Book Response: Deepest Kiss of Winter

Deep Kiss of Winter by Kresley Cole

My rating: 1 of 5 stars


I read this, hoping against hope that I'd find 2 new authors to read. Kresley Cole and Gena Showalter are prodigiously productive, but alas, it was not to be.

(Under cut for spoilery spoilers)

Traditions versus Islamic practices

I love how this guy articulate an issue that is plaguing many Muslims, especially in the current global sociopolitical climate.



ETA: Transcript of video under cut for Seorang Blogger.

All it takes to survive bad fortune is decent manners ...

... but good fortune, that takes character.

I have never done a movie reaction before (did quite a few of episode reactions on my livejournal) but I'm moved to do it for this movie. It is a reaction, not a review because at 4 o'clock in the morning, the little grey cells are sluggish. Not to mention that I have zero clue about writing reviews.

Don't we all aspire to be functioning adults?

It is an interesting movie; but not one you should watch with children in the vicinity. Basically, it is about an adult movie actress making a transition to life after pornography.

The movie starts out from the perspective of Burt Rodriguez, a sex blogger for the Latin America, who feels strongly about how the post-modern aesthetics of  pornography, with particular focus on the work by Elektr Luxx, are cheapened and unappreciated. He strived with his website for the work of Elektra to be appreciated as an art form and was unhappy by the skanky guys who left crude comments on his blog.

You could say that Burt was just another guy living with his Mum who blogs pseudo-intellectually about his obsession with a porn star. Well, I suppose he went a little farther; most guys would just fap. Just ask a normal heterosexual guy what he thinks of Sasha Grey and watch their eyes glaze over.

Anyway, I love the juxtaposition of humour with deeper thinky stuff and I didn't just watch it for the delicious Mr. Olyphant ...

So pretty ... *dreamy*

... or the ever so adorable Mr Gordon-Levitt.

 

*licks screen discreetly*

Trixie, a girl desperate for Burt's attention, made test shots of herself in order to get his attention. It is kind of sweet and sad at the same time that she felt the need to put herself up like an internet pinup in order for him to really see her. How many times have we heard of women who complain that their significant other kept comparing them to unattainable supermodels and actresses? How many times have we complained that people have unrealistic expectations of how we should look, thanks to the media?

My favourite line: "I want to swallow you whole and spit out bones," which Trixie gently whispered to Burt, stroking his hair lovingly as he slept on her lap.

Oh, and the thing between Holly and Bambi? Sweet and hilarious and just ... I think I get why guys are big on the girl-on-girl thing. *grin*

Oh hai, Traci Dinwiddie. Always nice to see Supernatural guest stars in other stuff. And oh hai, Adrianne Palicki, Sam's roasted girlfriend.

*waves*

I think the central issue the movie dealt with is about how women are perceived by the society, thanks to the media. The objectification of women is not just the fault of women who choose to trade on their looks to build their assets (no matter what industry), but also we as a society for expecting it, enjoying its titillation and yet turning our noses up at it.

I don't know where it came from that a woman can only be either a Madonna (not the music icon) or a whore; but I think it is time that we accept women are PEOPLE who make mistakes and are multi-dimensional and that WE MUST NOT JUDGE, lest we be judged.

After all, we all live in glass houses; who can afford to throw the first stone?

(post title is from a line in the movie)

Way to destroy one's childhood memories ... :'(

How could GQ desecrate Voltron thusly???!

Not to mention that such paper dolls used to be a particular obsession of mine. They were cheap and came in amazing variety from just RM 0.20 to RM 0.50 per set at your local friendly stationery shop. Since the money to get toys (like Barbie dolls) were routed to feed my reading obsession, these paper dolls were my primary toy.

Darn you, Lady Gaga!

*shakes fist*

It's your momma too!

Frankly, every day should be International Women's Day. So there.

Let's hear it for equal pay!

Once upon a time in Asia, girl children get only marginal education; priority was given to boys. Today, go to any university in Malaysia (and many parts of the world) and you can see how this is now laughable. More young women are qualified to enter universities than young men. This includes areas like engineering and mathematics, once upon a time the unencroachable domain of males.

Women are now breaching the glass ceiling; just look at personalities like the Governor of Malaysia's Central Bank, Dr Zeti Akhtar Aziz. However, women still receive less pay than men worldwide; statistics in the USA show that women earn 77 cents to every dollar that a man earns.

