So . . . does God watch us masturbate?

Religion. That wonderful hot-button topic. I consider it the most ironic of debatable subjects because it is literally the one thing that cannot (ever) be fully comprehended by any party, and yet watching people scream over it is kinda hilarious in a tragic sort of way. So what are my thoughts on religion?

Why, I'm glad you asked.

I'll start things off contextually. I went to church pretty much every Sunday until I was sixteen. After that I got a job, and working Sunday mornings meant I had to get a bit blasphemous on the sabbath. Luckily the church I went to was United, and about as far away from the reigning first impression you get of Christianity, like beautiful Catholic cathedrals, evangelists and Conservatives screaming about how God hates fags, and well, you know . . . the pedophilia. No, my church was much more of a community thing. It was less about God and more about getting out of the house on Sundays. It was about gentle old folks commenting about how they've watched you grow up from a little tyke over the years. It was about getting to see your cousins and some other friends you wouldn't see otherwise. We often had female ministers and never had any crazy clergy limitations. During my confirmation (the official "act" of joining the church community) our minister took us on a weekend trip to a Synogue, a Mosque, a Hindu Temple, and a few other places to show us that religion and spirituality were not limited to one set of beliefs. All-in-all, it was a really positive experience.

And then the other Christians had to go ruin it for the rest of us. 

I lost a lot of faith in the institution of religion once I moved away from my humble small town and saw what existed beyond the quaint little community I'd grown up in. The notion of "religion" that I was used to turned out to be very different than the majority of others; in retrospect, I was pretty lucky to have had as good an experience as I did. I lost my faith in the institution of religion when I started seeing people proclaiming that God hated homosexuals. I lost my faith when I heard stories of religious parents insisting that their teen daughter's pregnancy - a result of rape - was God's punishment for her having been raped in the first place. I lost it when I heard protestors at abortion clinics harassing people they had never met out of some misguided sense of moral superiority.

That was not the religion I grew up with, and it was something I struggled with a lot. One of my biggest qualms was (and still is) with the sheer number of absolute morons who proclaim to be devote Christians while outright shunning the most basic tenants of their dogma. Fun Fact Folks: if you're Christian, you should never be muttering the words "God hates . . ." because if you are, you're reading the wrong part of the Bible. For those unfamiliar, the Good Book is broken into two sections: Old Testament and New  Testament. The Old Testament was when God was a bit temperamental and didn't think twice about casual genocide if He was having a bad day. The New Testament, meanwhile, chronicles the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, Superstar. If you're a Christian and you follow any tenants of the Old Testament (like our homophobic friends who are so found of quoting Leviticus) then congratulations, you're doing it wrong. The teachings of Christ were meant to supersede all the Old Testament stuff (sorta puts the "Christ" in "Christianity"). It's what turned "an eye for an eye" into "turn the other cheek." In other words, if you're actually a devote Christian, you should only be following the tenants set forth by Jesus Christ, who never hated on anyone. In fact, he loved everyone and had a soft spot for sinners, so if your version of Christianity involves hating on others, well . . . fail. 

That was a bit off topic, but it's a point I'm fond of making because it just goes to show how much of a chasm there is between what is actually decreed and the way people choose to interpret it. My crisis of faith began long before all that though. My mother will attest that when I was younger (somewhere in the eight-to-ten age range) I would literally be kept up at night by the grand philosophical questions. I would talk for what seemed like hours with my mom because I just wanted to understand the biggest questions regarding death, God, and the vastness of the universe. My mother (bless her) did her best to try and qualm my fears. And I say "fears" quite literally, because it was these sorts of questions (in particular, wondering what happens to us when we die) that kept me up at night, scared out of my tiny little mind.

I grew up skeptical, to say the least, and it's a skepticism that has stayed with me my entire life.  I could never accept the Biblical representation of God. I could never understand how a being that was supposed to be so utterly incomprehensible could show such strangely human quirks and emotions, like jealousy. Four of the Ten Commandments regard making sure that you respect only the God and no others. Sounds a bit excessive to me. Of course the understanding of this came later in life after studying the old religions, in particular the Greeks and the Romans, who often represented their gods as humans too. The Christian God is no different, just slightly updated for the new era. The simple fact is that God did not fashion mankind in His image, but rather mankind fashioned God (and most deities) in our image, which is why He/they always behave strangely human.

In my opinion, the Bible is not something to ever be taken literally. At best it is a collection of stories that serve as a rudimentary guide to morality, and most of its notions are pretty good: be a good person, love one another . . . these are things you don't have to be religious to get behind. But there's also a lot of really fucked up stuff in the Bible too, so again, it's best to take it all with a grain of salt.

Which is why I would say I'm not religious, but I would say I am spiritual. To me, there is a world of difference. My beliefs and notions of faith do not conform to a set category of dogmatic guidelines. If I did try and categorize my beliefs, it would probably fall somewhere between Agnosticism and Buddhism. I don't necessarily believe in the concept of a God, but I do choose to hope in the possibility of something bigger and more complex existing in the universe. I am fascinated by the possibilities and wonder that might exist beyond the scope of human understanding and comprehension - things like karma, fatalism, hell . . . even aliens. One if my books revolves around the concept that anyone - even the most average of humans - could with time, patience, and discipline (as well as a few fantastical plot elements) achieve a state of divinity that could be considered god-like, because there is the potential and capacity in all of us for both great good and great evil. 

Even something like love spurs my imagination. I know there is a chemical composition to love and there is a scientific explanation for how all the cogs in the brain operate to produce it, but to me, it still seems magical. Love can be this overwhelming force capable of reshaping lives, personalities, and destinies. True love can elevate individuals to a level of divine grace. There is the potential for such love and compassion within people that I can't help but romanticize it all a little. 

