"Normative definitions of masculinity[...]face the problem that not many men actually meet the normative standards[: ...]the difference between the men who cheer football matches on TV and those [playing]. But there is something more[...]carefully crafted[.... M]any men who draw the patriarchal dividend also respect their wives and mothers, are never violent towards women, do their[...]share of the housework[...], and can easily convince themselves that feminists must be bra-burning extremists."

I've posted this once on my Xanga and once on Facebook before (largely because I really like the quote). While my brother and I were watching a football game a few days ago, I mentioned the quote to him and that it was nearly impossible for me not to notice this fact anymore whenever I watched anything related to football (or probably sports in general, for that matter).

He nodded before noting, "The thing that I've noticed is that ideals exist for both men and women: it's just that women – at all times – are expected to follow, and are enforced to, the ideal; men usually just have to support it."

"Maybe you just haven't met the right guy/girl" really isn't all that offensive of a statement.

After all – by all technicality –, this could very well be true. Given all the millions upon millions of people in the world, perhaps you just haven't met the right one to change your mind or the one who might be the exception. I've more than a handful of friends for whom that's been the case.

No, the phrase itself is not offensive. It's the repetition.

While only the truly non-homophobic may react with calm, mom may simply react with surprise upon the first suggestion that what she might really enjoy is the disregard for stopping within the first half-hour and the attention to female pleasure in a lesbian orgy. And dad may be confused when you first note that nothing would be more of a flexing of masculinity than a sausage fest with the guys. But, eh, kids say the darndest things.

But that's just the start; soon you're responding to every time mom mentions that one of the girls in the movie you're watching is so pretty with, "So, you've been considering the option." Or when dad complains about not being able to watch football in peace, you mention – with a smirk – that there's always an alternative.

And maybe there is. Maybe it would work. But maybe dad and mom are happy, in spite of the differences with each other. Or, if your parents are separated, maybe mom and dad are fairly certain that they don't have much interest in the same sex. Or maybe, after a lifetime of dating the opposite sex, they don't want to put such a gigantic effort into simply trying to see if something could work there or if they might happen to find that very small exception out of the mass of people in this world. Or maybe they just want the choice to say, "No, I don't want to and so I won't because I can make decisions about my own life as a free and autonomous person," (note: a verbatim sentence either of your parents might actually say).

Or any other myriad of reasons. And so they're a little irritated by the 200^th time you mention at Thanksgiving dinner in front of grandma that maybe they just haven't found the right guy or gal yet. And, in spite of having little interest in changing what they've always done, they really shouldn't give up so easily on this task.

After all, how the Hell should they know if they've never even been with a girl or guy?

Never let it be said that timeliness is my strong suit. Alright, answers to the questions asked of me.

@under_the_carpet asked:

ok. I don't know how to exactly put it into a question. But I always wanted to know more about your faith. It'll be a few.
I read you identify as catholic. To make it simple for me...WHY?
How "gnostic"/agnostic are you?
what do you do/think/feel when you stumble upon a 'rule' you actually disagree with? (or does that not happen?...I can't imagine.)
How do you 'solve' the god vs gay question in your head, that I see so many people struggle with?

Oh dear, you have asked a very complex and lengthy question that I'm not entirely sure I know all of the answer to. I was going to do a post trying to articulate some thoughts I've been developing on this very topic but, despite the many times I start, I haven't been able to bring anything to completion. Perhaps this may be a start.

As I've said numerous times in a multitude of places, most of my friends (or, at least, the ones I have generally most felt comfortable around or the greatest intellectual connection with) have been atheists. The Midwest region of the United States is home to a wide range of Christian denominations with an inclination to groups such as evangelicals and fundamentals. The Chicago-land area is, thankfully, a little less strong in the general social acceptance of these groups but the influence and individuals are there just around the surface (as I'm pretty sure I've mentioned at least once in a post this year). Mauger whatever changes I've had in my personal beliefs (regardless of spirituality) and religious beliefs over the years, I think there's been a constant that I've felt safer amongst the irreligious; maybe that's because my sexuality has always made me unable to feel fully accepted in most religious circles; maybe, as I said, it's because I've had more in common, generally; maybe other reasons or all of the above.

In college, I had doubts about the idea of God/s. While I've tossed out the fact casually a total of about five times since, I generally don't talk about that time period. I wasn't particularly happy there (though I'm sure there are many who eventually become atheists that feel the same feeling). The end result, however, was that I came to discover that I was far more strongly a religious person than even I had realized. For whatever reason, I tend to be inclined to the religious (as a concept, not the people, mind you); this was deafeningly clear to me when I was questioning whether to become an atheist. There are certain things which trigger off a sort of this-is-right-or-righteous-or-even-holy feeling for me; while I tend to value reason over feeling, I've found that particularly strong feelings tend to indicate something I think but haven't been able to put into rational words yet. The idea may be wrong but it's informative to know, generally, so I'll tuck it away and chew on it over time. There is a particular feeling I get when I encounter something I feel is fundamentally correct in a way. For example, I get that feeling when talking about governments and the freedom of religious belief. I don't know what to make of these feelings yet but I've found I also have them during religious experiences. This will be important later.

You ask how agnostic I am (Gnosticism is an entirely particular belief system that I've found fascinating, flirted with, but ultimately leave not feeling inclined to join). Ever since I seriously contemplated the question (whenever that may've been), I've been of the firm belief that, given the information that we have at this moment in time (and, admittedly, given the You-can-do-ANYTHING quality we tend to ascribe to God), anyone who can say – with zero doubt – that there is or is not a God/s has lost all intellectual currency ze may have had in my eyes.

Many atheists describe themselves as skeptics. I find that it's my skepticism that allows my religious belief. I simply cannot believe, with all that remains left unknown about the universe, that we can so soundly rule out the idea of God/s. Of course, any truly rational atheist would tell you that the degree of evidence inclining that there exists some supernatural being of the sort often described is outweighed by the evidence indicating that there is no such being; ze simply chooses to go with the more believable option. And that's fair; I'd be inclined to wager that atheists have a more sound argument, really. Still, I find myself religious.

I do think part of it has to do with the fact that I tend to be a moral absolutist. Maybe it's also the fallout of being a rationalist. Everything has an answer. It may be complex and vary by certain conditions but everything can eventually be explained in a concrete way. When I first joined Williams Secular Community and we went around the room having each person say something that ze believed in, I wanted – as the sole religious person in that room – to say something other than "I believe in God" or something of that stripe. What I eventually decided on was "Perfect reason/logic is infallible". There is one vague bit to it, obviously. "Perfect logic" would seem to indicate that there is no contradiction or breaking of logical rules. The issue is, if you don't have information about something, you can't make certain deductions (e.g. if all you know about the sun and the moon is that they're round, you may say, "Sun = Moon," but that clearly isn't correct). So part and parcel to this idea is that all information relating to the subjects involved is considered and known.