If you want to show your support for equal pay for women, wear red on March 25th, will ya?



P/S Click on video at discretion (not entirely work safe). And you'll never look at your grandma quite the same way.

"Those who take a shot whenever a Republican lies ...

... get a designated driver."

This is the kind of politician I could get behind. The guy is articulate, MAKES GREAT SENSE, don't pull punches and is entertaining as all get out.

Go, Rep. Weiner.

Why you should not emulate pornography

When I teach the reproductive health segment of my class in Healthcare Management, I urge my students to remember that porn is fantasy; imitating them could be hazardous to your health. After all, when you get down to do the nasty with your partner, you are unlikely to have an attending physician to deal with potential injury or to give prophylactic painkiller the way they do in professional porn shoots.

The kids are dumbfounded when I tell them that watching porn can be akin to watching a Superman movie. Hello? Scripted movie with directors telling them where to put what and how long a thrusting time to perpetrate etc. *rolls eyes*

For those who does not wish to contract chlamydial conjunctivitis (an eye infection) from sex, avoid getting facials, will ya?

*sigh*

Why must we live in boxes?

Categorising organisms is a scientific discipline brought to organised form by Carolus Linnaeus (is my nerd-dom obvious?). Is labelling things a biological imperative? Why do we feel compelled to identify things (even people) into neatly labelled boxes?

Sexual identity is one of them. How many of us enjoy a titillating whisper speculating on whether X is gay and does his wife know it? We hear of cases where children kill themselves after being jeered as gay by their schoolmates. Being labelled accurately (or inaccurately) can  be hurtful, especially if the label is perceived in a negative manner. The best case scenario is that we no longer attach negative connotations to any labels, but that is pure fantasy.

Nevertheless, is it necessary to let people know whether we are straight/gay/bi/asexual/pansexual?

What business is it of theirs anyway? Unless they are a potential bedmate, I don't see why it would be of relevance to them. Even if you did end up in bed with said person, it is still not of relevance to them.

It may only be relevant if you decide to make a commitment to that person; in which case, I do believe in total disclosure. I see no reason why a gay person (male or female) should not get into a heterosexual marriage, so long as both parties are willing to stick by their vows (To love and cherish faithfully, till death etc etc etc). Sexuality is NOT an excuse to be unfaithful (yeah, Jim McGreevey, this means you); you chose to marry that person, commit to a family life with that person, so you damn well better stick to your end of the agreement, bud.

However, with the famewhore mentality that seems to be pervasive, it appears that people feel a need to let the world know of who/what they are. Look, at the end of it, who cares whom you like to bang (unless you're Roman Polanski)? I agree wholeheartedly with Ms Moreno on her post Gay? Straight? Get Over It. When it comes to treatment of non-heteronormative characters on television/silver screen, I prefer the way the Europeans do it; with a shrug and "let's move on" nod without the drama and obsequiousness that we see in Hollywood.


So unless you're like this guy (see bottom), there is no need to tell all and sundry about whom you'd like to kick the sheets with, yeah?

The little grey cells are NOT for decorative purposes only

New nomination for the Darwin's Award: the guy who died in a sauna competition.

I mean, c'mon.You steam a guy like dumpling and see who cries chicken first. Like, WTF? You are elevating your core body temperature, dammit, never a good thing.

They've had the competition for some time already, yeah, (and presumably no one died) but it was just testing fate. A sauna is not meant to be a he-man test; if you want one of those, go swim in an ice floe.

No wonder men die early. They die of stupidity.

Not proselytising!

I love this man. I do. I'd offer myself to be his second wife, but I don't think he'd want such a heathen like myself. *grin*



Any number of my friends have been the unfortunate listener to my rants of the deficiencies of religious scholarship in my country; particularly the religious teachers in schools who are fond of damning and hellfire. But it is scholars like Imam Faisal, Dr Mohd Asri (although I may disagree with some of his politics)and Dr Amina Wadud who gave me hope that my beautiful faith can be interpreted most beautifully and inclusively, the way it is meant to be.

Chewing the fat

The world is full of terrible people who likes nothing better than to pigeon-hole others; may be it makes their lives easier if they can categorise individuals (a la non-scientific Linnaeus). But the uglier truth is that many people enjoy putting others down to make themselves feel better.

