Why I am Against Marriage (And You Should Be Too).

I understand and support marriage-rights for all, but I don't think government should be in the marriage business. As long as they are, I agree, everyone should have equal access. What I am suffering with day to day though is marital status discrimination—like the fact that my girlfriend's company (CBS) won't cover opposite-sex domestic partners (health insurance) but is forced to cover same-sex domestic partners —which is needed, I understand because gay couples still can't legally marry in CA due to the 2008 passing of Prop (H)8. We've been trying to get coverage for me (through her) since 2004 with various H.R. people, and to no avail. There are 4-5 opposite-sex domestic couples *that we know about* that would benefit immediately if CBS would simply stop discriminating. Yes, I am naming names. I see no reason to protect them from their own discriminatory practices.

No company should have an interest in whether I am straight/gay, atheist/theist, single/married, child-free or a father. Why is a California company (or any company) allowed to discriminate on the basis of marriage? This is wrong on any metric, and the solution does not bear simply 'getting married'.

Marriage is not satisfactory because the discrimination inherent to a pro-marriage society attempts to force that very solution to the problem a pro-marriage (and anti-single/cohabiting) society created in the first place. I see the only solution as boycotting marriage and trying to fight to get equal treatment under the law. The pro-marriage status is residue from religiously-inspired edicts against cohabitation or 'living in sin', where only a couple decades ago an unmarried couple could not rent an apartment. or book a hotel room for 'moral' reasons—moreso for those in power who held strong pro-marriage ideals and were basically free to discriminate at-will (until these practices were challenged). Marriage has also been used as a way to discriminate against interracial-unions with miscegenation laws until these were challenged (with success) by Loving vs. Virginia in 1967.

The pro-marriage/anti-single agenda is just the tail-end of a time where being single or in an unmarried relationship is seen as acceptable—but it's not there yet. Even the Republican candidates in 2011 are *still* talking about 'pro-marriage' ideals, and this no-doubt is strongly-inspired by religious ideology.

Unmarried people now outnumber married people in America, but we still get treated quite badly or as if we don't matter. This is due in-part because plenty of progressive-minded people are still getting married, and activists for singles-rights are few and far between. Thankfully, the gay-rights proponents have been unwitting allies for a while now as they fight to get their rights as domestic couples, but opposite-sex domestic couples are still barely recognized. What I should also mention is that companies in CA can choose voluntarily to cover unmarried opposite-sexed domestic couples, but there's no state mandate to do so and other companies (such as CBS) choose to discriminate against us.

If we lived under Jim Crow laws during racial segregation I would not consider 'riding on the back of the bus' a solution either, or simply eating where in the 'white' or 'black' parts of the restaurant. Married couples should not enjoy a 'favored status' in society at all. Even with car insurance, felons in terrible marriages get a discount, where the upstanding non-criminal who chooses to be single suffers a higher rate. This is just wrong, and is probably why Massachusetts and the European Union no longer allow marital-status discrimination with regard to auto-insurance rates. It's also wrong to disallow unmarried domestic partners access to partners in the hospital, where married people are allowed access without question (even if they're in a bitter and contentious separation).

Marital-status discrimination is so endemic that people barely even notice or think about it—but that will change as fewer people validate marriage by getting married. Even the couple who is pro-marriage is still affected by discrimination against opposite-sex domestic partnership...what if they want a long engagement and want to cover a future-spouse on their healthcare plan? Are they simply out of luck? In many states, they are and many companies are still allowed to discriminate based on whether they want to 'encourage' marriage or not (such as CBS). I work in the game industry, and most companies opt to cover unmarried domestic partners—I know because I've checked, so those who don't cover unmarried domestic partners have made a choice to do so, and this discrimination won't stop until *we* who are employed by these companies (or affected by them) take a stand.

Government should not be in the business of recognizing what is basically a sexual relationship, especially while polyamory remains illegal in most states. The Browns featured in the show 'Sister Wives' were basically run out of Utah, a state with an overwhelmingly Mormon majority whose roots lie in polygamy! The hypocrisy is thick here.