But I bring it up because I think it is indicative of my thinking process. To speak vaguely and allow variance until I have a greater understanding, I believe in a notion of Truth. We live in a reasonable and logical universe. It's a curious thing that there are even laws to our world, particularly if there is no creator; certainly it's not impossible for such world to exist without a creator (we would be the evidence) but it is curious. And I think, more so than the notion of a God existing, I have a need to believe that there is a sort of universal Truth that we can all reference and aspire to. I need order and I need logic; it doesn't have to be intellectually created (in the conversations I've had with my brother over the idea of an absolute morality, there has been some pretty fantastic discussions over the notions of systems (something that's a fascination of my own); assuming that there is no God, it's rather interesting the way that systems have been able to crop up naturally in our world and the way they sustain themselves in spite of it seeming they would need a designer). But, for whatever reason, I need to believe there is an order to the universe and a way that is proper to act in the same way we "all" acclaim the notion of freedom of speech for proper governments or believe in and celebrate the capabilities and self-belief in humanity as exercised through the government of a republic or believe in the great works and arts over time or believe in great ideas and celebrate philosophy. The greatest thought process that Western civilization ever accomplished was the notion that ideas could be ordered by logic and, by extension, you could come to finite conclusions about things, that not every single idea was necessarily correct. For better or for worse, I truly believe this.

I tend to think that the notion of a Creator best explains this but, as I've mentioned, I do not necessarily think that has to be the case. To sort of put it another way and in relation, I once said on here, "If anything must be told about my spirituality, let it be said that intelligence was my religion, and education, my worship." If anything was ever to be described as my religious belief, it is these notions. Most everything else is debatable.

Of course, none of that really explains "Why Catholicism?" (oh dear, this is probably going to take a while – but you asked the question). There was a moment, one time, when I was with my sister (and in a somewhat giddy and snarky mood) when I remarked (and, no, I don't recall what excited this remark), "The Evangelical believes that the root of all things tie back to God and, due to this, we ought to worship Him; all reasoning proceeds from thus and it is all he or she pursues. The Catholic, however, seeks Truth."

For those (generally those who tend to have a thing against Catholicism) who might take that to insinuate that God is not important to Catholics, I would easily respond that, of course, Catholics believe all things proceed to and from God but that is merely a portion of the Truth.

To somewhat explain my snark* and to provide another example, I have a very dear friend of mine who grew up in a very fundamentalist, evangelical town (though, really, she's  not the first friend I've had who's had a very negative experience in such an environment); as someone who was remotely agnostic (her parents are Unitarians), most of her time there was having people trying to convert her, feeling continually judged, and just pretty much being treated poorly (by my own standards, at the very least). By the time she got to college (thus where I met her), she was a fairly bitter, hard-line atheist. I forget the exact details of the story but she overhead (somewhere) an eventual mutual friend of ours mention that he was Catholic (maybe it was some orientation event?); shortly after, she cornered him on a bus the group was riding and, without much ceremony, immediately started grilling him regarding religious belief and why it was positively ridiculous to have any.

During this, she asked him, "Well, I don't believe; does this mean I'm going to Hell?" to which, with some confusion, he responded, "No." This took her a bit by surprise; as far as she had ever been taught, this was what religion boiled down to: believe or perish. So she asked, "You don't?" After a moment of hesitation, his response was, "I believe Catholicism is the best way but not the only way."

One more example. There's a book my mother has somewhere upstairs either written by or written about the pastor of the mega-church my aunt attends. On the back of the book, in large letters prefacing the book summary, is a quote that says, "People matter to God; therefore, they should matter to us," (or something of the like). Fundamentally, such a notion could only occur from one who takes the Evangelical path to logical reasoning (okay, that's not entirely true but quite frequently). In contrast to this, I think it was Pope Benedict who said that sex purely for pleasure, even in the confines of a relationship, is selfish because the other person is, thus, neglected. I, ultimately, disagree with His Holiness's proof but there's still a marked difference between the two forms of reasoning. The pope tries to give a reasoned response and justification. The pastor has just said, "Well, God says so."

While I've explained "Why Religion" for me, I think the best explanation for "Why Catholicism" is simply that, for all its flaws and pitfalls, Catholicism is the closest thing to what I want in a religion here on Earth.

And I think that, in particular, is what most people don't get when they suggest for Catholics to convert to elsewhere. Protestantism, as a whole, is not really an avenue because I simply do not believe in being saved by Faith. I could probably be alright with a holy book inerrancy sort of deal but not with the sort of limiting views that that tenet is often taken to; I am always brought to appreciate more greatly that Catholics have Tradition and the Magisterium to pull from to better understand the Bible.

While the more liberal Protestant branches are probably more to my own political persuasion, I often find that the conservative criticism that, for them, "anything goes" holds true. It's very important to me that what you do is purposeful and fully thought out. I don't want to join a church simply because that was how I was raised and I want that special feeling (though, of course, that can be important). I want to make sure that, if my bible says it's okay to rape women, I have an actual response as to why that is. There was a liberal church in the middle of the campus of my college that was very awesome; they often worked with the Queer Student Union on campus, were very involved in social justice, etc. Being part of the QSU and InterFaith, I also worked with them. During conversation one time, the pastor mentioned that the church had been so focused on social justice (I believe that may have been the reason for their founding) that they've been trying to sort of rediscover their roots; while on this path, she mentioned that they were discovering all sorts of new things (as any root-searching should entail), including that there were parts of the bible they found they didn't particularly like. For me, dealing with those sorts of things would be where I'd build my base from.

People often assume that it's the High Church and elaborate liturgy I like and often suggest the Episcopalians or some of the Lutherans. But what these fail to realize are the ways in which Catholicism itself is quite unique. I'll see if I can do it any justice in trying to point it out.

I doubt I'll really explain it well but, if any religion could claim the title, you could argue that Catholicism is wedded to intellectualism. Perhaps extremely influenced by Roman and Greek culture (i.e. the Hellenic culture that had culminated by the time of the Roman empire), many in the early church philosophied about their religion (it's probably what earned religion the title of Queen of the Sciences). It's why they came to believe that God made the world ex nihilo (out of nothing): if God had to stoop to making the world out of existing material, that means there are things which even God couldn't control/do, etc. which would make Him less than an ultimate God. They attempted to apply the philosophy (much to many other denomination's dislike) of Plato/Aristotle. When the empire fell, a lot of the books and records were kept safe by monks. This often means that the theology of Catholicism is so much more elaborate and complex and, in turn, deep. God gave us a brain: "We ought to use it" is the answer of Catholicism.