But I've always been skeptical. One of the biggest qualms I (and many other people) have had with the notion of there being a single God is the justification for all the evil that occurs in the world. How could God be responsible for helping me find my keys, as well as be responsible for famine and murder? One of my high school teachers had a very interesting commentary on the matter. His faith died when he became a father, which sounds mighty goddamn depressing/comical, but he made a good point. To some, becoming a parent is the best thing in the world - the sort if thing that would normally affirm one's faith in the divine. But my teacher, he loved his kids so fiercely that the thought of anything ever happening to them was devastating and beyond comprehension. And more to the point, he knew there were people who had suffered through such trauma, and to him, no compassionate God would ever allow such a degree of hurt and sorrow to exist. I once attended a rally meant to raise awareness about missing and murdered aboriginal women in Canada, and at the rally was a woman whose teenage daughter had recently been murdered. The absolute agony that she was in - the tears she shed and the guttural wails she made - could only make me think of one thing: "what kind of God would allow this?" There is a certain degree of privilege that comes with being religious; it's easy to remain rigidly devote and utter such phrases like "God has a plan" when you've never suffered a traumatic enough event to truly make you question your faith. 

To me, notions of spirituality, religion, and faith are so personal that they should never be considered beyond the individual level. The fundamental truth of human existence is that no one, anywhere, has all the answers; we are such a feeble species that no single person has any right to think or act as if they understand all the complexities of life and the universe. This is a problem that I see cropping up with both the fundamentally religious and the fundamentally atheist. I have several atheist friends, and some of them are the most wonderful people I've ever met, and likewise I have several religious friends who are also wonderful people, but I cannot condone ever trying to force your beliefs about such personal matters onto others. I had a former friend who was staunchly atheist. We would argue and debate a lot about the subject. I was very stubborn, but only because I refused to submit to her ideology. I constantly explained that I had my own interpretation of spirituality that was unique to me and that I was happy with. This did not satisfy her. She spent hours trying to convince me that the belief in anything, whether God or karma or fatalism, was absolutely stupid and foolish, and anyone who believed in such things was automatically an idiot. She argued with a zealotry that I only ever saw evangelists argue with. This is not a condition that's unique to a category of people though; this is just a matter of ego, of people being convinced that their opinion (whether religious or atheist) is right no matter what. 

That attitude rings of narcissism and immaturity to me. The only sort of response I will respect to queries about spirituality and faith begin along the lines of "personally, I believe . . ." because no one will ever have all the answers, and matters of faith and spirituality are so personal they should only ever be considered in privacy and quiet contemplation/civil discussions, and not in screaming matches with one side calling the other idiots while the other screams of damnation. 

Exploring such fundamental questions of human existence should be fruitful and a healthy part of self-actualization. I would be skeptical of anyone who blindly follows something that they've read or been told. I have seen a disturbing number of atheists hold up the work of Richard Dawkins in the same way that I've seen evangelists hold up the work of religious texts. If you only believe in the best argument you've heard so far, then it's not your belief, it's another person's that you've adopted. Everyone should be willing to think for themselves about such matters instead of blindly accepting what they have been taught growing up or convinced by others. I truly dislike labels like Christian, Agnostic, or Atheist, because there is such a complexity to human interpretation and understanding of these matters. As we've seen, two people can have wildly different interpretations of what it means to be "Christian." 

To me, religion/spirituality is both immensely personal and utterly insignificant. If I ever get married and my future wife decides she would like our kids raised a particular faith/non-faith, that's fine by me (so long as it's not rigidly fundamental; I want my kids to be able to think for themselves, not swallow whatever is force-fed to them). And in a perfect world, people would be free to believe whatever they choose and everyone else would respect that. 

Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, so I'll close by saying I personally hope the members of the Westboro Baptist Church burn in hell. 

Comic Book Overload

Isn't it a funny world we live in? A few decades ago the thought that there would be a point in cinema history when the biggest blockbuster franchises would be based almost exclusively on comic books was laughable. Comics were for a niche demographic of nerds and geeks, but no more! Now they are part of ongoing series that have installments planned out years in advance, and they're some of the most anticipated movies around. But alas, it feels like we may be reaching a saturation point.

Admittedly, the first superhero movie to bring comics into the mainstream light was Richard Donner's Superman in 1978. As the old tagline went, "You'll believe a man can fly" and rightly so.  It's fondly remembered as a classic, even if the series fizzled out, was attempted to be resuscitated, fizzled out again, and now is in full-on reboot mode and (from the looks of it) laying the foundation for DC's Justice League franchise, finally ready to rival Marvel's Avengers series.

I'm a little concerned that we've reached the point where there's simply an overabundance of superhero movies though. They're no longer being viewed as pieces of cinematic art (although it's arguable that they never were) but instead as cash cows. The first Spiderman and X-Men were considered gambles that paid off, but now we're at the point where all of the well known entries have been mined and re-mined. We're witnessing reboots of franchises not even a full decade old. My fear is that movie studios are overestimating the sustainable mass-market appeal for franchises that were once designed to cater to a small demographic.

I recently watched Thor: The Dark World. It was entertaining, it had some funny moments, and Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman provide enough appeal to both genders that it won't be just the teenage boys clambering for tickets. And I enjoyed the first Thor well enough, but the problem I had with the sequel was that - despite it's entertainment value - I barely had a clue what was going on. There was a good deal of exposition to try and explain everything, but the majority of plot devices were very abstract and mystical, and I barely understood the motivation of the villains aside from that they really like darkness. I know exactly why I was left feeling a bit confused by it all too; they were pulling material from the comic which I was totally unfamiliar with.

