the crossed eyes touches me. [Insert me swallowing my inner Jamaica like Buckleys cough syrup here] she touches me to stop me from walking away so she can finish her story. And my face is saying "God woman, seriously how lonely can you be?" And then I look at her and it all makes sense.
And then she goes "So i'm heading to the main office to make a complaint so he doesn't ge ton the property again and then I am heading to the City of Toronto office to complain to them and I have his business card with call me written on it as evidence. He won't prey on me in my singleness." And she walks off and standing in front of my building I look at the smoke and gift and say to myself "fuck you lotion, just fuck you!"
Well you know you're in Canada when someone randomly starts having the most meaningful of conversations with you. Why? the unfortunate situation is this- you are there when the thought crosses their mind.
So yesterday I am going to buy lotion. 10 flights down and maybe a hop skip and jump to the smoke and gift and this is an easily resolved problem. But yesterday the universe was against me.
I step outside and I find myself face to face with what looks like a recovering drug addict.A small white woman in twead green sweater, eyes-crossed but still very wide-eyed in combat mode with the elevator button. So I do the Jamaican thing. I put my hands in my pocket and look away with a fast prayer in my head saying "elevator come, elevator come".
So she begins to ask me if I was visited by a City of Toronto fireman and if he happened to give me his number. So I said "No." Al the while trying to give most unfriendly Jamaican face but I find Canadians them committed when dem a chat off yuh head yuh nuh. so the elevator comes and its full so her shutting up rests in the hands of maybe she won't want to tell the ENTIRE elevator. No such luck. This woman went on and on and to through salt, pepper and oregano into my wounds the elevator was in high demand- how it just a stop at every floor suh and a tek in people. by the 7th floor its 7 of us, a dog and all our winter garb huddled like chunk tuna in the elevator. BUT SHE IS STILL LOOKING UP, OVER AND AROUND THE WOMAN WITH HER DOG to talk to me. big Sigh. By the third floor she has decided she is telling her story to the entire elevator and when she laughs she looks at everyone in the elevator for laughter support. *straight face* *blank stare* *bitch shut up eyes* and my face is screaming *whhhhhhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyy meeeeeee?* kind of like the cartoon Lizzie Maguire who does what she really wants to do.
And we finally make it to the lobby and it seems we are heading our separate ways she touches me- the recovering cokehead with the crossed eyes touches me. [Insert me swallowing my inner Jamaica like Buckleys cough syrup here] she touches me to stop me from walking away so she can finish her story. And my face is saying "God woman, seriously how lonely can you be?" And then I look at her and it all makes sense.
And then she goes "So i'm heading to the main office to make a complaint so he doesn't ge ton the property again and then I am heading to the City of Toronto office to complain to them and I have his business card with call me written on it as evidence. He won't prey on me in my singleness." And she walks off and standing in front of my building I look at the smoke and gift and say to myself "fuck you lotion, just fuck you!"
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
think of it as poor parenting
The CONCACAF Under-17 World Cup qualifications is currently being marred by a dispute between the FHF and the JFF. As the media presents it- two members of the Haitian football team were found to be infected with Malaria. This is a fact admitted in both Haitian and Jamaican news reports. In the Haiti Libre "we find Two of our players are infected with malaria, yet this disease cannot be spread by human contact.
This frustration comes due to a lack of respect towards our ambassadors. Our players are isolated, close in rooms guarded by soldiers, no access to outside communication, food nor water."
In the Gleaner it states that the Malaria infected players were treated and other members of the team were found to be exhibiting symptoms. The Ministry of Health recommended that the players return home and arrangements were made for such. There are clear questions of the rules of International Travel and Trade. This I accept but let me look at this from another perspective. Let us forget Jamaica versus Haiti for a moment or even the joy that comes with representing your country. Let us look at this as a team which is ill.