Once (I think when a televangelist came on the T. V.), I remarked to my brother, "I don't think I could ever stand worshiping in a religion that didn't have a liturgy." Of course, my smart-ass atheist brother responds, "I don't think I could ever stand worshiping in any religion." Maybe it's because I'm a writer and English major but I take symbolism and gestures very seriously. Naturally, liturgy is very cool to me (and also very beautiful; have you heard the chants Catholics and the Orthodox have churned out?). And, to a degree, I really like ritual. I'm not entirely sure why. The Catholic response is that, when we worship, we should worship with more than just our minds: the entire bodies ought to be involved in the process.

And the last way I can attempt to let you understand "Why Catholicism" is the Catholic conception of the Church. I don't know how familiar with Christian theology you are but the idea of the Church is important to the religion. After the Protestant Reformation, the idea of what the Church is was to be understood as the body of Christian believers. This is partially, I think, why you have so many denominations and a lot of people feel comfortable (in the U. S., at least; I've heard it's a phenomenon frequent to us) church hopping: go the Methodists one week, go the Lutherans another Sunday.

For Catholics, we believe that the Church is the institution founded by Christ and as it exists today. But the Church is more than just an institution. It is the body of Catholic believers but also an instrument through which the Holy Spirit works. The pope doesn't get infallibility because we decided we wanted to listen for the rest of our lives to whatever an elected member had to say. The pope is infallible because (in theory) God the Spirit is working through him and guiding him as He is working through the entire Church.

You might respond with, "So what?" The significance of this is that God is active constantly through the institution that you reside in. It is not just that you're attending church; you are in the Church. It's for this reason that the Sacraments (Baptism, Confession, Marriage) can make sense to us while it just confuses other denominations as a pathway for Grace. It's not just actions being performed, they are actions being performed by and in the Church; it is God working through us. In a real physical way, God is presenting Himself before us.

And with that, there's this real sense of security I have as a Catholic that goes beyond just belonging to an organization that is huge. Anytime I go to a Catholic Church, I know any Sacrament I may receive is valid and facilitated by God, regardless of who is giving me the Sacrament and their past. I think that's also why a lot of Catholics have remained Catholic in spite of the scandal and abuse recently: there are terrible people in our Church, as in all institutions, but they are not all of what the Church is. The Church spans across generations and is more than that. We would rather call for greater accountability and try to call for prosecution from within rather than ever leave the Church.

When I was younger and dealing with the fact that there were certain attitudes within Catholicism that I didn't quite agree with, I'd take comfort in the fact that something like 60% of Catholics didn't obey what came from the Vatican. But, in a real way, we never stopped being Catholics. We still attended Mass, went to Sunday or Catholic schools, socialized in the circles, prayed in the same buildings, went to confession under the same priests. I don't think I understood it then but the reason I could find such strength inside those Cathedral walls while fragrantly disregarding the hierarchy was because, I knew, we were right. And in the end, that's what God cares about (Catholicism is about finding Truth). And we were safe within His halls of His Church. Frankly, the only other religion I can think of with anything close to such a concept is Mormanism.

And I guess that's a good place to address your question of what do I do if I come across something I don't agree with. In technicality…there isn't anything. And part of this stems from the fact that most people don't understand how Church doctrine is formed. All that which is declared infallible and dogma is binding. Anything less is decreasing levels of required adherence but not anything which cannot change in the future.

So, for example, I believe Purgatory has been dogmatically defined. You can't be a Catholic if you don't believe in Purgatory. However, while the hierarchy's position at the moment is that homosexuality is "severely disordered" (as in against the order of the universe), it is not something dogmatically defined yet. To a certain degree, I like this because it gives us a stable base from which build knowledge and keep unified. Someone like Curtis (who I really rarely agree with) and I can talk about something pertaining to Catholicism and be entirely on the same level because we both are Catholic.

And I think the last thing I'll mention as to why I'm a Catholic is that, as far as I can see, Catholicism is the only religion that still seems to be growing. Most religions really tie themselves to the idea that nothing will ever change about them; they will always honor their past. Which, to be honest, is true of Catholicism (kinda hard not to be when it's a religion that uses Tradition as an authoritative source). But Catholicism doesn't change in that whatever it declares dogma can never be revised; other religions never change in the sense that everything they've done in the past is all they'll ever do (I once had someone who was Orthodox tell me that the Orthodox have it right because they've changed nothing since (I think…) the Forth Council; Catholicism, on the other hand, comes out with a new dogma "every two years"). The idea of Catholicism is that the Truth is never changing – we just don't know all of it yet; over time, we gain a greater and greater insight into what that Truth is. Which, really, is the basic idea of discovery. But it means that really interesting things happen and not everything is quite understood. For example, we know that, for whatever reason, the Sacraments were established for transmuting Grace and that Baptism redeems the soul of the Original Sin. And yet current thought within the Church is that people who haven't been baptized can be saved. After all, what about babies that die before the chance to be baptized? I don't believe the idea of Limbo has been entirely thrown out yet but you don't have many clamoring towards the idea. So, if you can be saved without baptism…what's the point of baptism?

As far as I know, the Church's answer is that we don't know. We'll eventually know. But not yet.

All that said, I'd be lying if I said that Catholicism is everything I want. While women ordination and homosexuality haven't been dealt with as dogma yet, either of those being dogmatically banished would probably force me to have to find another religion. There's the fact that the notion of preparing for shabbat has always elicited that feeling of something being *right* in me…and I had never prepared for shabbat until I had reached college.

And there's the real troubling fact that Christianity tends to start from this path of "We're all guilty". It's true that Catholicism does a bit better in being firm that the Original Sin is not a sin for which any of us are at fault for (even if we still bear the scar upon our souls) but there is a *real* problem that I have with this notion of guilting ourselves (at its worse, I've seen people make the argument that none of us deserve Heaven, even just-born babies).

The New Testament is actually rather interesting in terms of its political stances and the ways it tries to reverse common norms (the most well known one being the notion of the weak/meek being powerful/"the stone that the builder rejected"). And so it goes with the notion of works. Yeah, being good? Throw out everything you thought you ever had to do. You actually have absolutely *no way* of doing it without Him.

Which, in a way, I get. It's the ultimate type of trust exercise. Throw out any expectation of your abilities and your capability to do anything and just entirely trust that He's got this.

What I absolutely hate about this notion is that, when you take away a sense of responsibility and choice in the direction of your life, it's hard to really impart a sense of…awareness in people. I earnestly think this is why my friend who grew up around fundamentalists was treated so amazingly poorly. Those people have ceased entirely thinking about any of the actions they're committing and how they're treating her; in their minds, the most important thing is you follow Jesus (BECAUSE NOTHING ELSE MATTERS) and, if you don't follow Him, you're breaking the cardinal rule. And that's the scope of their thoughts. You can't get to "Well, let's think about how you're treating her" because, literally, nothing else matters beyond whether or not you're following that rule of believing in Jesus. Anything outside of it is wrong. Why? Because anything we do outside of trusting entirely in God and getting others to do so as well is irrelevant. Irrelevant.