That's the problem that occurs when you start to move beyond superhero origin stories. You have to start pulling elements from the comics that only those who have read them will truly appreciate. Origin stories are great, because they only serve as an introduction to the character. What Marvel got right the first time around was that they used characters that even people who hadn't read the comics were at least somewhat familiar with. I've never read a Thor comic, but I was at least aware of the character when the first film came out, so I wasn't walking in blind.

But as franchises develop, the amount of material available that will be appealing to the general public dries up. It becomes a burden on the filmmakers to create something that pulls from the source material (in order to make fans of the comics happy) but isn't so dense that casual viewers aren't going to be lost. We've moved beyond the origin stories for Marvel's set of films and away from the well-known heavies like Incredible Hulk and Iron Man, and now there are franchises being born out of things like Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy, which I've never heard of until now.

The difficult part will be making these films appealing to mainstream audiences who have never heard of them and aren't familiar with the subject matter. And frankly, some comic book stories just don't translate well to film, or at least are very difficult to. I like to use Captain America and the Superman reboot Man of Steel as examples of ways to do them right. As characters, Superman and Captain America are horribly uninteresting. They never undergo a significant character arc; Captain America has the same set of morals at the beginning of the film as he does at the end. Superman, meanwhile, is an immortal god who always does the right thing; if he didn't, he wouldn't be Superman. Luckily, the filmmakers were able to work their way around these troubles by adding a few more layers to their respective films. Captain America became something of an underdog trying to prove himself, and Superman was portrayed as a sympathetic outsider struggling to understand his own identity and the extent of his powers, as well as his moral responsibility of what to do with them. Both films turned out great, at least in my opinion.

But where do you go after that? What do you do once the first film firmly establishes the character of the hero? The answer, I'm afraid, is anyone's guess. The trailer for Captain America: The Winter Soldier is out, and while it looks interesting, I actually have no idea what the damn plot is. It looks like it's shaping up to be similar to Thor: The Dark World as something that only true fans of the comics will be able to appreciate.

The answer for Superman, likewise, is to introduce the rebooted Batman into the flick, which I'm totally excited for (go Affleck, go!). This seems to be a logical way to kill two birds with one stone: you introduce something that will be able to challenge Superman, as well as introduce the new version of Batman without having to worry about a standalone film being compared directly to Christopher Nolan's trilogy. As excited as I am for the next film though, I'm a bit nervous, because now there's rumor that they're also going to be introducing Wonder Woman, Nightwing, and a few other Justice League characters. While this could be cool, it's also a hell of a lot of stuff to cram into one film that's already going to have it's hands full with introducing a new Batman. I pray it's handled competently.

Superman is an example of a character that teeters on the precipice, meaning it's easy to fuck his story up, but if done properly, it can produce one hell of a solid film. And then there are simply some franchises that don't work as films. Green Lantern is a good example. A lot of people hated that film, but personally I didn't mind it. Granted, I've never read any of the comics. The only comic series I have any affinity for is Batman, but I was at least aware of the universe and the basic principles of Green Lantern when I saw the movie, and honestly, I though they pretty much delivered on the fundamentals. Some of the die-hard fans of the comics might say they didn't stick closely to certain elements in the source material or some other excuse, but all I can say is maybe the film's critical failure was due to the fact that it's just really damn difficult to make a movie about a guy with a magic ring who's an intergalactic space policeman appealing to the general public. Perhaps that's one character who's best represented on the page instead of the screen. Moving forward, especially now that Marvel and DC are entering a pissing contest of epic proportions, I feel there's going to be quite a few more instances of this as each studio tries to mine their vast archives.

But there is hope. Both the Iron Man franchise and Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy have been massively successful and consistently entertaining despite being three movies long because their characters are just naturally interesting and the filmmakers did a great job with casting and storytelling. I especially like to hold up Nolan's trilogy because instead of approaching his films as comic book movies, he approached them with the same realism as he would any "serious" genre (he's quoted as saying the framework for The Dark Knight was a crime epic and The Dark Knight Rises a disaster film). They're not just great superhero films, they're great films period. The people I know who didn't like The Dark Knight Rises were almost exclusively the hardcore fanboys of the comics because Nolan deviated substantially from the source material, but the majority of everyone else seemed to think it was excellent because it was able to stand by itself; you didn't need a bloody glossary open in front of you when you're watching it like I felt was needed with the latest Thor entry.

And of course, I could just be blowing smoke here. The trailer for X-Men: Days of Future Past looks pretty damn sweet, and despite being nervous about how the studios might handle the next Man of Steel, I still have a total raging boner in anticipation. As with all storytelling, sympathetic characters and interesting narratives will forever rule the day.

Words! It's what's for breakfast!

"Lucas, why is it that you write so much?" asked no one, anywhere, ever.

Sometimes I like to imagine that my life is actually really interesting and I will someday be called upon to do a DVD-style commentary of it. Luckily for me and the world at large, the Internet exists, so I can type my merry heart out and everyone else can continue diligently ignoring me as they rightly should.

Anyway, one of the things I've been dying to talk about in the most figurative way imaginable is writing, my history with it, and why it is that I like pumping out words the way that I do. I find it helps to reflect on the nature of our art - it humbles us, brings us down to earth, and generally makes us less snobbish.

I suppose you could say I've always been a fan of writing, but even to this day I don't think I'd ever label myself as a "writer." Instead, I prefer to say "I write" because to me, there's a world of difference. A writer is someone who is intoxicated by the power of words, who practices and attempts to master the many nuances of grammar, and who values their own style and treats it as an extension of their mind. I do none of those things. For me, writing is simply the means to an end, and I've done it enough that I'm simply above average. 