Another angle to consider here is that the religious right see healthcare (and other) benefits as a real perk of marriage, and in-promoting marriage over 'living in sin', supporting any individual power to receive quality health-insurance undermines the reasons to get married and indirectly, religion itself.

This is not to put direct blame on people innocently getting married, but the effects are very real, and I refuse to apply a solution (marriage) caused by preferential treatment of one class of people (married) over another (unmarried or gay). My heterosexuality (which I have no control over) allows me to marry legally, but in my view, it's like being white and happily eating at 'white-only' restaurants during the Jim Crow era. I would rather boycott that restaurant entirely and spend my money at the all-inclusive establishments and eat with a clear-conscience.

No government is bigger than the one who invades the bedroom and 'validates' relationships while invalidating others—do you hear that, socially-regressive Republicans? Out best weapon against the injustices of 'marriage' is to simply refuse to participate while continually striving for true equality under the law.
--

Patti Stanger (The Millionaire Matchmaker) is Still an Idiot!

What's wrong with this woman?

So, readers of this fine blog already know I can't stand Patti Stanger, but I just wanted to recap more of her idiocy.

For one, don't trust a matchmaker who's single. Ok? Nuff said on that.

Second, she insulted the gays recently saying they couldn't be monogamous, and then changed her story saying it was just L.A. gays. Still not true, Patti. Did you want to narrow your search further to an L.A. County suburb, nutbag?

She talks about guys being 'ageists', but did anyone mention that she's anti-atheist? She's so incredibly dippy that she thinks astrology and psychics are real, and she seemingly expects people to be as loopy and spiritual as she is, like it's some kind of benefit. Hint, hint Patti, you don't work for 'God' as you've recently claimed on Andy Cohen's Millionaire Matchmaker Reunion Show (Part 2) because there's no god, but even if you did work for he who spun the Cosmos into being...why is he being so stingy helping you find love? Maybe she's not impressed by your performance.

I still remember the one atheist guy on the show and he was rejected from the dating pool pretty quickly. Listen Patti, not everyone believes crystal healers can 'fix' people or in your spiritual nonsense. A fucking millionaire could be a short, albino atheist and still meet plenty of people without your 'help'. Seems to me that a lot of millionaires simply use Stanger as a madam or they just want to be on TV.

Somehow Patti thinks redheads can't get dates either. Yeah, do you think Nichole Kidman struggles to find men? How about your widely-despised and two-faced New York housewife friend, Jill Zarin? Speaking of Zarin, I am not impressed with the friends Patti keeps, either.

What's with the stupid ass rule on no sex before monogamy? How the Hell is a couple supposed to know if there should be monogamy without knowing how the sex is? How will they even get to the sex if they can't discuss real issues, such as politics or religion? It seems the only one who gets to talk about religion is Patti, as she carefully vets who is Jewish, who's a Shiksa (non-Jewish woman) or a Chupacabra (someone who is Jewish who doesn't appear Jewish, from my understanding). She sure loves to talk about who is Jewish, while one of her rules is that couples can't talk about religion or politics. This is funny, since Patti always seems interested in which of her dating candidates are 'spiritual' as if it's somehow a good thing. One of her worst clients was a devout Christian! I've never seen her hook up an atheist, but I think atheists might be on average too smart to pay a nutjob like Patti to give them bad advice. ;) So, the people who self-select and go to a loudmouth like Patti are probably desperate to begin-with.

Patti is also a height-ist. I've heard her refer to guys of average height (around 5'8") as munchkins or whatever derogatory word her sloppy brain and unfiltered mouth blurts out. Guys are taller than women on average, but they're not wearing heels either. It seems to me that Patti is kind of a tall woman who loves her heels and still wants guys to be taller than her, and her frustration about this is obvious, but so is her superficiality.

It's one thing to get on someone's case for attitude, but for height? One could easily refer to Patti as a loudmouthed, unfeminine moosey-douchebag, but I'll save that for later. ;)

I guess I am guilty of passing judgement too, because Patti Stanger is an idiot and there's probably not much she can do about it.

—

Lady Gaga Wants To Make Bullying Illegal?