And I get that, in some way, it was trying to respond to a sort of legalism that was cropping up and the sort of people who do good just to look good. But I really think that when you start from a point of "You are disordered without Me", you endue this real sense of inferiority in individuals. I truly believe a just God doesn't tell you you're shit so you better believe in Me (but that's gonna be difficult too 'cause, you know, you're disordered) but tries to build the individual up. Let's stop focusing on following this one inane rule (and worrying about all the suffering you'll get otherwise) and instead focus on the fact that you're not entirely terrible (but wonderful in many ways) and that doing better and being a better person is important because it'll make you better and it's important to treat others well. The important thing is NOT how many times you fail but how much closer you are to making the world a better place because, really at the end of the day, it's every one that's important.

I do think Catholicism is a bit better at this; a lot of denominations disagree with it because Catholicism teaches that you can lose your salvation even if you believe in God: your actions are of important. Still, there are some strains of serious guilting and "Forgive us Lord because we are so unforgivable!" that I find to really be just unhealthy and abusive habits.

I also sometimes have to remind myself that our understanding changes. It was once understood that "There is no salvation but within the Church" meant within Catholicism but it's now understood as the Church being tied to that notion of the Truth; Catholicism is the best path but not the only one. That's a big change in meaning though the dogma didn't change at all. So who knows.

Anyway, if you don't find religion interesting, all of that must've been terribly tedious and boring and I apologize. I'll answer your last question further below since Danni asked a similar one.

@XxbutterflyknivesXx asked:

You've indicated on Facebook, and partly here, that you strongly support the LGBTQ movement...and a lot of the time people support movements because they've experienced struggle...is there's a story behind it? Do you identify as a different sexuality than hetero/are you closes to someone who does?

Man, you guys go straight for the meaty questions. I should be able to keep this one shorter than the last answer.

I've always firmly believed that it shouldn't have to take personal involvement to be passionate about something. Caring about others should be something that we just do. The two examples I usually bring up is that I've never self-injured or been Trans and yet I'm supportive of these communities (though, to be fair, a good portion of my ex-girlfriends and friends have had histories of self-harm and an ex-boyfriend and friends of mine have been Trans). I've never quite understood that notion of "Well, it doesn't affect me, so why should I care?" I tend to make decisions constantly by thinking from others perspectives and trying to think who I might be disadvantaging with a particular decision; it always catches me off-guard when others don't do that (and it's usually pretty obvious pretty quickly when someone is making a decision based off their own interest and clearly haven't considered anyone else's) though I suppose that's naïve of me.

I do identify as bisexual (though I suppose the ex-boyfriend part above may've given that away). But, at the time that I really jumped into the movement (I sorta consider that moment when I decided, in spite of my parents' opinions on the matter, to attend a meeting of my high school's Gay-Straight Alliance; I was quite a bit homophobic before that moment; thank God for change), I was taking the route of "God doesn't approve but I believe everyone has the choice so I'm going to support others ability to have that choice". So I really wasn't doing it on my behalf, frankly. The slow and rather boring story of my coming out was this slow progression of my views on the subject changing until I finally reached a point where I fully accepted myself and was able to see all the fascinating history and ideas that the Queer community really does have to offer. So you don't really get any dramatic conflict about my identity; I just slowly made decisions and, really, was very comfortable about who I was and what I believed.

Which doesn't mean there aren't cool stories, of course. As you might imagine, I was *quite* the closet case throughout all of high school. I told people I trusted and it got to the point that I had to keep tabs on who I had told and whatnot; that way, I could also keep track of when someone I didn't tell had found out and figure out who was blabbing. Seriously, I was so far into the closet back then. I came out at the very end of my Senior year (I was graduating, going out East; it seemed safe). Beforehand, I messaged just about everyone I had secretly come out to (thus people I trusted) and talked it over with them. Then I came out on Facebook (ahh, the Internet age…). Everyone was so amazingly supportive. It's honestly one of my favorite memories. And, I guess, since I had the big coming out, it always confuses me when people don't want that (but, then again, I always had a thing for dramatics). For me, my coming out was such a huge moment in my life; you know, it's making a very big decision about what you believe and who you're going to be. I've always wanted to get in the habit of having a party every time the day I came out comes around but I haven't gotten around to doing it yet. It was just this moment of baring a very personal part of me to all these friends who were really important to me and who I think so very highly of and it was just great to feel that same respect and love back.

If you do identify as a sexuality other than hetero, how has that been met? I know, and someone else has mentioned, that you're Catholic...has your family/other people in your faith had a problem with you?

Well, I did have someone tell me I was possessed by a demon once so that was fun. Though, really – since I generally don't care too much what strangers think of me –, I think the largest difficulty has been from the family. Siblings and cousins have been fantastically supportive. I generally just don't talk about it with any of those over-40 folks. My dad knows. And I have a feeling I could probably get my mother to accept it (one of the uses of taking 4–5 years to accept yourself while being active in the cause is the parents just sorta get used to it). I just don't care to. But, of course, you always have to be vigilant, regardless of how much you might not care what strangers think. I'm truly amazed at how much things have changed since the beginning of high school when it comes to public acceptance (and how about from there since the 60s?). But people are assholes and, unfortunately, hate crimes are a real thing. I've been generally safe from any of that so far, though.

Also, what do you do? I remember, you have a major in English, yeah? Or are you taking the gre to get the degree for what you want to do? I know a lot of people do graduate school because what they want to do requires more. Sorry if that's a stupid question.

That's correct. And I also have Computer Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies degrees. And they have earned me no occupation. Though, frankly, I do feel that part of that is simply that jobs expect work experience. That can be, in many ways, more important than the degrees you have. Partially because my coping method for both my depression and my parents was shutting everything out and partially because my parents didn't seem to find it important to explain this clearly, I did not spend my summers in college looking for internships or some way to pad my résumé. Now I've been trying to find work in a poor economy while balancing a severe sleeping problem along with a general social anxiety and my raging depression. It's not been well.

I'm considering grad school simply since it's been a year now that I've been unemployed. If I could get a Master's (without sinking myself in debt) for Comp. Sci. or English, it might help in getting a job. I also wouldn't mind becoming a professor somewhere. But my grades weren't so great so who knows. I'll keep you updated.

If it's not weird or intrusive...how much younger is your little sister? 

Heh, not in the least. She's seven years younger. Now I'm just curious, why do you ask?

How does the writing process work for you? Do you plan, or do you just sit down and write? Because, if you just sit down and do it...that's kinda impressive. I feel like your work should be in a literary magazine or something, and not just buried on xanga.