Let me back up a bit. I initially took up with writing as a result of my elementary school graduation. See, I'm the academically competitive type, and my brother had won the Top Academic Award (pretty much meant he was best overall) when he had graduated four years previous, so I was aiming for the same thing because I wasn't about to let him get a one-up on me. But fate gave me a backhand, and instead I got the lesser English Award. This came as a shock, namely because I never excelled in English classes. To this day I think they just had to give me something (I was still one of the top students) and they deemed the English Award an appropriate token gesture. I ended up taking it as a challenge though, one I carried all the way to university.

I figured if they gave me the English Award, then fuck it, I might as well make it my thing. And so that token award became my motivation to excel in my high school English classes, which was very difficult because I really did suck at it. Honestly, I was terrible. I still can't understand why they gave it to me, but nonetheless I carried around that challenge like the goddamn plague and eventually graduated high school with an English and Creative Writing Award in tow. I enrolled in English at Carleton University and promptly switched majors to Film Studies because it seemed like the more practical thing to pursue (hint: it wasn't).

I continued to write, though. Throughout high school I had been developing a story in the back of my mind that I was determined to put to paper. It spent years festering and growing, taking influence from everything I encountered. I tried to sit down and write it on several occasions, sometimes writing a page, sometimes fifteen, but it never matched my vision. It wasn't until second year university when circumstance allowed me to write a first draft I was actually proud of. It was a relatively small accomplishment (only eighty or so pages) but to me it had been a Herculean feat, and having accomplished it, I was no longer scared to attempt it again. I knew that if I could write one book then I could easily write another, and so that following summer I wrote my first "real" novel. I found myself with a lot of extra time during the subsequent Christmas vacation, so I wrote another, and the next summer I re-wrote my first story as a four hundred page behemoth (which will be rewritten again in the near future, because I'm crazy like that). After university I attended a year of Scriptwriting at college and wrote my fourth "real" novel after graduating, just to make sure I still could.

Despite all of the monumental time and effort I put into each book, I would still say I'm not the biggest fan of actually writing. It's annoying, it takes too long, and it's near impossible to convince anyone to read your shit. To me, writing was simply the means to an end; what I really wanted to do was tell stories, and writing was (and still is) the most effective way of going about that. I couldn't make a film or a graphic novel on my own, so writing my stories as books was the only natural way to go. See, I don't have much in the way of actual writing ability. What I excel at is being disciplined and patient. That's the tricky part. Sitting down at a computer and typing is ridiculously easy; what's hard is to make yourself do it every day for months on end until you have something to show for it. I have plenty of friends who are much, much better writers than I am, but the difference between us is that I can fire off pages like Stephen King. In essence, it's quantity over quality. I like to think my books can hold up based on the nature of the plot and the overall premise of their stories, but I know no one is going to be reading anything of mine because they appreciate my style.

I recently had a discussion with my roommate regarding the nature of art and the idea of innate talent versus practice. She's an incredibly talented artist (and you should totally check out her portfolio at http://www.lydiapepin.com/) but she insisted she had to practice in order to get to the skill level she's at. And while that is obviously inarguable, it also can't be denied that she has an innate talent for it, because her mind has a way of discerning visual detail that I (and most others) simply can't. And yet I have no idea whether or not I have any sort of innate talent/skill for the activities I consider my "art" or if I'm just very disciplined and willing to put in a lot of effort into something until I'm halfway decent. I taught myself how to play guitar, and while I like to think I'm pretty good, I didn't pick one up until I was seventeen and I had absolutely no natural affinity for it. I have a sneaking suspicion that my writing is the same, which is why I don't like to call myself a "writer" and instead prefer to just say "I write." I consider my writing competent at best, and I'm sure with a proper editor some of my novels would do just fine on the literary scene, but I have no hopes of one day being taught in university English courses. 

For me, the accomplishment comes from expressing something. With my novels, it's constructing a narrative out of thin air. For this blog, it's about expressing ideas. I have a constant desire to feel like I've accomplished something, and writing is a cheap and easy way to do that. I suppose it's the masturbation of the storytelling arts, because you only need yourself and more often than not you end up feeling satisfied and yet a little disappointed (Ba-Dum-Tish!). And I consider some of this ironic, because writing was one of the things I did while everyone else was off with their social lives and having sex and doing other fun things, and being able to present a book and say "well, at least I accomplished something" was the only way I could justify my meager existence.

So that's why I write. I'm not concerned with furthering the human language, I don't really care for proper grammar rules so long as something reads okay, and you'll never find me wearing a sweater with a glass of scotch. I just get a lot of crazy ideas/stories in my head and writing is my go-to way of expressing them. I still don't know if I'd ever consider myself a real artist, but I suppose I'd better because it's not like my pro-athlete career is going to pan out anytime soon.  

Featured Piece: "Burning" by Alix Van Pelt

This piece was written by a friend and very talented fellow writer. I asked her if I could share it because I love the raw emotional intensity she manages to convey. Enjoy!

Burning 

by Alix Van Pelt 

You wake up this morning and the wound is still there. Now it has scabbed over where the cut used to be, but you still have vivid memories of how it happened. The curb you tripped over? The bike you fell off? The blade of the knife piercing through your skin as his hand dug deep inside your chest, ripping out your still beating heart. 

You cannot stand and carry yourself out of bed when three tons of devastation sits on your shoulders. You cannot find strength within when your own thoughts and instincts are untrustworthy. You cannot reach out for comfort and support when you are terrified that anyone could be your next attacker. 

Agonizing; it’s the perfect adjective. It invokes a sense of burning. Something that spreads. Something that makes time stand still so it can torture you slowly. 

You navigate your day with tear-swollen eyes and eat nothing and talk to nobody until it’s time to go home and cry yourself to sleep all over again. 

You believe you allowed yourself to be hurt this way. You let your guard down, foolish and too eager. Even the sweetest poison will knock you dead. 