I love me some Gaga and appreciate her pro-gay campaigning and her support of Japan in the wake of the recent tsunami. But now she wants to make bullying 'illegal'.



You can't just make 'bullying' illegal, Gaga! What next, make it illegal to 'dis' Justin Bieber or hate on country music? What about religious or political disagreements? Will Palin or Bachmann be able to put Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart in jail for 'bullying' because these TeaBagger wingnuts occasionally receive well-deserved ridicule?

The problem is that the definition of 'bullying' is just too vague, and at a certain point it's already illegal (sexual harassment, hate-crimes, discrimination, stalking, etc.). Actual physical abuse is already illegal.

The sentiment is fine, but trying to 'outlaw' bullying is like trying to outlaw conflict or stupidity, lack of education, bad moods, in-groups/out-groups or dominance struggles, etc.. Why not just better educate kids how to deal with bullies, I mean, aside from killing themselves? The kid who kills himself because of bullying in my view hasn't been made tough *enough*, so making them softer doesn't seem to be the answer.

Filling jails with 'bullies' is not the answer, and jail will only make bullies worse (at taxpayer expense). Who's going to be the judge of this bullying? How are we going to deal with the added court costs? Are we going to put the extra prisons in your neighborhood, and who's going to pay for them? We need *fewer* people in prison to make room for *real* criminals, not bullies.

When I was a kid, I was bullied quite a bit for being one of the shortest kids in my grade. In high school, it was a madhouse the first week or so...at least until I started letting kids know I wasn't an easy target, could humiliate them with my wit or speak loudly with my fists if they got physical. Often, the very act of returning banter was all it took to nullify the bully. Sometimes, the worst thing one can do when 'bullied' is to submit. This is normal dominance behavior in children and we should learn to deal with it, not just make it illegal.

In essence, the bullying I got made me tougher (and I was already a tough kid). Is bullying wrong? Perhaps. Is it human nature? Of course. Can a kid who got bullied end up changing the minds of others? Most definitely—it really depends how we deal with it. We've all had someone we underestimated who came to surprise us and earn our respect, right? I know I have. Is teasing the same as bullying? That's where it gets messy. Who's making the call?

Anyway, I appreciate the sentiment, but education is the key here. We need to start young and let children know that being different is ok, and to realize that there's more to people than outward appearance, sexual orientation, height, etc. More educated children exposed to some early diversity training are going to be less likely to bully in the first place, but we'll never totally eliminate it because it's part of human nature.

Max or Maya? Companies: Let the Artist Decide!

In my career field as a game industry artist, we are constantly learning new software. This could be a very complicated 3D program, such as 3D Studio Max or Maya, 2D programs such as Photoshop and Illustrator, high-poly sculpting programs such as ZBrush, UV programs such as UV Layout, and a host of utilities such as TopoGun or 3D Coat and Crazybump. This doesn't even begin to cover all the learning needed to master a particular game engine, such as the Unreal Development Kit, Unity, iPhone development tools, etc.

Learning a 3D modeling software package takes years to master. Eventually, artists get fast enough where the 3D package is 'transparent' and they can create quickly and efficiently without having to 'think' about how to model, or where to click to make a box or delete a face. Time spent modeling in one package guarantees that artists build up a great hotkey list/mouse functions which they memorize and build muscle memory for, they develop, download or pay good money for custom scripts and plugins and hone their 3D tool to work ideally for their modeling style.

Then, some company says, 'Sorry, we don't use *your software*, we use *a different 3D modeling tool*' this basically flushes all that skill and expertise down the drain because of the idea that 'all 3D programs produce the same end result'.

This is like telling Pete Sampras, the tennis star, which racquet he can use even though he won his titles using his preferred racquets. It's like recruiting David Beckham, the soccer star, for your team and then trying to tell him how to kick. It's like hiring a skilled and experienced craftsperson with a great portfolio to build your custom furniture, and then telling him what tools to use. And finally, all cars go from point A to point B, and even though their interfaces are much simpler than a 3D modeling package, we often have strong preference for some cars over others.