Skin colour, height, size, employment, disability, sexual orientation, social mobility, religion etc etc etc is fair game for segregating people into the category known as "Others". These "Other" people are denigrated, scoffed, ridiculed and held in contempt because they are different. For certain criterion, such as body size, the negative reaction can be really overwhelming.

Reading this article is very sobering, but not really surprising. How many of us have gone to a physician, asking for help and was met with contemptuous dismissal? I suppose doctors are human too and have all the requisite human failures like a meanness of spirit or prejudice, however inadvertent.

This line from the article gave me chills.

"Over the last few years, fat people have become scapegoats for all manner of cultural ills."

From global warming to skyrocketing healthcare cost? Oh wow. Surely it has nothing to do with people relishing high-energy lifestyle that strains the world's resources. *insert eye rolling*

Another line that got me thinking was " ... who wouldn’t dream of disparaging anyone’s color, sex, economic status or general attractiveness, yet feel free to comment witheringly on a person’s weight."

People seem to think that criticising you is a way of showing their concern, but I think they ought to examine their motives a little closer. Is it really concern that motivates you or is it just a way for you to feel superior over the other person? If it is the first, are you aware whether the language you used was hurtful or did you make an attempt to be clear but with consideration of that person's feelings?

Please, you can lie to others but you shouldn't lie to yourself. Your expression, body language and word choice speaks loudly of your true intention. Let's be honest. You want to make yourself feel better by making someone else feel bad about themselves. You do think that you are better than that person and that you have the right to speak what you want because you're just "concerned and being honest about the issue".

So before you want to make a personal remark to someone else regarding their appearance (or marital status and other potential minefield topics), stop and think for a while. Consider why you need to say it; if you have run out of casual conversational gambits, try the weather. It is better to be boring than to be unpardonably rude.

Just sayin'.

Porn is good for you?

I was watching a talk show on television with my Dad a couple of nights ago. It was an interview with Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim; he expounded at great length why we need censorship more than ever in this world of borderless media. It was the usual old guards rant against pornography and assorted "yellow culture" that is polluting the tender minds of Malaysian youngsters.

Since my father wouldn't surrender the remote control, he had to put up with my snarky commentaries in the background. *grin*

The thing is, even if you're the Chinese government, it is downright impossible to filter the information that travels through your fibreoptic lines. Let's also face the fact that as youngsters grew more techno-savvy and interfaces with the computer like a duck to water, they will find ways to overcome all this ridiculous filters to watch and read and listen to all these things that the authorities deem as unsuitable.

You'd have better luck stopping the tsunami with a bucket.

I think it is better that we give the people (cause not only young people who can kick teh interweb's ass) some credit. Just because one enjoys listening to Cannibal Corpse or Morbid Angel, doesn't mean one will creep into a mortuary and shag any corpse that caught one's fancy. It could be;

a) that person genuinely enjoys thrash metal and killer guitar riffs, or
b) that person just wants the shock and awe value of being a fan of a death metal band.

Whatever.

This article by Milton Diamond in The Scientist gave me the inspiration for the title of this post. In essence, he said that pornography may lead to reduction in sex-related crime (see the original article). Hmm ... interesting. Displacing sexual aggression and suppressing desire = less crime. However, there are other reports that says otherwise.

Diamond contends that exposure to porn PLUS a strict, repressive religious upbringing correlates highly with sex offense. I have an Egyptian friend who claims that men to whom the female body is not a mystery tends to be more tolerant in view of women and their position in society. Apparently, this thought is also supported by Diamond who says that

"... men who had seen X-rated movies found that they were significantly more tolerant and accepting of women than those men who didn’t see those movies, and studies by other investigators—female as well as male—essentially found similarly that there was no detectable relationship between the amount of exposure to pornography and any measure of misogynist attitudes."

Frankly, I believe that if you have no respect for another human being, perpetrating the heinous assault that is rape is no big leap. Pornography may desensitise you and give you unrealistic ideas about sexual intercourse. Understanding sexuality and the issues related to it is more important towards cultivating a healthy attitude about sex and its associated intimacies.

So it is your attitude towards your fellow human beings that dictate your behaviour (criminal or otherwise), not what you choose to watch (or read or listen).