Well now, that is a high compliment, particularly considering that I've submitted pieces to places before and none took (though, to be fair, I haven't submitted to many places); I hadn't realized you thought so highly of them. Thank you, sincerely.

Honestly, I'm terrible at just jumping into things. Probably also my perfectionism but I need to have a full idea of what I'm doing before I start. That being said, I pulled "A Memory" from a larger piece of flash writing I had done. That last post I did was three lines from something longer I wrote years ago without thinking it through. And the new thing I'm working on (involving the characters Chrissy, Amy, 'Rome, and James) has been (largely) just written down without a great deal of pre-thought though that's because it's not as short as I usually tend to make my pieces and I have a feeling I'll never get anything done if I be my usual anal self.

I think, either way, the thing that's consistent is that I tend to sit and chew and edit on things until I get them right. I'll notice something I hadn't before and then do edits. Sometimes I'll force myself to write something I then think I'll throw away just in case I come back in 6 months and decide that I actually was going somewhere and just need to flesh it out (or if there's a piece in there that would be great without all the extra fluff I wrote).

Aaaand that should be it. Hope I answered your guys' questions well enough.

*I'm usually incredibly slow to pass judgment or assume things simply because I could be wrong. The only real area where I'm generally willing to be strict in an opinion is when it comes to harming others. As such, I generally try to refrain from speaking negatively about Evangelicalism as if it's a given; that said, I have no a great deal of people who've been harmed by members of that religion and have generally found the culture that it propagates to be unhealthy not only for those who come into contact with it but also those who practice it. Obviously, no one enjoys being greeted on the terms of "Your religion is terrible" so I try to refrain and keep an ear open as to whether I may actually be wrong but I, at times, forget myself.

We went to the Pride Festival in Chicago today. I would have preferred to go to the parade but my sister's going down to Northwestern for a summer program on the same day so we couldn't. And she's never been to a pride event so, of course, I wasn't going to be having any of that (for the record, she wanted to go; I was just more than happy to aid).

On the way back, I happened to see Ariel in Union Station; I'll come back to this.

About a week or so ago, I happened to run into Joan. There's a principle difference between Joan and Ariel in relation to me, simply by virtue of history. I met Ariel when she was doing Operation Obvious (a campaign to recognize the LGBT movement as the next civil rights movement of our time). She eventually joined The Wit (the high school's literary magazine), which I was also on. I believe she was two years under me and joined The Wit her Sophomore year so, clearly, our interaction was not extensive. That being said, she's a fantastically nice person and someone who I have to admire for the conviction of her beliefs and willingness to pursue them.

Joan, on the other hand, I met through Shane. I haven't really kept in touch with Shane but I took to Joan. I suppose that it always struck me as odd because she was a Freshman during my Senior and I didn't get to know many (a year simply isn't much time, etc.). Perhaps in part because her friends and my friends tended to overlap, I spent a decent amount of time hanging out with Joan my last year of high school and I'm really rather fond of her.

I ran into Joan at a restaurant the family and I were going to. I sort of was walking past – thinking to myself, "Does that girl look familiar?" – and did a double take when I realized it was Joan. She was with someone and I was with the family so there really wasn't much room for catching up. I really should send her a message sometime, in spite of my recent reclusiveness. I know it's not very likely to blossom into a lifelong best friendship or even go far beyond that message (largely my own invertedness and social awkwardness to blame) but I'll probably do it because it's important to let people know they're valued. Even if my close ring of five or less best friends is my constant in life, that certainly doesn't mean those friends I'm less close with aren't very important to me.

In any case, I mention this because, when I saw Ariel today, I was struck by this very particular feeling/thought. The reason I bring up Joan (other than to mention that I was really glad to see her; it's been an…odd year) is that I didn't have the same reaction. I was glad to see Joan but seeing Ariel was markedly different.

While I would certainly like to know Ariel better, I think a good description of us would be acquaintances (which is not something trivial to me, as I've covered before here). But I would certainly describe Joan and I as friends; so, if that was what triggered the reaction, it would have occurred with seeing Joan as well.

While we were at the pride festival, I remember just feeling…comfortable. Safe. It was particularly interesting since my dad was there but maybe it just added to that feeling that I was entering a different community. Memories of the QSU kept coming to me. A girl that "looked like" a lesbian handed me a flyer on becoming a vegan. The guys behind the bar were down to just their underwear. a drag performer was performing on one of the stages. And I'm not trying to say that these groups are in some way fixed (there were women down to just their underwear there as well) but there was familiarity there. And, for whatever flaws I've found or find in my Queer community (whether they're correct or not), I felt safe. Certainly welcomed but also safe. In some ways, it was better than the parade. Sure, there were commercial vendors here as well but, outside of the food, there were causes that directly related to our community here and people who cared about them (and about us) behind those booths and fighting for them.

While I don't quite understand it in total, it would seem that community is actually really important to me, verging on dependent to my well being. While, particularly in relation to discussing and making sense of mental illness, I've become more and more of a fan of the idea of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs as time goes on, my own social interactions seem to follow a similar trend. When I'm not doing well, I rescind into myself, hard. Only those who are closest to me do I let in, at times only keeping in touch sparing (sometimes cutting off even them). When I feel more comfortable, I'm far more willing to let others in. But the thing is, a true community doesn't just include your closest friends. It includes your friends and it includes your acquaintances.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm always very happy to see those acquaintances very much. And it's not just that I like people: people in general take importance for me and even those who I don't spend much time with are important to me. Ariel is someone I think highly of and there will always be the fact that I met her through The Wit, a group that was very important to me. I'm not going to have the same reaction seeing her as I might if I saw Laila unexpectedly but she's important to me. I feel like I'm repeating myself but I like to be thorough.

My point I am slowly hinting towards is that my reaction, upon seeing Ariel, was a sense of community. I guess I used to wonder, back in high school when – wading through the masses of 5,000 students – we would often stop a million times in the halls saying hello enough times that we barely got through a conversation with the person we were walking with, why we did it. I mean, take Sarah Greenawalt. I always liked Sarah (there was a warmness she always greeted me with which I always appreciated) but our relationship didn't extend beyond a similar friendbase (or at least history) and seeing her in the hall from time to time. I don't see Sarah anymore and am likely not to (wouldn't mind seeing her again one near bit but it's not very likely). So…what was the point (alright, this is a hilarious question because I never think meeting or getting to know any person is ever a waste of time by any measurement; the question doesn't even deserve a response, in my mind; not to mention, like I said, I rather like Sarah as a person)?