With 3D programs, artists can spend years using a particular software tool and still not know all the functions. Switching 3D tools on one's own would be incredibly foolish, as there's no payoff for the investment assuming you can do what's needed in either package. Really, it's a matter of time investment and getting comfortable with the tools you've chosen.

The reality is, models don't care how they got made, and it's easy to deliver them in the correct way for a particular use or game engine using OBJ or FBX formats. So, an artist who is an expert in Modo, Lightwave, Max, Maya, Softimage, etc. can bang out a model using his preferred software and everything ends up the same, except you have a faster, more-skilled and happier artist using the tools he or she has developed expertise in with great time and expense invested.

Furthermore, there's little benefit to the artist to use what a company uses if the 3D tool is not his/her preferred tool, because he or she has already made his/her choice at home. The expertise gained at home can only efficiently benefit a company if the artist gets to choose his/her own tools. This also means that if every company can dictate the modeling package used, the artist is forever switching back and forth and unnecessarily diluting his expertise in one package. In my view, this is callously disrespectful toward the artist who is the one who has to keep switching, and for poor reasons.

The reason most companies choose one software over another has less to do with what is 'better' than reasons unrelated to creating the best art or hiring the best artists. Often the preference is due to the cost of software licenses, a preference of one person (the Art Director), or an engineer may know how to write needed plugins for Max or Maya, and then the artists get forced into one 3D package as a result. If financial objections will cause a company to choose one 3D package over another, how do they expect the individual artist looking for a job to maintain both Maya and Max simply because a company in the future may prefer it, when the artist will clearly have his/her own preference? It's trivial to convert models from Max to Maya or vice-versa, but switching modeling packages with every new company is non-trivial.

The solution is simple, really. Companies should buy a few floating network licenses for the modeling package that isn't the company preferred tool and allow the *experts* to model how they like. The artist bears the responsibility of getting his/her models into the correct format/spec for delivery, a task most would happily undertake to use their preferred 3D tool. Why would a company take a known quantity, X work quality with X workflow, and then ask the artist to change it to Y workflow? Again, the artist should pick the tools, and nobody else.

This practice would also effectively expand a candidate pool, because companies won't be advertising 'Max only' or 'Maya only' and warding off artists who prefer the tool they didn't choose. Smart companies will ask for either Max *or* Maya skill, and make licenses available for both.

Thankfully, more companies these days finally get it, and are asking for Max or Maya artists, something I figured out back in 2005 when I was forced to use Maya for modeling and hated it the more I used it. This motivated me to find a way to work in Max and figure out ways to convert Max models to Maya while preserving quad geometry (easy now, but not as obvious back then). There is a *reason* we artists choose our tools we use at home, and the more of an expert someone is, the more they've developed a specific and honed workflow which gets great results, and the less they want other people mucking around with it for poor reasons.

These software programs cost upwards of $3500 each, not including subscription, plugin or other costs. It would be extremely silly for legitimate owners of these software packages to buy both Max and Maya to learn both, just in case a company wants us to use whatever they prefer. As a legitimate Max user myself, I bought Max back in 1995 for $2000, spent thousands to maintain my subscription and learned Max before Maya was even available. When someone wants to try and force me to use Maya, I tend not to take it well anymore than they would want me to tell them what car to drive to work.

Perhaps it's best not to watch how sausage (or models) are being made. ;)

--

The Art of the Pick-Up: Conferences

At a recent atheist conference in Dublin, there was a lot of ruckus at PZ Myers's Pharyngula blog about an atheist speaker, Rebecca Watson, being propositioned for in-room coffee by someone she didn't know at 4am whilst they were both in an elevator.

Here are her words:

'Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that. You know, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and—don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.'

The first thing I can say is that for the guy, this was somewhat of an awkward thing to do since he had no prior interaction with her, however, this *was* an atheist conference and not some random guy asking her this question in a work building or even an apartment building, which would be worse. Conferences tend to put everyone in a different mood, similar to a college dorm, and these kinds of interactions are a bit more common. That doesn't mean some women still won't feel threatened, although some women might accept the offer.