Read more: Porn: Good for us? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/2010/3/1/29/1/#ixzz0h8reZKD6

Unplugged

When it comes to making medical decisions, things are rarely black and white. There are laws regulating actions and also people's opinion to be considered before anything is done.

When I first read about baby Isaiah May, I was thinking: perhaps pulling the plug on a child who has permanent brain damage isn't a bad thing. But you gotta consider the parents; you may say that they are young and could have other children, but this is their child one is considering to allow to die. How many parents can make the decision to end their offspring this way when the baby has shown so much in the face of negativity?

Then there will be voices saying, "Who'll be footing the bill for the baby to be placed on ventilation? Should you spend precious resources on a child who may not survive his first year or on another baby who has got a better fighting chance?" It appears that the young parents are not financially well-off; most likely the government is paying for the treatment. Does this mean that children of poor people have less value than the children of those who can afford the care?

Decisions, decisions. I wouldn't want to be the hospital administrator in this issue.

However, I was appalled that the doctors allowed the mother to suffer 40 freakin' hours of labour . It's a miracle she still had the energy to push. Which also brings to mind, why on earth wasn't the foetus monitored for distress? Surely the foetus would have exhibited some kind of distress with the umbilical cord strangling him while he's trying to make way for the exit? When my sister was in labour for barely 4 hours, they monitored the foetus constantly and when the foetus showed signs of distress, she was immediately whisked into the operation theatre for a Caesarean procedure.

On top of that, isn't it common procedure for the foetus to be extracted via C-section when the labour is prolonged? Surely one of the biggest reason the labour took so long is because the baby is choking on the cord and couldn't get out. Is anyone looking at this hideous oversight / poor policy in the labour ward that caused the poor child and his parents so much suffering?

Aurgasm and competition

There was a time in my life that I was disenchanted by the Anugerah Juara Lagu award; all the songs were blah and the singers ... don't let me go on and on. This was the time when Siti Nurhaliza bagged all the awards annually since everyone else sucks out loud so much, it was like the sink plug of the universe had popped out.

But two years ago, I started to watch the AJL again, thanks to bands like Hujan, Meet Uncle Hussain and Estranged. They renewed my faith in local talents to write music that are not just ear candy, but also songs that resonate with one's spirit and emotion (wow! how emo!).

Last night was the 24th AJL; the line up of the finalists is very impressive. Most of them are young singer-songwriters (either solo or band) like Yuna, Aizat and of course, the darling Hujan. What made this year's competition really interesting is that they got rid of all the categories shit and left it to just the best songs that made the grade. The competition was really stiff; everyone pulled out all stops to give their best performance and they rocked the stadium down. It was wonderful to watch, although I could do with less of the ultra lame presenters.

Hujan gave a whole different breath to Aku Scandal by jazzing up the intro and dressing up like a swing band. Their performance was livened up by the Raingers cutting up the rug just below the main stage. Wonderfully energetic and Noh was in his element after 20 seconds into the song. I suppose performing in such a huge venue that was darn near sold out diluted some of his vinegar. Thankfully, it didn't take him long to get into the swing of things.

Yuna was in her trademark colourful outfit and guitar. Her delicious vocal dominated the arena without shrieking and throat convulsions. Ziana Zain and Jaclyn Victor, take note.

However, Hujan did not win. Aizat won the best song, the one written by Pete Teo for the movie Talentime. Not surprising as it encompasses the plethora of Malaysian heritage, what with the classical Indian female vocalist intro, the er hu accompaniment (played by a Malay musician, no less) with the screen showing tributes to various notable Malaysians such as Tun Tan Cheng Lock, Yasmin Ahmad, Mokhtar Dahari and so on. Yuna won the runner up and the third went to the Superman-freak, Michael Jackson wannabe Faizal Tahir (is it obvious that I don't like this guy?).

Anyway, them's the breaks. Here's to a more wonderfully colourful Malaysian music scene this year and beyond.

Sacrificing for your country

... taking it to a different level. :(

Thanks a lot ...

You are a mathematical genius who was instrumental in breaking the codes used by your government's enemy to help win the second world war. Your brilliance helped pave the way of the modern theory of computation. How does your government repay you for your loyalty and service?

By chemically castrating you.

You can't get it up no more, humiliated by the witch hunt trial that ended your career by taking away the security clearance required to do your job and kill yourself at the age of 41.