I guess it goes without saying that I never really look at anyone I just meet with the expectation of remaining at the level with them forever. With all people, I sincerely want to get to know them better and become best buds with them. But, obviously, that level of friendship doesn't exist with all people at all times. So, while Laila is certainly of more importance to me (I severely don't like the phrasing of that but I'm struggling for a better one) than Sarah, Sarah isn't unimportant (just as I expect I'm "less important" to Sarah in comparison to others Sarah is closer with and has a more extensive history with). Does that make sense?

So, when I saw Ariel today, there was more than just a "Oh! Ariel; I haven't seen her in ages. I should most definitely say hello." moment (this plan went horridly wrong, in the comedic way my life is good for; I spent most of the time in Union station trying to figure out if it was her without being creepy; funnily enough, this usually works just in time in spite of my sluggishness and avoids approaching people that actually just happen to look exceedingly similar to the people I know. This time, though, our train arrived before I said hello. In spite of this, we wound up in the same car anyway. After more trying to make sure it was her – and trying not to look creepy –, I left a comment on her Facebook saying I thought I saw her and wanted to see how she's been. She asks where I am; by the time I respond, she's fallen asleep. And she eventually gets off at her spot. Probably the most successful two hours of my life and best "catching up" scenario I've had).

There was this distinct jolt of community, if that makes sense. And it wasn't just that she was probably in Chicago for the pride festival as well. It was that sense of my home state, the state of my community in high school, where I can still run into a large gamut of people I know. I mean, I didn't get to know Ariel that well in high school (a shame, as I've said, but so ist das leben). And yet, in that same way I'd pass by Sarah in the hall and stop and ask how she's been and what she's up to despite our otherwise limited interaction, I was going (to attempt and fail) to stop by and say hello to Ariel. And it was like, for the first time in a long while, I had a full sense of a community again. Not raggedly thrusting all my weight onto my close friends to pull me forward or silently licking my wounds in the dark and just biding recovery: walking through those halls and having the energy to pay attention to those people who don't loom as large in my life but who are, none the less, very important to me.

I told Antal once that I had realized that I don't seem to fully ingratiate to a community until about four to five years (I think high school was a sped up process, in part thanks to the phenomenal class of '09). I'm not entirely sure what it is; maybe it's just that sense of safety in knowing that I'm amongst people I like and who like me; maybe it's that same connectedness and support I felt walking amongst the pride festival, knowing that – to some degree – we all supported each other and cared about each other even though we didn't really know each other (this actually seems to imply a larger level of separation between myself and Sarah and Ariel than I want to imply but hopefully it gives an idea of what I'm getting at). I don't know.

This isn't a thread that I've made full sense of yet. I don't know what the relevance is of community to me (though I'm fairly certain it has relation to my feelings about people and humanity and my own bizarre need for physicality in spite of my driving tendency to isolate myself; things I shall have to cover at a later time). There's a lot here that I'm not entirely certain about but I've been chewing these ideas and concept for a while. They're coming to slow solidity but they're odd because I'm not used to discovering such fundamental aspects of myself this far into my life.

On a last note (to be honest, I'm not sure if it's related), I've just never understood not wanting to get to know people. It's such a universalizing expectation (so I don't entirely like holding it) but, on a really fundamental level, I don't understand that concept. How do you meet people and not want to know more? How do you not consider it a rare privilege for someone to share parts of their life with you? My immediate reaction is to ask that they continue. My instinct is to throw aside whatever it is I had (something I haven't been entirely the best at doing recently, as my post regarding Amanda noted) to pay attention. How is it not to care and worry and put first? That isn't explaining it right. I can understand how one might not do those last listed three things on accident; what I mean is, how can your reaction to a person not be to want to know more and not be elation at a return of that interest? I suppose that sounds weird until you consider that the whole of our culture pretty much revolves around human connection. Even if it's with just one person, we want human connection. I just want to meet and celebrate every person I meet for every bit of uniqueness they possess. And I don't know why, exactly. I mean, I can come up with a logical defense, obviously. I think I started with that and this emotional reaction has gotten stronger over the years (I think that's largely because it took time to have deeper human connections that, without, I couldn't have ever realized were possible and, thus, have particular emotional responses). But I've always had a strong love for people that I sort of just assumed everyone shared. Not to say people can't be shit. I've known quite a few. But knowing some of the amazing, spell-binding people that I have (and the passion they have and the aspirations and potential abilities and care that they can command) – how do people not see the astounding potential in everyone they meet?

It's not quite related but it's a thought I've been having so I'm tacking it on the end here. While actually trying to orchestrate such a thing would probably never run smoothly (and potentially be astoundingly awkward for all involved), I'd like to see what might happen if all my exes were to meet and get to know each other for a day (that's a nicer way of saying it instead of "plop them all into a room and tell them, "Interact!") – and not just the ones I liked (though I actually would like all the exes that I truly consider to be amazing people to meet each other simply because such phenomenal people deserve to meet other such phenomenal and life-changing people like themselves).

No, I'd like all of them to meet each other because I'd be interested to know what I was to them. Was I sweet? Was I mean? Was I too sarcastic? But, more importantly, was I supportive? Was I helpful? Or was I destructive? Careless? Flippant? Cruel? Did I give them memories worth keeping, in spite of whatever fallout may've occured? Did I give them anything?

I guess I knew it'd come, someday. I just never could figure out what I'd do once the day came.

I'll start with what we're all thinking: creating a social network you have to pay for will never fly. It's really a reasonable price – $48 for a full year comes to $3.75 per month. While I normally avoid paying anything ever – if I can help it – (particularly because a bunch of services for the low price of only $3 per month eventually build up if you don't keep track – and, at so low a price, you're likely tempted not to be too concerned), I might actually make an exception for Xanga. But I couldn't right now. I have far greater requirements that couldn't allow any justification at this moment.

But even if I was willing to put down $48 per year, many others wouldn't (particular when social sites like Tumblr are right around the corner for free).

What would be, in my mind, the wiser decision is to revamp the way Xanga works in order to attract more people (something that Xanga, really, ought to've done a long damn time ago).

Here's what I (and, I think, a lot of other Xangans) like about Xanga: the community. And, as I've a million times before on here (and, I've been reminded this year, there are still some of us here…), it was a safe place for those who maybe wanted to talk about aspects of our lives that maybe we didn't feel comfortable about elsewhere.

I don't think those two things are separate. I could talk about depression and SI and ED and other mental disorders and histories of abuse and prejudice at Tumblr or at LiveJournal just as easily (and people have). The difference with Xanga, however, was that the community gave us a place to find others like ourselves (or exercise our desire to yell at, and complain about, others).

The problem is this very unique aspect of Xanga (its community) is not greatly highlighted. Take away the community and what do you got? Any regular run of the mill blog or Blogspot/Blogger.