What troubles me is that in the three threads PZ Myers put on his site regarding this incident, there were countless opinions with admonitions regarding 'male privilege', or 'violating a woman's sense of privacy/comfort' or 'potential rapist', 'elevators having no easy escape options' and other silly ruses about 'unwanted advances with possible sexual intent'. Maybe the guy really just wanted to have coffee but was willing to patiently hope for romantic development?

Let's be real here, most men have a poor idea about whether a sexual advance is 'wanted' or not until we make the attempt. Sometimes, we mistake friendliness for sexual interest (and some guys do this way more than others. You know who you are!). Sometimes, women play with our heads, or are genuinely interested in several guys which might include us, etc. Sometimes, persistence pays off or sours the female on wanting further contact. How does one know these things unless one makes some kind of attempt to communicate, lame though it may be?

Some guys would get a strong rebuke in the elevator at 4am with a tired, worn-out female, and some would get laid *right in the fucking elevator*. It really depends on the guy and girl in question, but if we knew you well enough to know what kind of 'sexual advance' was wanted, we'd already know you!

Sometimes sexual advances work, and most of the time (even with a person attracted to you) they won't work on the spot or without some interaction first...but sometimes interaction can get in the way (guys lose their nerve, girls get tired of waiting, etc.). There are times when *not* knowing someone that well is an advantage...especially at conferences where people are on a high and may or may not want some kind of 3-day fling.

Let's turn the tables, if a girl had asked a guy to come to her room for coffee in an elevator after 4am, would he feel threatened? Most guys if they were single and attracted to the female would probably accept, and maybe even ask to skip the coffee. I understand that females are in a different position with respect to vulnerability, but why should we have the pretense of equal rights while women still shrilly whine about 'unwanted sexual advances'? Aren't all sexual advances unwanted, or at least, unsolicited? What should the guy say, 'well she looked at me alluringly' when the female might just say her contacts were blurring up?

Enter George Clooney, Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, etc.. For a lot of women, it's a *wanted* sexual advance, but not for all women (including some who might prefer women). Any of these men could ask a female for coffee at 4am and it would be accepted by quite a few. In fact, there are a number of women who would engage in spontaneous coitus with these men, right in the elevator! Why should we punish the guys for simply being less successful, or being unsuccessful in that instance? I've been hit on by women I don't fancy, or while in a relationship, or by gay men, and I can politely refuse. This doesn't mean I get annoyed with the person for trying because I don't want to breed an attitude where people are afraid to express their feelings in a polite manner (even if it's 4am and I am dead-tired).

We always have the option of saying, 'no', and this assumes non-rapists in all instances. Obviously, even if two people are about to have sex and one declines consent, everything stops, so we're talking about two people simply talking.

The other thing people were complaining about on the Pharyngula threads was the fact that Rebecca Watson was alone in an elevator, and that it was inherently creepy. I agree that there's a bit of creep factor (even though people are on the conference high), but for some people it's titillating (men and women included).

Most guys will always try to isolate a female to ask her out, and few guys want an audience. They may walk you to your car, be driving you home, talk to you somewhere quiet, but few will want to face public rejection asking you with other guys/girls listening (though it does happen). There's even a group dynamic where asking one in a group of girls to dance/go out/have coffee will result in cock-blocking by the jealous/lonely/fugly friends and if there's a straight guy working the patient 'friend/confidante' route, he'll no doubt try to cock block as well. So, most guys will try to isolate females they're interested-in, at least temporarily.

Granted, an elevator at 4a may not be the ideal choice with no-prior interaction, but people were whining about a 'lack of escape' too.

Again, perhaps a bad choice on the part of the guy, but at least he was rejected without an audience. The bad part is, the female has no idea how the male will take rejection, and some people react better or worse when alone than with a crowd, so this is understandable. But, in the case of reasonable adults, a simple 'no' or 'no thank you' will suffice. If it's rape women fear just talking to men, they should probably not go out alone, but most men aren't rapists....but to keep things equal we need to assume all unwanted solicitation for the sake of argument is from non-rapists.