Fifty five years later, the Government apologised. Gee, thanks, Mr Brown.

R.I.P. Alan Turing.

De Nial; not just a river in Egypt.

My child is not fat.

Of course not.

(It's all right, dear. You just have big bones.)

I find it interesting that boys are often misclassified according to the study.

(Give him the third helping. He's a growing boy.)

Is it because boys are oftentimes more coddled than girls, particularly among the non-whites? Let's not start on the Asian take on the wonderfulness of boy children; that can be a rant for another day.

(Leave the plate on the table, baby. Your sister will take it to the kitchen later.)

Or is it because girls are expected to be slender and pretty, even from young? Apparently, Barbie has cankles and Christian Louboutin wants none of this. Man, if the ideal figure of (plastic?) the female shape is imperfect, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Oh, dear.

Do you smell the rotten egg?

OMG OMG OMG.

I usually don't blog about political stuff; there are so many out there who does it (well and terribly) anyway, so I don't bother. Besides, it's too depressing.

A couple of days back, my alumni newsletter exploded in a one-sided flame war based on a video of "policemen" beating up a sex offender on Malaysia Today. RPK got on his high horse, declaiming on and on about evil Malaysian policemen. This prompted Tan Sri Musa Hassan, the IGP, to respond to RPK, saying that the video was false and it wasn't policemen that were on the video etc. The video has since been taken down.

First of all, I take anything or anyone quoting Malaysia Today with a grain of salt. I am not saying that all media are truly free and unbiased (Rupert Murdoch, anyone?) but to take on the words of people who blog with little to no back up to their allegations? With hear-say deep throat-like "my Government insider informant"? C'mon. You know that's lame.

And then I came across this. I mean, talk about egg on RPK's face and all the people who read him and believes every word without any question.

Seriously, kudos.

Lunacy in sanity?

I am a firm believer in self determination. If someone is ill, that person has the right to dictate the kind of treatment he/she wishes to receive and whether or not to continue with the regime. This is fairly straight forward when one is dealing with a functional adult of sound mind.

But what if that person is a minor?

The bioethics involved in treating a minor is still in a murky zone. Status quo indicates that the decision regarding the welfare of a minor rests in the hand of the child's guardian. Hence, the guardian has a a right to push or even reject a treatment for a minor. This is easy enough if a child has no bigger complains than the usual coughs and colds and playground injuries. However, it has come to fore of parents (and guardians) who are refusing treatment or seeking harmful or even allowing the minor to remain untreated for reasons of faith or even non-spiritual belief.

In the case of Colleen Hauser and her son, Daniel, who fled their home in Minnesota to escape court-ordered chemotherapy, who is in the right? The mother, who believes that her child should not have toxic materials injected in him because she favors the natural healing methods of an American Indian religious group known as the Nemenhah Band? Or is it the court who determines that Daniel would benefit from conventional treatment that has been proven to cure Hodgkin's lymphoma?

Many cultures imbue the right of parents to determine the decisions affecting their children. It is not uncommon in Asia for neighbours to look the other way while a child is being disciplined; of course in some cases, such discilinary measures not only verge but enter the realm of abuse and still people will accept that it is the right of the parents to act in such a manner. In the West, this feature has changed with the adoption of bills that prohibit parents from using corporal discipline on their children. It got to such that a mother cannot smack her toddler's bottom for being mischeavous in public.

But in the case of Colleen and Daniel, who have the right to determine what is best for him? It would seem to many that his mother is jeopardising his life by refusing him treatment and influencing him to reject it as well. In the case of Madeline Kara Neumann, who died from untreated diabetes complication, her mother rejected conventional medicine and instead, chose to have her healed via faith healing. Whether it is laying of hands or dependence on supplements and sweat boxes, these are parents who chose other treatment options for their children out of their own particular belief system (regardless of what faith they hold to). One of the extreme cases involved very young children who had the devil tormented out of them by a rabbi with consent from their mother. One of the child now suffers permanent brain damage.

As a person of faith, I am appalled at how belief system can be perverted in such a way as to inadvertently harm vulnerable children. But then again, people have used faith to justify harming other people with purely malicious intent. One would think that with the brain that The Almighty has gifted them, they could reason better than that.

But apparently, not.

*shakes head*