Malaria is a parasitic illness carried by the anopheles mosquito. It is distributed from one human to another by the bite of this mosquito. It is a tropical disease and as such is likely to be found in countries like Haiti and Jamaica. The symptoms of malaria include fever, headache, muscle pain, nausea, sweating, vomiting, jaundice, chills and extreme symptoms such as a coma and anemia. The players on the Haitian football team are under the age of 17. So let us stop for a moment and present the scenario that the FHF and the Haitian Government are parents and these players are there children. Would it be responsible of the parent to send the child to play a strenuous sport such as football suffering from these symptoms? This a team of children and might I say the future of Haiti like all countries rests in the hands of the next generation. I am certain these players were eager to represent their country and bring some joy to a battered people but at what cost? Is Haiti's role and participation in the Under-17 World Cup more important than the health and welfare of its people?
The discovery of malaria according to the WHO should and must be treated as a medical emergency and the infected be immediately hospitalised. Medication could take anywhere from a day to two weeks to rid the body of the disease though in most cases it is survivable. But even if the possibility existed that these players were a day away from being cured do you send them on a football field for 90 minutes of strenuous activity? My immediate answer is no. Its responsible and this may be a window into the kinds of actions that have crippled the Caribbean's first independent nation.
Now let us look at international health and trade. Given the discovery of the disease the immediate course of action is to have those suffering treated with proper medication. Based on all accounts this was done but again these players would have been in no condition to play. This disease though not transmitted by human contact as the FHF pointed out is transmitted by a mosquito that is found in Jamaica. By not taking any action people would have been at risk- healthy Haitians included. It is not a show of positive international relations to send the Haitians home. However, the Haitians were in Jamaica to play a football match expressing good 'parenting' it was recommended that it was in the best interest of the children that they not be allowed to play the match. As such send them home. If it was schoolboy football and St. George's showed up at Excelsior roasting with fever I suspect the referees would call of the match and send the team back from whence they came.
The Haitian government acted irresponsibly and had no regard for the health of its own people. The Jamaican government took the health of its own people into account and acted responsibly. I do not believe we should apologise for that and all attempts to appease the inflamed Haitians should halted. On the matter of Haiti burning flags and boycotting products well the people must vent I suppose. In my opinion, I think the Haitians have truly lost their way. Their anger should be directed towards their own government for instead of making sure these boys were healthy they sent them to play football.
This frustration comes due to a lack of respect towards our ambassadors. Our players are isolated, close in rooms guarded by soldiers, no access to outside communication, food nor water."
In the Gleaner it states that the Malaria infected players were treated and other members of the team were found to be exhibiting symptoms. The Ministry of Health recommended that the players return home and arrangements were made for such. There are clear questions of the rules of International Travel and Trade. This I accept but let me look at this from another perspective. Let us forget Jamaica versus Haiti for a moment or even the joy that comes with representing your country. Let us look at this as a team which is ill.
Malaria is a parasitic illness carried by the anopheles mosquito. It is distributed from one human to another by the bite of this mosquito. It is a tropical disease and as such is likely to be found in countries like Haiti and Jamaica. The symptoms of malaria include fever, headache, muscle pain, nausea, sweating, vomiting, jaundice, chills and extreme symptoms such as a coma and anemia. The players on the Haitian football team are under the age of 17. So let us stop for a moment and present the scenario that the FHF and the Haitian Government are parents and these players are there children. Would it be responsible of the parent to send the child to play a strenuous sport such as football suffering from these symptoms? This a team of children and might I say the future of Haiti like all countries rests in the hands of the next generation. I am certain these players were eager to represent their country and bring some joy to a battered people but at what cost? Is Haiti's role and participation in the Under-17 World Cup more important than the health and welfare of its people?
The discovery of malaria according to the WHO should and must be treated as a medical emergency and the infected be immediately hospitalised. Medication could take anywhere from a day to two weeks to rid the body of the disease though in most cases it is survivable. But even if the possibility existed that these players were a day away from being cured do you send them on a football field for 90 minutes of strenuous activity? My immediate answer is no. Its responsible and this may be a window into the kinds of actions that have crippled the Caribbean's first independent nation.