Before any two people get together, there's always 'someone' taking a risk and making a sexual advance, even if it's subtle. Girls do it, guys do it, but if nobody is willing to make a move because we're all worried about offending people, it's only going to get harder for those who already struggle to find relationships. Women will sometimes lament that guys are too shy or not making their move or not moving fast enough, and yet some women want to cry bloody murder when the 'wrong' guy makes a move (as if they're somehow offended) while retaining fantasies of their desired males sweeping them off into the sunset.

It's nothing less than a double standard, and if women want true sexual equality they have to take control of how sexuality works between males and females, and not try to turn men into simpering pussbags because they had a few undesired males take the trouble to get to know them. There's always a risk of offending others with sexual advances but if it were easy then nobody would need those online dating/matchmaking services, right?

I understand Rebecca being slightly creeped-out, but I think she handled the situation well by politely declining the offer (though her boycott of Dawkins due to a flippant comment is over-the-top). I think her advice is generally sound though for some people an elevator is an ideal place to make a pitch (as one might do an elevator movie pitch with a top executive that is otherwise impossible to get a meeting with). Again, people use the isolation tactic all the time. The phrase, 'elevator pitch' is even known to executives who might field these pitches all the time. Most are rejected but some aren't. The same holds true for musicians who find clever and creative ways to give someone their demo CD. So, a verbal solicitation done in a polite way is NOT a big deal.

We can't really stop those who might be attracted to us and who might be unaware of our relationship status. I do think it's better to gently guide someone in the right direction (hints about relationship status work well) than act indignant and offended simply because someone showed interest in an awkward or non-ideal way with a mere verbal inquiry.

I know a guy who asked a girl what time it was, and she responded, 'I have a boyfriend!'. This is exactly the kind of over-reactive nonsense I am talking about, but all it took was a verbal response to shut him down (albeit harshly). ;)

--

The End of the World Was Today!

Again.

Harold Camping of Family Radio had insisted that today was going to be the end of the world 'rapture', since he got it wrong in 1994. Looks like he got it wrong about today too. There have been no major earthquakes, no floating believers, no plagues of locusts and no Rapture (except maybe Blondie's version snarkily linked from various Facebook pages).

This end of the world prediction is yet more terrible public relations for believers, as they were silly enough to make a testable prediction. That prediction failed utterly. Why are those who reject these end of the world predictions so certain that won't happen, and why have they been right since the beginning of time?

Despite the worldwide skepticism of his claims (even from Christians), many 'true-believers' saw fit to spend their life-savings on billboards, ads and other materials to promote the 'end of the world' promoted with slogans such as, 'We Can Know'. Harold Camping himself is rich, sitting on some 70 million dollars...if he really thought the world was ending then why didn't he give away all of his cash before today?

I would like to direct readers to a little site called, 'We Can't Know', run by a group of atheists in Washington. As they say, May 22nd is going to be the beginning of the backpedaling, and it should be hilarity to watch.

The world is going to severely ridicule those who spent so much money, time and effort trying to convince us the world would end today, and that ridicule is well-deserved. Stupid hurts, but sometimes it's just embarrassing.



--

Everyone Draw Mohammed Day is today.

'Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day' was started on May 20th, 2010 by Molly Norris, as a response to threats against the creators of a South Park episode depicting Mohammed, which was then censored by Comedy Central. The idea was to get enough people to draw Mohammed where action against these people would be untenable.

Unfortunately, Molly Norris is now in hiding due to credible threats to her safety by Muslim extremists.

It is because of the insane reactions to cartoons by some Muslim extremists that we must continue to draw them and not be intimidated into self-censorship because of religious oppression. It's one thing for Muslims to censor themselves, but yet another to not only try to censor the world but to follow it up with threats of bodily harm or death.

Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard was almost killed by a Muslim extremist for just such a cartoon, but he had a safe-room and was able to escape in time. Others who expressed their views about Mohammed or Islam weren't so lucky, such as filmmaker Theo Van Gogh who was shot multiple times and had a Jihadi manifesto stabbed through his chest in the streets of Holland for his movie, 'Submission'. Submission is the true meaning of the word, 'Islam', not peace, and that submission is apparently intended for everyone, like it or not. Submission disguised as 'peace' is the subject of my own cartoon complete with a rendition of Mohammed himself.




--