Your nightmares wake you often, in a cold sweat with a dry mouth, somehow naked. You dreamt you went to Paris all alone, excited and certain it would heal your soul. But you’re lonely and very sad and you fall asleep in the bathtub to the sound of lovers giggling along The Seine. 

It’s likely you will never find happiness again, but if you do it will be weak and remind you of past joy. The way you were before all of this pain. 

Even the greyest morning you can remember must have been brighter than this. You may never laugh again. You will never trust another soul. It’s possible you could perish by way of despair. 

You hear a joke on the subway and smile. The familiar feeling surprises you, but you don’t stop it. 

You drink coffee that is so rich and delicious you order another cup and drink it while you listen to a folk guitarist tell her own tales of heartache. 

The slightest bit of sunshine pierces your bedroom floor and you are flooded with memories of the outside world. You remember last night’s nightmare- the beautiful oak tree in your yard that you’ve loved since you were a girl, burned to the ground. But you haven’t looked outside in days. Was it really only a dream? 

You tear open the curtains. The oak tree, with its sturdy roots and strong branches is still there, still standing.

All right guys, we need to talk . . .

Strap yourselves in folks, this is going to be a long one.

One of the reasons I started this blog was to serve as a creative outlet for all of the myriad of ideas, notions, concepts, and other abstract hew-haw that circles around in the inner recesses of my mind. There's one thought that's been swirling around in my ol' noggin a lot lately (the last year or two, frankly) and I've been meaning to address it. And that thought, dear reader, is misogyny.

Misogyny is a word that gets tossed around a lot these days, and like the term "racism" it's the sort of thing people get really defensive about, because it's not a fun label. Someone can tell a racist joke, but if you call 'em a racist, you might have a fight on your hands. Likewise, a guy can display all the tendencies that qualify as misogynistic, but call him such, and suddenly you're the one with the problem.

Well it's time for us to sit down and to try and have a calm, civil, in-depth look at this whole concept. It's going to require a degree of self-awareness on your part, so if you're reading this and you have a penis, I want you to take the time to reflect and be honest with yourself about the things you'll be reading. Don't worry, there's no one watching you get all self-reflexive. You're alone with your computer/tablet device. It's just you, your brain, and the words on the screen.

I first started thinking about the concept of misogyny as it relates to modern culture as a result of some advocacy work I was doing that centered around women's issues. I read a lot of stuff that made me think about things in a different way, and I started to analyze my own perspective. It's a difficult thing to do, but it was both liberating and cathartic. You see, most of the things that get tossed around regarding sexism are somewhat superficial. It almost seems black-and-white: magazines print unattainable images of female bodies, therefore women feel self-conscious and men have unreasonable expectations. Frankly, I don't think it's that simple. It's not a switch that someone just turned on overnight. It's a psychological issue that delves far deeper than I think most people are aware or care to admit.

The objectification of women is nothing new. It's been commented on more times than anyone can count, and there's way more wonderful articles dealing with it than the one you're reading right now. And while there's an absolute gargantuan amount that can be said about how objectification affects the female psyche, I don't have the qualifications to adequately discuss that. What I am qualified to discuss, however, is the male psyche, because I believe that's where the biggest problem lies. I believe there is an undercurrent attitude - a psychological conditioning - that most men aren't aware of. I want to turn the mirror on ourselves, my fellow folks of the y-chromosome demographic, so that we can acknowledge this issue exists.

See, I'm not talking about run-of-the-mill objectification, where we only focus on physical attributes, because I think (although it's much more prevalent among men) women are also guilty of this too. Show a girl a picture of Ryan Gosling or Henry Cavill, and I guarantee the first comment won't be about how much their acting is appreciated. It's a biological drive to be drawn and notice attractive features, even if it makes us look stupid and do stupid things. It's all part of an evolutionary standard that has accumulated over hundreds of thousands of years.

The objectification I'm talking about is the sense of entitlement that a significant number of men and boys feel toward women. I'm talking about the notion that if you give a girl a ride home, you're entitled to a blowjob in return. I'm talking about the attitude that makes guys continue to hit on girls after they've said "no," where the only line that will make a guy stop is "I already have a boyfriend." I'm talking about the unbelievable amount of sexist threats that are hurled against women in online forums for no justifiable reason. I'm talking about the attitude that some guys have where they feel they are owed a girl's affection, and any girl who rejects them must therefore have a problem. 

These are attitudes that I see abounding around me. I hate to admit that I was guilty of a similar frame of mind for a very long time. I've admitted that I haven't always been the most popular with girls, but for a long time I assumed the problem was with them. I was convinced that I was great, therefore they were the ones with the problem, because I hadn't developed the self-awareness to realize that autonomous expression wasn't limited to just myself. I viewed things as a checklist: I had x and y qualities, therefore I deserved z in return. I got upset if a girl wasn't interested in me. I got extremely jealous if a girl I liked was dating another guy. This was (and still is) greatly a matter of ego; I couldn't fathom that other people functioned in a world that didn't revolve around me. 

The turning point was when I had the revelation that just because I liked a girl, that didn't mean I deserved anything. I did not have a monopoly on who they found attractive or who they chose to sleep with. No woman, anywhere, has any obligation to me whatsoever. My interactions with the opposite sex could not be boiled down to a checklist or be solved by a "pickup guide" written by some asshole trying to make a quick dollar off desperate frat boys. There's a wonderful quote making the rounds regarding this that I love: "women are not vending machines that you put nice-tokens into until sex falls out." 