Now let us look at international health and trade. Given the discovery of the disease the immediate course of action is to have those suffering treated with proper medication. Based on all accounts this was done but again these players would have been in no condition to play. This disease though not transmitted by human contact as the FHF pointed out is transmitted by a mosquito that is found in Jamaica. By not taking any action people would have been at risk- healthy Haitians included. It is not a show of positive international relations to send the Haitians home. However, the Haitians were in Jamaica to play a football match expressing good 'parenting' it was recommended that it was in the best interest of the children that they not be allowed to play the match. As such send them home. If it was schoolboy football and St. George's showed up at Excelsior roasting with fever I suspect the referees would call of the match and send the team back from whence they came.
The Haitian government acted irresponsibly and had no regard for the health of its own people. The Jamaican government took the health of its own people into account and acted responsibly. I do not believe we should apologise for that and all attempts to appease the inflamed Haitians should halted. On the matter of Haiti burning flags and boycotting products well the people must vent I suppose. In my opinion, I think the Haitians have truly lost their way. Their anger should be directed towards their own government for instead of making sure these boys were healthy they sent them to play football.
SAY NO TO STATING THE OBVIOUS
Stating the obvious has been ruining perfectly good moments for generations. You know the moment I'm talking about when you're peacefully experiencing a public place to suddenly encounter a childhood friend or schoolmate. Your eyes do a little squint and you start scanning your brain for the right name while holding that courteous fake smile perfectly in place. The obligatory hug is so beautifully uncomfortable and then this 'blast from the past' that just interrupted your much anticipated burger king goes "you've gained so much weight, you used to be really skinny, did something happen?" Well its funny you should ask the question you just answered at the beginning of the sentence. This rarely mastered art form is called 'stating the obvious'.
What intrigues me most about this strange human practice is we don't think its inappropriate. This confuses me. You walk into the clothing store and you see each other and falsely laughing it up and then someone goes "your hair, its so different". All that fake joy lost forever. And then there is the very generic "my how you've changed" Do we really need to do this to each other? Humans are such fragile beings. And these random encounters of stating the obvious don't end there. They become phone calls to current films that start with sentences like "you would not believe who I just saw", "Guess what that bitch [insert name here] from high school just said to me". And there is the negative start to the conversation that puts pressure on the real friend in your life "tell me the truth, do you think I'm fat. like do you think I need to lose weight?" Awkward silence anyone. Because now this poor friend who has been loving you without open judgement has to rectify the potential damage of stating the obvious without impacting your friendship.
My favourites are those who state the obvious and don't even realise it. You know when someone knew you in your ugly phase and they run into you years later in your hot phase and the expression on their face says "is that really her?" And you just want to go "yes, its me bitch and yes I am hotter than you and that makes me smile."
Stating the obvious has the disastrous domino effect. Someone is going to leave the situation with doubt, questions, merry wonderment. As a collective world of citizens I think we should band together and boycott stating the obvious. We must save ourselves from the tailspin that stating the obvious results in. I'm one voice in a million but I'm letting it all hang out for the greater good.
SAY NO TO STATING THE OBVIOUS.
What intrigues me most about this strange human practice is we don't think its inappropriate. This confuses me. You walk into the clothing store and you see each other and falsely laughing it up and then someone goes "your hair, its so different". All that fake joy lost forever. And then there is the very generic "my how you've changed" Do we really need to do this to each other? Humans are such fragile beings. And these random encounters of stating the obvious don't end there. They become phone calls to current films that start with sentences like "you would not believe who I just saw", "Guess what that bitch [insert name here] from high school just said to me". And there is the negative start to the conversation that puts pressure on the real friend in your life "tell me the truth, do you think I'm fat. like do you think I need to lose weight?" Awkward silence anyone. Because now this poor friend who has been loving you without open judgement has to rectify the potential damage of stating the obvious without impacting your friendship.
My favourites are those who state the obvious and don't even realise it. You know when someone knew you in your ugly phase and they run into you years later in your hot phase and the expression on their face says "is that really her?" And you just want to go "yes, its me bitch and yes I am hotter than you and that makes me smile."
Stating the obvious has the disastrous domino effect. Someone is going to leave the situation with doubt, questions, merry wonderment. As a collective world of citizens I think we should band together and boycott stating the obvious. We must save ourselves from the tailspin that stating the obvious results in. I'm one voice in a million but I'm letting it all hang out for the greater good.