The strength of Blogger, however, is that it can be used for other things. I used a Blogspot URL for the News section of the Mucho Macho Moocow Military Marching Band's site. While I could probably contort a xanga site into a similar purpose, Blogger is simply set up for strict blogging. It makes complete sense and (the greatest reason I did it) provides a very straightforward layout for those who may not be as HTML or CSS savvy to update the site. And the site itself only provides the ability to provide comments, thus directing all comments to be about the content.

Xanga, on the other hand, is a blogging site set up to facilitate communication between users who blog. The eProps, the Minis you can give people – it's all directed towards you interacting with the user rather than interacting with the content of the site. Blogger, on the other hand, has been able to act seemlessly as an extention of sites or as a site itself or as blogging if you don't mind others not interacting with you or if you don't mind the interaction tending more towards the contact than necessarily the blogger.

I once commented to one of my cousins that Facebook was, really, this unique player in the social network pools because you weren't behind a username. Using Xanga as my source of empirical knowledge, I found that I could never imagine getting rid of my Facebook because so many memories were stuck there. This was the space I traded band jokes back and forth with Kristi, where I had note upon note detailing info. about myself and, in turn, learning about my friends, where I had picture upon picture of memories and events, etc. On the other hand, what happens if I junk my Xanga? I can archive it, if I want to keep the memories, and I'm no worse for wear. Ever had a friend drop off of Facebook? Old jokes and comments suddenly are half completely, pictures you may have been tagged in that were important to you are gone.

While there is the hole in my hypothesis of the fact that I've seen an amount of people drop out of Facebook (though some do come back) that has surprised me, I think the reason Facebook has been able to repeatedly change the layout so that it gets worse and worse and do all sorts of other things that have raised outcry from its userbase is because no one is really going to leave Facebook. At the end of the day, it's where not only their photos and videos and notes are – it's where their group of friends in real life are who've commented and liked their stuff. Even if you could archive all the info., you lose that communal interaction that is just as much a part of the user experience. Further, – because it's your actual face, name, etc. there – it's an extension of your life. I go onto to Facebook to get in touch with people or ask them questions or plan things. It's your contact book, E-mail, and IM with practical application – no usernames to separate us from reality.

MySpace was purely fueled by social value. It was one of the first social network sites to hit the scene; everyone had one. Ever had a MySpace? First time I actually bothered to get one, I couldn't figure out why people were raving about them. I literally couldn't do anything with it other than change my mood and upload pictures. Could anyone really comment on said pictures? Not really; the site wasn't directed towards that. There was a blogging function but, like the pictures, it was tucked off to the side and had limited capability. The real interaction was on the main page (as with all sites) and what was presented there was a profile picture, your status, and quotes and shit you uploaded that others couldn't really interact with. Was anyone really surprised that MySpace became a major stalk-fest? It was set up that way and directed to that outcome. That's why, once the appeal and social status of it wore off, it tanked and no attempt to revive it has worked.

And then we've got Tumblr. Tumblr is this little cluster-fuck of poor organization when it comes to the long-form. This is the largest reason I have never, in spite of the allure, jumped ship from Xanga to Tumblr. Designed as a quick way to share images and short bits of information, there's no real way to form the same type of community interactions and connections that Xanga has and nurtures. Want to comment? Okay, let's just toss it into the mass of text listing who liked the post. Want to do a post longer than three sentences? HA. Let's see if you can make sense of the three or more columns going on on this person's site. Oh, and some of them trail off after the fifth sentence and you have to click through to see the rest. So useful for the passerby or anyone reading a tumblr outside of being logged into Tumblr.

Which isn't to say that last bit can't be arranged. I believe you could set up a tumblr is some reasonable fashion for regular blogging. But the thing is that Tumblr is set up, from default, to be a site aimed at hosting media and being able to offer quick little comments about said images and videos. Which is somewhat silly, really, since posting a single image could easily help determine the length of posts; the real determiner of whether it's a media blog or not ought to be in how you organize how the posts are shown (one column or 1 million columns, etc.); of course, this doesn't address Tumblr's joy at presenting feedback in an unreadable manner that makes the depressed kid almost find the last needed reason to finally hang himself.

But that's also been Tumblr's greatest strength. I want to avoid making generalities about things I'm not entirely certain about (and I've done that somewhat enough already with some of these sites I've only used sparingly) but it was really the perfect solution to a generation that was getting used to faster and faster means of doing things. Tumblr has amazing user experience.

You see, Tumblr is near unreadable to those who may be on the outside. Want to follow a discussion? Good fucking luck. However, from the signed-in Tumblr user's perspective, that's easy. It's all on your dash. On your dash, you can easily keep track of new posts from the tumblrs you follow, easily see who commented towards you or shared something you posted, etc.

Want to post an image? A quote? A post? Easy. It's right in your home page with a beautiful graphical button right there waiting for you. Quick, fast, painless, and easy. Did I mention fast? From the user perspective, Tumblr is this quick and beautiful social network site that allows you to post stuff easily and allows you interact with people. You can follow your favorite tumblrs (and, I imagine, message them) and get to know these people. Ever seen those posts about those crazy tumblrs who stay up until 3 A. M.? Tumblr's been pretty great about having a very opening and welcoming Queer community. Feminism thrives. Hell, a good deal of the images I've posted here and a few of the posts regarding Queerness and Feminism have come from or been inspired by users on Tumblr. Community! You could define a Tumblr community.

But let's say that you want to have an actual conversation outside of messaging a user? Sure, you can respond to how a user acts by commenting them or unsubbing them. But the second you comment to a person, you fork the conversation. Tumblr treats comments by pasting it on your site (with a quote of what you're responding to) and plopping a little note at the bottom of the post you respond to. So say I'm discussing something with someone. Someone else responds to my fifth comment to Person A. Does Person A see what Person B said to me? Can they easily track it? Nope; you've got a brand new conversation, is what you have. Tracking conversations on Trumblr is hyperlink jumping "fun".

Tumblr responses drives a user to your tumblr. Anyone looking at Tumblr is fine so long as you're signed in (and, even then, it's really all about who you've decided to keep track of and follow and who responds to you). Tumblr usage literally revolves around you.

Xanga, on the other hand, regulates non-message conversations to one page – the page of the subject you are discussing. That is the key to the reason why Xanga, in spite of it's (really serious) dip in popularity, has maintained a very close-knit community. Xanga forces you to have to actually interact with the people around you beyond just the material they post. I would also argue that's why Xanga has one of the most hostile communities I've ever seen on a social network site. It's a fallout of actually having to deal with people. On Tumblr, you can ignore the response in your dash if you don't want to deal with it. On Xanga, that person is on the page you were commenting on; you can stop commenting on that post but you have to deal with them otherwise.

I think the fact that Xanga is a long-form blogging site helps as well. You can better explore ideas and concepts over long lengths of text than you can over short little posts. There's more to respond to as well, in that way.