It's hard to pin down exactly where this attitude developed from though, or why it seems to have infected such a large number of men and boys. A large portion of the blame can be placed at the foot of mainstream media. Laura Mulvey was one of the first film theorists to pioneer the concept of the "male gaze" in cinema. She theorized that the movie camera mainly served the male's perspective, and the majority of women in film were passive objects to be admired or won by the protagonist. This is still very rampant today. Male actors are valued for their skill first and foremost, whereas actresses are almost always judged by their appearance. One only needs to look at the latest Transformers movie to see how seductively the female lead is framed and how thinly developed her character is. It's permeated into every media sphere from magazines to television. Anna Gunn (who portrayed Bryan Cranston's wife on the show Breaking Bad) wrote a wonderful piece for the New York Times, highlighting how she was receiving death threats because of a fictional character she played, and how female characters are often held to different standards than their male counterparts. I'd hate to imagine the sort of stuff Lena Headey has to deal with for her portrayal of Cersei Lannister on Game of Thrones. There was also that bullshit a little while ago where someone (probably from Fox News) was berating Adele and Kelly Clarkson because they weren't serving as "healthy" role models for young girls because they were slightly overweight. It's fairly common to see women deconstructed and stripped of their talent and personality until only an object prized for her sexual attributes remains.

Nowhere else is this attitude more prevalent than online, especially when it comes to video games, perhaps because it mixes a heavily vocal male audience with the mask of anonymity. One of my favorite YouTube channels is Feminist Frequency, where host Anita Sarkeesian posts criticisms on the portrayal of women in video games. She became quite famously the center of an Internet shit-storm awhile back, simply because she wanted to critically analyze a medium that she loved dearly but felt there were issues with. She received thousands of death/rape threats, which really only solidified the point she was trying to make. I have had many debates with friends regarding the representation of women in video games, and I see the same dismissive attitude popping up again and again. The arguments are endless, and many serve to highlight the issue. I was recently part of a debate where the game Grand Theft Auto 5 came up a lot, with one of my friends arguing that it presents a lot of well-rounded female characters. I'm not saying it doesn't, but I would argue that doesn't magically eliminate the issue of misogyny in gaming as a whole or in that game in particular, especially since all three of the playable protagonists are male (thereby all female characters exist around the male leads) and you still have the option of hiring a prostitute, having sex with her, then killing her. One could argue this is simply a "realistic" part of an open world experience, but think about it; a committee of people (most likely all men) brainstormed, developed, and decided to include this feature believing it was a suitable inclusion to their game. It's also worth highlighting that a female reviewer received horrible threats because she gave the game a 9/10, with guys saying she couldn't totally appreciate the game because she was a woman. Seriously, go look that shit up, because it's totally fucking baffling. 

I believe this misogynistic attitude goes largely unnoticed by men because they have never had to confront it. It's a privileged attitude to assume something isn't a big issue because you occupy a demographic that doesn't have to deal with it on a regular basis. And as a man, what right do you have to comment on the prevalence of an issue if you are incapable of identifying/empathizing with it? I would argue that it's similar to bullying in a high school. If you were to ask someone who didn't get bullied whether bullying was an issue at the school, they would most likely say "no" because they have never experienced it first hand. To someone who is constantly bullied, however, it is a very real problem. Just because it only exists among the peripherals of your vision doesn't mean it's not there, it only means your eyes aren't open wide enough. And a major problem that few people tend to grasp is that there is a contextual history behind these issues. A favorite argument against me in my video game debates is that men's bodies are often idealized just as much as women's, and while this is true, it does not mean everything is on equal footing. The misrepresentation of women is problematic because there is a history of misrepresentation stretching back further than a single game, and simply having an impossibly good looking male character doesn't negate that, in the same way that just because I've been called "cracker" because I'm white doesn't mean it's suddenly okay to use the n-word in everyday vernacular.

This misogynistic attitude, I would argue, is mainly a problem because most people don't even realize how prevalent it is, namely because most of it has become an acceptable part of modern culture. In a single generation we witnessed a media boom that is both unheard of and unprecedented, and I firmly believe it has had a jarring effect on our psychology and our social adaptability - our minds simply aren't ready for it, in the same way that our bodies haven't been given time to adapt to the recent changes in food production which has led to an obesity epidemic. Mine is the first generation that grew up with readily available Internet pornography, and one could write an entire essay (and many already have) about how its mass consumption has permanently altered an entire generation of men's perspective on sexuality.

The psychology behind this is both complex and expansive. I believe blame can be placed anywhere from TV shows like Keys to the VIP, which turns the act of picking up women into a literal game, to readily accessible pornography, to poor male role models, to underdeveloped and misrepresented female characters in TV and film. It's all been allowed to fester in our minds for over a generation until it seems like a cultural norm.

And to anyone who still thinks it's not a prevalent issue, there are a few things to remember. Remember that we live in a society where the reproductive rights of women are largely decided by a committee of old men. Remember we live in a culture where a girl can be raped by two male athletes, and a major news outlet can lament about how the accusations will forever damage the boys' careers while giving no thought to the psychological trauma the girl must now endure for the rest of her life. Remember we live in a culture that teaches women to "not get raped" instead of teaching men to "not rape," and where the first question in sexual assault cases is usually "well, what was she wearing?" Remember we live in a world where girls as young as five are sold into sexual slavery, where women are forced to engage in sex acts with up to thirty "clients" a day and are tortured and abused if they refuse.

I didn't write this article with the hope of presenting a solution to this problem, because I think the biggest issue surrounding it is that most people fail to acknowledge that a problem exists in the first place. All I hope to do is draw attention to it and encourage people to be a little more self-reflexive. 

Remember we live in a culture that often degrades the entirety of who someone is - the complexity of their entire being - into whatever is between their legs. This is not strictly a problem with media, or with a select few individuals. This is a rampant attitude that is more prevalent now than ever. It is psychological, it is destructive, and it is still very real.

And it has to stop.   

