Faggots & Whores

Lately, I've noticed these two words making a weird metamorphosis. It reminds me of the N word and all of the changes it's gone through. I don't think either of these words have the historical sting and bite that the N word has but they're getting there. Growing up, I knew these definitions: Faggot- A homosexual man, Whore- A woman who gets paid for sex. Lately these words have shifted in their meaning. Faggot still has the horrible homophobia foundation, but a added twist has been it's use to describe a weak man. As a matter of fact, that is the way that I hear it used most often. But what does that say about our perception of gay men? Do we instinctively think they are weak because they are gay? Is a feminine man, any less of a man than a macho one? I take great pride in being a man and I've chosen to define a man by action and intention, instead of biology and bravado. Unfortunately, society differs. A man with a limp wrist or one who enjoys the intimate company of another man is considered less of a man; than one who beats his woman or doesn't protect or provide for his family.
Whore is even worse. This word is used to instantly bring a woman down. A woman would be called a if she had only slept with one person and didn't charge. I've seen this happen more than once. I woman could just be suspected of sleeping with some one and that next time she is seen out, she is greeted with, "You whore!" In that example, the woman doesn't even have to be sleeping with anyone to get the slur hurled at her.
It brings me to the conclusion that society has morphed these words in order to point out that the quickest way to hurt a man is to attack his strength, and the quickest way to hurt a woman is to attack her morals. Both are cruel and hurtful words, both strip away the human-ness from a person, and both paint the accuser with a extra thick coat of ignorance. But that's just my opinion though, and who the hell am I?

Ain't This A Female Dog

PETA Killed 95 Percent of Adoptable Pets in its Care During 2008
Hypocritical Animal Rights Group’s 2008 Disclosures Bring Pet Death Toll To 21,339

WASHINGTON DC – Today the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) published documents online showing that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed 95 percent of the adoptable pets in its care during 2008. Despite years of public outrage over its euthanasia program, the animal rights group kills an average of 5.8 pets every day at its Norfolk, VA headquarters.
According to public records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 2,124 pets last year and placed only seven in adoptive homes. Since 1998, a total of 21,339 dogs and cats have died at the hands of PETA workers.
Despite having a $32 million budget, PETA does not operate an adoption shelter. PETA employees make no discernible effort to find homes for the thousands of pets they kill every year. Last year, the Center for Consumer Freedom petitioned Virginia’s State Veterinarian to reclassify PETA as a slaughterhouse.
CCF Research Director David Martosko said: “PETA hasn’t slowed down its hypocritical killing machine one bit, but it keeps browbeating the rest of society with a phony ‘animal rights’ message. What about the rights of the thousands of dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens that die in PETA’s headquarters building?”
Martosko added: “Since killing pets is A-OK with PETA, why should anyone listen to their demands about eating meat, using lab rats for medical research, or taking children to the circus?”
CCF obtained PETA’s “Animal Record” filings since 1998 from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Members of the public can see these documents at PetaKillsAnimals.com.
(Skeptical? Click here to see the documents.)
In addition to exposing PETA’s hypocritical record of killing defenseless animals, the Center for Consumer Freedom has publicized the animal rights group’s ties to violent activists, and shed light on its aggressive message-marketing to children.

Thanks for hipping me to this, Pops. I pray to God that someone holds them accountable. The most amazing scenario would be if Michael Vick would somehow be on their jury. Someone should douse their headquarters with red paint. But that's just my opinion though, and who the hell am I?

Love Definition

My friend Roberta hipped me to a definition of love that she got from a site about three years ago. I dig it.

"Love is knowing all about someone, and still wanting to be with them more than any other person, love is trusting them enough to tell them everything about yourself, even the things you might be ashamed of, love is feeling comfortable and safe with someone, but still getting weak knees when they walk into a room and smile at you."

Feel free to post your own definition. I think I'm gonna adopt this one. But that's just my opinion though, and who the hell am I?