Which isn't to say that Tumblr is entirely bad (despite my own biased frustrations with it). From an inginuity standpoint, Tumblr gets up there with Facebook, for me. It changed the way we use social network sites. There's something nice (and connecting) about constantly quoting your fellow bloggers. And posting is made so much simpler.

So the basic point is this: Xanga will die or live on in its own gated community if it decides to stop being free. The alternative (and I don't know if this is necessarily feasible) is to revamp itself so that it can pull more people in. Between a premium option (maybe, as much as my cheap ass hates to admit, without the option of credits so that you're forced to spend money) and advertisements, a popular and well-used Xanga should be able to turn a profit.

The first means of doing that is truly make it feel like an interlocked community. I want to feel, once I enter, like I am literally *in* a place where, from within its halls, I can do whatever I want. Facebook has this appeal and so does Tumblr. A dash can give that feel. Changing up the private page was *definitely* a wise move. While there's always the risk of being called out for copying (though Facebook and Google+ seem to be playing a game of tag of that), streamlining what you can post (text, quote, image, video, etc.) like Tumblr does could help make it feel like getting stuff done is quicker and simpler.

One of the things that made Xanga unique from the beginning was the complete customability it had in its themes. While the level of freedom has gotten Xanga in trouble in the past, having a manual way of mucking around in the plain code of your theme while keeping the remix theme wizard would be great. The fact that themes have been important, I think, is evident from the fact that it made it into the Xanga Fundraiser post. We've long been sour since losing that level of customability (though the remix theme thing is really rather impressive and detailed). What would be really nice is a theme "store" (except without any charge), like an app store or Google Chrome's plug-in "store". People could share themes they've made and other users could select them and mess around with them. This would make it really easy for new users to get into the spirit of a nice looking site, allow for theme-makers to advertise their site, and give the interconnected feeling that app stores give (tapping into experiences others might have had with app stores and plug-in repositories).

The same could go the plug-in idea, which I think is a fantastic idea. The Widget idea would have been fine, if a remote amount of JavaScript and regular HTML/CSS worked nicely in them.

Also, security. I think, if Xanga got security measures on par with Facebook, there would be a huge surge in attendants here. it would fit in perfectly with the use of the site as a personal place to post information about yourself that you might not want others (or particular users) to see.

Another buisness to take case of: get that Xanga app working. That's further advertisement and, the more you act like a social network and reach into every other network device, the more Xanga will seem like a modern social network site and be used.

And, of course, some advertising might help. Maybe some on YouTube and general Google advertisements to bring our existence back into the general populace's awareness.

That also means deciding whether we want to integrate the images and audio hosting into the use of the site more or leave them to the side like they currently are. I think the blogging aspect (and, in turn, the community interaction) are strong enough sellers that they could be fine as they are. It's just that it's awkward and you don't want to give a user that lingering feeling.

With the notion of having to pay for your site gone, the fundraiser should be pursued strongly with an emphasis that you can donate what you can. While I know a lot of people are going to be turned off by the notion of putting down 48 (or more) dollars, I think there are many who would be okay with putting down 5 dollars or less for the social network they've grown to love and call home (as well as those willing to give much more than that as well).

We say we're a community so let's prove that. I know there are graphic designers out there amongst us. I know there must be coders. And there has to be those willing to sit down and figure out how to code an iPhone app to get their beloved site alive. I have experience with doing design; maybe not enough for Xanga to hire me on their payroll but enough for a dying site to come to me for free work. Besides, you could give every person who worked on redesigning the site premium accounts, if saving the site isn't reward enough.

My point is, I know we're willing to band together and do what we can to save this site. I never really realized how much this site had become a community to me until I realized it was going to be gone; I'd talked about it and reasoned it but didn't realize I felt it. There is a real community here with real interactions and real connections. It's not just our sites and data that's being taken down – it's the people that's being taken away as well.

So let's get everyone giving what money they can towards saving this site while we alter Xanga so that it becomes a social site that'll keep users, whether that's graphic designs or coding services given for free because we don't want to lose this site. And, at the very least, try to keep open an avenue to sell it to someone else if saving it becomes an impossibility.

Xanga's my home, in ways I've never expected. And I don't know what to do if it leaves. There is no other social networking site that I'm aware of that offers what Xanga does. There are people I don't want to lose contact with. There are people who are safe here in ways that other places just can't offer. And we're not going to be able to just move the community to another site (or, at least, easily).

We want to stay.

Reblogged from msjosephinemarch:

Abby Wambach for the ESPN Body Issue.

I love these photos. I love these photos because it’s the first time I can think of when I haven’t had to see a female athlete be overly sexualized and objectified. She’s naked, yes that’s the point of the issue (and the men are just as nude), but she’s powerful. She’s athletic and strong in both of these photos.

They just make me happy, okay?

I hate when people say they find the female body to be more delicate, graceful, or elegant than the male body. This is usually then associated with a thin waist line and curves that would necessitate a ridiculously flat stomach.

This dichotomy borders on absurdity because one of the body types I adore is a chubby gut. I like the muffin top; chubby girls are adorable. And part of why I like that body type is precisely because it isn't delicate or, necessarily, graceful. But it is one that welcomingly envelops you and is downright perfect for cuddling and snuggling.

I've said it before but I am still at a loss: why do we insist on shoving bodies into small little boxes and, in turn, contorting them into shapes that they neither have to possess nor makes any sense of improvement on them?

I cannot count (okay, maybe a slight exaggeration) the times I've seen an image of a guy that I mistook for a girl and immediately thought, "She's cute."

(case in point; I generally find it easier to just go for girls but I might just make an exception for you)

This idea that bodies can be so cleanly divided into given categories such as male and female rather than there being merely trends that aren't always obeyed is criminal not only because it denies a very real existence for some but because it is monumentally boring.

There is a wealth of diversity within the physical frame of the human body.

And that can mean flat stomachs and thin waists and that can mean prominent thighs and that can mean thinness with no curves or shape and that can mean a chubby face and that can mean plainness and that can mean a myriad of many other wonderful features that could all be appreciated for a variety of reasons.

While I would like to think I have a very large range that I appreciate, I'm certain I have my particulars. And there are others out there who appreciate aspects of the body which are different from me or maybe even similar aspects for entirely different reasons.

And that is okay and that is beautiful and that should be celebrated (if we must celebrate the human body at all; I can't help it: I'm still largely in that camp. But, if I can't convince you to such stoicism…).

Bodies are different. Bodies are varied. Bodies are complex.

And we should be encouraging that complexity rather than trying to make it derivative. Your body, down to every feature and as a total sum of their parts, is uniquely yours: no one else in the entire universe can make a claim to the same body – and that's really fucking cool.