Games That Blew My Mind

When I first started this blog, one of the categories I wanted to include was game reviews. Unlike movie reviews, however, it's difficult to be timely because a) I'm a busy man and can't afford to buy new games very often, b) in order to do a proper review I need to have played the full game first, and c) no one is going to use my opinion as a basis for any purchase, anywhere, ever. And so, much like my articles on movies will no doubt become, my articles on games will probably be more or less commentaries on games I like and that have already been out for awhile. And so, to start 'er off, I present my top five favorite games of all time. Much like my top ten movie list, this is a list of my favorites, not what I consider the greatest games ever. These games hold a special place in my heart for various reasons.


5) Fallout 3

This shouldn't be too much of a surprise, because everyone loved this game. I currently own a PS3 and do most of my gaming on it, but there was a time when I solely had a Nintendo Wii. I had always been an ardent Nintendo supporter, which bit me in the ass stupendously. After the honeymoon phase was over I began to realize that the best the Wii could offer was drastically lacking to a gamer of my demographic. Before I abandoned Nintendo for Sony, I explored my options and found that my computer was actually capable of running pretty high-end games due to a graphics card upgrade I had done years earlier then swiftly forgotten about. Fallout 3 was the first game I subsequently purchased.

And of course, it was amazing. The atmosphere, the degree of choice, the fact that I sank over seventy hours into it without feeling like a crazy person . . . it's an unbelievable experience. And having Liam Neeson voice your father was like adding cherries on top. You could play as you wanted, accomplishing as much or as little mission objectives as possible, and you could help people, ignore them, or shoot them in the face because you don't like how they look at you with that blank expression. Regardless, Fallout 3 was a phenomenal experience.


4) Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn

When the great game exchange did occur in my life (when I traded in my plethora of Nintendo stuff while simultaneously selling my soul to Sony) this was the only game I regretted handing over. What blew me away about this game wasn't the gameplay or the graphics, but the story. I've never been so engaged by a video game story before; it plays out like an intricate novel. Radiant Dawn was a sequel to GameCube's Path of Radiance, and continued that game's narrative in spectacular fashion. Path of Radiance introduced you to a world filled with interesting characters and an intriguing war brewing between humans and half-humans who could transform into animals. There were whispers of gods and prophecies, but it was all simply a tease. Then Radiant Dawn was released and shit hit the fan.

It would be pointless to try and explain the entire plot, but the series managed to accomplish something that few franchises do with credibility, and that's to get me so invested in their stories that when something happens within the world of the game that breaks established lore/mythology within the game's world, it comes as a genuine shock. There were plot twists up the ass, and I was on the edge of my seat throughout the entire 40+ hours of gameplay. This game was truly epic.


3) Resident Evil 4

Again, not much of a surprise here, because a ton of people loved this game. I had never played a Resident Evil game before and I only picked up this game in passing because I was disappointed that another game I'd been looking forward to was cancelled. This was the GameCube days, and I had heard Resident Evil 4 was good, so I got it on a whim and the rest is history.

I'm pretty sure I've played through this game more than any other. What sets it apart from most games for me is that every element is just straight up fun/entertaining. I've done multiple playthroughs playing the exact same way just because of how much I enjoy it. There's a wealth of weapon customization options so you can try new things out each time, the characters and writing are cheesy but loveable, and the most difficult portion of the entire game occurs in the first ten minutes and grips you straight by the balls. This game is pretty much available for every system, so there's no excuse not to have played it.


2) Mass Effect 2

Like Resident Evil 4, I had only initially heard about this game in passing and only picked it up because I was bored and disappointed over something else. I originally purchased this for my PC and hadn't played the first one, but frankly that didn't matter. The entire trilogy is excellent (even if the third one shits the bed a little near the end) but the second installment is my most fondest because it was the first I played and it seemed to balance the best of all elements. I love the relationships you build with your crew, and the story is a science fiction opera in the grandest sense.

Years from now, when people are still debating the merits of whether gaming should be considered an art form/credible way of storytelling, the Mass Effect series will be Exhibit A. The chance BioWare took constructing a trilogy under an entirely new IP was a major risk, but it payed off in spades. Transferring your character and all the choices they'd made through each game gave a sense of grandness other franchises just haven't been able to match, and there's nothing quite like witnessing the fallout in the third game from a decision made years ago in the first.
  

1) Starcraft

I originally played this game on the Nintendo 64, which frankly was like trying to pilot a jumbo jet while wearing oven mits. Years later when I played it on PC, it blew my mind in every conceivable way. I love the mythology of this series, even though the subsequent sequels started to dip into the cheese a bit. What struck me about the first entry though, was how goddamn difficult it was. This game was truly challenging. You could play through the first few levels with ease, but as things gradually got more difficult (especially into the later portions of the expansion, Brood War) each mission became a frenzied, full-night affair.

Completing the more difficult missions was incredibly satisfying. Narrative-wise there were a few hiccups, like building up an empire in one campaign only to swiftly destroy it in the next, but that was the nature of the plot for a game that told the intricate story of aliens and gods and men. Unfortunately, it's difficult to play this game on newer machines due to hardware specifications (although I'm sure there are fixes I'm not aware of) but it shall forever be a shining example of amazing storytelling melded with excellent gameplay and (for its time) cool graphics and freakin' sweet cinematic videos. Blizzard Entertainment, I salute you.  