SAY NO TO STATING THE OBVIOUS.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Musings from a Burlesque boy
In 1993 during her speech on at the gay rights March on Washington lesbian activist Urvashi Vaid stated "With hearts full of love and the abiding faith in justice, we have come to Washington to speak to America. We have come to speak the truth of our lives and silence the liars. We have come to challenge the cowardly Congress to end its paralysis and exercise moral leadership."
What is moral leadership? Well in the battle for equality and human rights for all it is simply doing that which does not harm another. What's morally right its humanly fair in my opinion. Yesterday,I posted a video on my facebook account which featured a little boy recreating Christina Aguilera's Burlesque routine from the movie of the same name. It sparked discussion as many posts do on facebook. Some viewing it as simply an expression of inner desires and youthful exuberance. Some like myself,viewing it as a violation of the rights of the child. Something of note, came out of that discussion- the question of gender?
In a phallic world the penis is often lauded and its honour protected at all costs. However the following comment challenged that ideology
"I think because its a boy and it may be seen as gay or quirky, its easy for people to dismiss as flamboyant and funny. But this just isnt funny. Pedophilia is real, and children should be children. I feel like honestly if this was a girl NO ONE would be disputing that this is dirct kiddie porn. Why should we not protect our boys the same way?"
I have been thinking about it and it has left me with a few questions-
In the fight for human rights and equality are we in danger of sacrificing one right for another?
Is freedom of expression clouding morality and moral responsibility?
In accepting that some boys are effeminate are we in danger of sexualising them?
If we are to use the traditional model of 'becoming a man' then it is within reason and agreeable fact that man are raised to come to terms with their 'excitable' bodies earlier than women. Women are raised to ignore, quell or control the 'desires of the body' ideally until they can turn their own key. A woman's sexuality is protected, her body is a temple and she must treat is a such. Men...not so much.
In applying this model to the youtube video in question; becoming an effeminate man is being treated in a similar manor as becoming a masculine man. I firmly agree that be this the video of a young girl- their would have been outrage rather than support for his 'fierceness'. His right to be 'sexually free' is being given precedence over his right to be a child. I do not believe that is a reflection of moral leadership and is regressive to say the least.
Article 34 in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child speaks against the exploitation of a child as a sexual object.
Article 34
States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:
(a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;
(b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;
(c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials.
I admit that children can be bad, most boys and girls become aware of their sexuality very early in life and thus the role of the parent is to shape the development of this child properly. What seems quirky and cute and fierce at four may turn out to be something completely different at the age of fourteen. It is not the place of the parent to punish his son for wearing a dress and dancing like a girl. It is the ROLE of the parent that wearing a dress and dancing like a girl does not become a burlesque show on youtube. LOVE THE CHILD, DON'T EXPLOIT THE CHILD.
As I openly lobby for the next generations right to freedom of ALL sexual expressions I cannot do so if it sacrifices the right of the child. And I implore all homosexuals and lesbians to be distinct and clear in doing the same. At a time where gay marriage, gay adoption and gay families are being seen as a danger to the moral fabric of the world we must be careful. Here is some food for thought- the Jamaican society in the last two years has become outraged at the high number of incidences of carnal abuse, child molestation, statutory rape and sexual assault. Working in a newsroom you get countless letters from Churches, Non-profit organisations, Activists groups such as Children First or Jamaicans for Justice speaking out against these ills. I can't recall a single letter speaking out against the sexual abuse of our country's children coming from the Jamaican Forum for lesbians, all sexuals and gays (JFLAG). I anxiously await being corrected on this statistic; that would make me proud.
This disgust with a youtube video grew into something far greater for me, my role in the society as a gay person. Am I only fighting for the right to be sexually free or am I fighting for the right to live in a better world. So yes, I do think its great, amazing and beautiful that little boy can have the support of his parents because he wants to wear lipstick. He could be wearing face paint and helmets in a few months. He can be anything he wants. But the thought that the possibility to exists that the video bares even the slightest resemblance to child pornography negates any adoration I may have felt.