My Big Ol' Top Ten

Seeing as how I'm going to be blathering on an awful lot about movies, I figured it would be appropriate to make a list of my Top Ten Favorite Films Of All Time. Now, before anyone gets all snippy at me, I need to clarify that these are my most favorite movies at all time. I am not saying I think these are the best movies of all time, because I am a lowly writer and don't have that kind of authority. So, without further ado:


10. The Fountain (2006)

Not many people liked Darren Aronofsky's potently depressing science fiction romance starring Hugh Jackman as a man traveling through time in an attempt to save/be reunited with his wife, played by Rachel Weisz. Aside from Jackman giving the best goddamn performance of his entire career, this film managed to stir up my emotions in ways I didn't think films were capable of doing. The orchestral score by Clint Mansell is absolutely beautiful, and the visuals are stunning, especially the future sequences where Jackman rides his bubble ship through space into a nebula. The entire film feels like an ethereal ode to the all-encompassing notion of real, raw love, and I haven't been so moved by a movie since.


9. The Social Network (2010)

Leave it to David Fincher to somehow turn the story of the founding of Facebook into an entertaining, legitimate drama that never feels boring. The screenplay by Aaron Sorkin is jammed with wit and humor while still hitting the right dramatic notes, and all of the actors turn in great performances. When I first heard about this movie I couldn't understand why Fincher was attached to it, but holy shit folks, did he ever do a magnificent job.


8. Snatch (2000)

This movie is just straight up entertaining as fuck. It contains more colorful characters than you can shake a stick at, the dialogue is spot on and hilarious, and the plot requires several subsequent viewings in order to fully understand who's screwing who over. Brad Pitt gives a memorable performance as a bare knuckle brawler, and it's nice to see Jason Statham in a movie where he isn't capable of murdering a small village worth of people before lunchtime. This film is as close to crack as I can think of in film form, and I love it.  


7. Schindler's List (1993)

Yeah, if you can watch this movie and not be moved to re-evaluating your entire life, then you are a horrible person. Most of the films on this list I could easily watch over and over again, but this one takes such an emotional toll on the viewer that you have to plan that shit in advance and be prepared to be depressed as hell for the next few days. There's something to be said about portraying the horrors of the holocaust and the horrific treatment of Jews through the story of a rich Nazi, but if you're not pumping out the waterworks when Liam Neeson drops to his knees at the end lamenting how he could have saved more people, well . . . I really don't care to know you.


6. The Departed (2006)

Aside from having one of the most memorable opening sequences ever (including a voice over by Jack Nicholson, a Rolling Stone's Song, Matt Damon swearing in a Boston accent, and Leonardo DiCaprio being suave as shit) this film grips you straight by the balls and never lets go. Martin Scorsese's crime drama had me sweating in my seat from the first few minutes straight until the bloodbath at the end. It all fits together so perfectly, and it also taught the world that Alec Baldwin could be taken seriously again, and that Mark Whalberg can bloody well act when he wants to.


5. South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut (1997)

I love the TV show South Park, so it's no surprise I'm equally in love with the feature film. Considering how much history has been created for the series since the film's release (the series is currently in its seventeenth season, the movie was made after the third) it stills holds up with hilarious one-liners and all kinds of inappropriate toilet humor, but it consistently remains smart and edgy. It's also a musical with an equally hilarious soundtrack. Trey Parker and Matt Stone have never shied away from the taboo, and there's very few lines they won't cross, but with this series - and in particular, this film - they manage to walk the fine line between mature commentary and vulgar comedy.


4. Aliens (1986)

This film has become such a part of nerd culture that when the nerd apocalypse finally happens, I won't be surprised to find a giant statue of Bill Paxton erected somewhere. James Cameron's sequel to Ridley Scott's original sci-fi horror masterpiece maintained some of the horror but threw in a lot of action, essentially making it (as the filmmakers have often said) Vietnam in space. The special effect wizardry of Stan Winston is on full display here, and the actual aliens still look credible and scary almost three decades later. This film holds up surprisingly well, and of course Sigourney Weaver's iconic portrayal of Ripley as the quintessential bad ass heroine pretty much invented the female action star.


3. Casino Royale (2006)

I was never really a fan of James Bond until this movie came out. I couldn't get into the series because there seemed to be an overall lack of humanity (I like my protagonists to have flaws, dammit) but this movie had it in spades. Equal parts action and drama with a love story to boot, this film pretty much has everything. Borrowing liberally from the conventions that made the Bourne series with Matt Damon popular, this film also launched Daniel Craig into unconventionally handsome popularity. And in a movie that has some incredible fight sequences (and a goddamn fucking brutal torture scene) the most intense scene is a card game. How awesome is that?


2. The Land Before Time (1988)

If I had to pick one defining movie from my childhood, this would be it. This film is simultaneously adorable, scary, moving, sad as fuck, and (in my humble opinion) a thinly veiled commentary on race relations. Don Bluth's animated masterpiece follows several dinosaur friends as they try and find their lost families and the legendary "Great Valley" after a devastating earthquake, all the while being followed by a strangely sadistic T-Rex. They learn the power of friendship and working together, and I swear, this goddamn movie gets me crying everyone time when Littlefoot loses his mom and again when they finally reach the Great Valley. Fuck all the sequels with their songs, this is the one that started it all and stands as a testament to great children's movies everywhere.  


1. The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Yep, y'all are gonna hate me for this one, but I don't care. I've never been so totally and completely entertained by anything as I have with this film. I saw it five times in theaters and can't stop watching the Blu-Ray. While I'll concede The Dark Knight is a superior film, in terms of the sheer amount of enjoyment I get from watching a movie, this one can't be beat. Watching an aging Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) take on the devilishly menacing Bane (Tom Hardy) eight years after giving up the mantle of the bat with the fate of the whole city at stake is the stuff my fanboy dreams are made of. A supporting cast full of Oscar winners doesn't hurt along with a wonderfully seductive performance by Anne Hathaway as Catwoman. I first saw this movie as part of a midnight screening with the first two films, and seeing them all together had me in tears by the end. I love everything about this movie, and I will fight anyone that has a problem with that.