Urvashi Vaid called for moral leadership. We are citizens of the world and we are charged to contribute more than just rainbow flags, pride festivals and men in heels; we are charged to be exemplary citizens. So exemplary must we be that the 'right faction' forgets we are even gay. After all, isn't that what the fight is about- the right to be simply...HUMAN
What is moral leadership? Well in the battle for equality and human rights for all it is simply doing that which does not harm another. What's morally right its humanly fair in my opinion. Yesterday,I posted a video on my facebook account which featured a little boy recreating Christina Aguilera's Burlesque routine from the movie of the same name. It sparked discussion as many posts do on facebook. Some viewing it as simply an expression of inner desires and youthful exuberance. Some like myself,viewing it as a violation of the rights of the child. Something of note, came out of that discussion- the question of gender?
In a phallic world the penis is often lauded and its honour protected at all costs. However the following comment challenged that ideology
"I think because its a boy and it may be seen as gay or quirky, its easy for people to dismiss as flamboyant and funny. But this just isnt funny. Pedophilia is real, and children should be children. I feel like honestly if this was a girl NO ONE would be disputing that this is dirct kiddie porn. Why should we not protect our boys the same way?"
I have been thinking about it and it has left me with a few questions-
In the fight for human rights and equality are we in danger of sacrificing one right for another?
Is freedom of expression clouding morality and moral responsibility?
In accepting that some boys are effeminate are we in danger of sexualising them?
If we are to use the traditional model of 'becoming a man' then it is within reason and agreeable fact that man are raised to come to terms with their 'excitable' bodies earlier than women. Women are raised to ignore, quell or control the 'desires of the body' ideally until they can turn their own key. A woman's sexuality is protected, her body is a temple and she must treat is a such. Men...not so much.
In applying this model to the youtube video in question; becoming an effeminate man is being treated in a similar manor as becoming a masculine man. I firmly agree that be this the video of a young girl- their would have been outrage rather than support for his 'fierceness'. His right to be 'sexually free' is being given precedence over his right to be a child. I do not believe that is a reflection of moral leadership and is regressive to say the least.
Article 34 in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child speaks against the exploitation of a child as a sexual object.
Article 34
States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:
(a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;
(b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;
(c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials.
I admit that children can be bad, most boys and girls become aware of their sexuality very early in life and thus the role of the parent is to shape the development of this child properly. What seems quirky and cute and fierce at four may turn out to be something completely different at the age of fourteen. It is not the place of the parent to punish his son for wearing a dress and dancing like a girl. It is the ROLE of the parent that wearing a dress and dancing like a girl does not become a burlesque show on youtube. LOVE THE CHILD, DON'T EXPLOIT THE CHILD.
As I openly lobby for the next generations right to freedom of ALL sexual expressions I cannot do so if it sacrifices the right of the child. And I implore all homosexuals and lesbians to be distinct and clear in doing the same. At a time where gay marriage, gay adoption and gay families are being seen as a danger to the moral fabric of the world we must be careful. Here is some food for thought- the Jamaican society in the last two years has become outraged at the high number of incidences of carnal abuse, child molestation, statutory rape and sexual assault. Working in a newsroom you get countless letters from Churches, Non-profit organisations, Activists groups such as Children First or Jamaicans for Justice speaking out against these ills. I can't recall a single letter speaking out against the sexual abuse of our country's children coming from the Jamaican Forum for lesbians, all sexuals and gays (JFLAG). I anxiously await being corrected on this statistic; that would make me proud.
This disgust with a youtube video grew into something far greater for me, my role in the society as a gay person. Am I only fighting for the right to be sexually free or am I fighting for the right to live in a better world. So yes, I do think its great, amazing and beautiful that little boy can have the support of his parents because he wants to wear lipstick. He could be wearing face paint and helmets in a few months. He can be anything he wants. But the thought that the possibility to exists that the video bares even the slightest resemblance to child pornography negates any adoration I may have felt.
Urvashi Vaid called for moral leadership. We are citizens of the world and we are charged to contribute more than just rainbow flags, pride festivals and men in heels; we are charged to be exemplary citizens. So exemplary must we be that the 'right faction' forgets we are even gay. After all, isn't that what the fight is about- the right to be simply...HUMAN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
