Wryta Thinkpiece

You Can Be The Boss vs. Ooh Baby

Back to tha Basics vs. Dynamite

Helen Keller.

Kissing Power Wedgies or Wet Willies?

But before anyone could drop their garters... The three were immediately interrupted by Ernesto and Felipe, a pot-smoking feline Mariachi band duo prepared to sing for them the song of their people.

Hit & Run (Demo) vs. Hundred Dollar Bill (Demo)

Zoni Del Rici

I acknowledged the fact that Freud's theories were the building blocks to how we have come to understand childhood development, but as with anything in science, the more that we come to know as technology advances, the more we begin to find fallacies and erroneous areas in our old presumptions. While I won't deny sexuality's possible influence, it is certainly a broad statement to say it is the basis of our personality when environment certainly serves a role, among other things. I'm not saying it's wrong, or that you are, and I never said I personally disagreed with Freud's theories, but I agree to a degree with many of his theories. It's not a matter of "acceptance," only perspective and experience. My sexuality had less to do with what I made of my life and personality than environment and circumstance did. Sure, sexuality can garner the attraction of different circumstances that a person will encounter in their life, but I only think sexuality matters to a degree. Even then I don't think that anything with sexuality should be connoted as a psychological disease where it should be treated with reparative therapy that has been proven to be far more dangerous to the psychological well-being of the person. Freud didn't even believe in treating "sexual deviance," especially in the individual.

Last Girl on Earth vs. I Don't Wanna Go

Saliva.

Vinny Time

There was no research corroborating any of Freud's theories of childhood development. There was no evidential support! Freud's theories and his work served as a contribution to our understanding of childhood development, not a concrete foundation on how it truly works. We all know children are not as sexual as Freud had assumed them to be. Notwithstanding his eccentric theories of childhood development, he also emphasized the interplay between nature and nurture and shed light on the significance of a healthy relationship between parent and child being essential to healthy development. Besides that, modern science has placed the existence of the Oedipus complex in the field of inaccuracy along with Freud's psychosexual theories altogether. This is why Freud's still included in many psychology courses, because while his theories with childhood development are otherwise inaccurate, he had a very strong contribution because he was one of the few of his field to go against the grain, and his first-stage development theory was one of the first to garner such a great amount of attention and curiosity that others in the field of psychology used it as a starting place in their practices, because the most it really was, was somewhere to start with in building an understanding of childhood development. My sources being every psych course I have taken and every psychology textbook I purchased along with this: http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=7926 And on that note, I happened to like Freud, I started with him when I wanted to learn about psychology in middle school, he was one of my favorite doctors because of his eccentricity and abstract theories, but I certainly do not hold him to the highest degree in reliability.

I was going to post the same article, along with a video, before the topic got locked. Thank you, Hundred. Guys, just be wary about how you articulate your opinions. It's not about what's being discussed, as sexuality is a very intricate and interesting topic, and I have had the pleasure of discussing and sharing many different angles of it with many different people. I even came to learn of many sexualities and ways of emotional intimacy that I never even knew possible. This can be a wonderful topic, but regardless of your stance, you have to watch how you're voicing your opinion. I endured some very painful emotional blows on a weekly basis for two years because my brother could not wrap his mind around the concept of sexuality and discuss it maturely, often telling me I needed the same "treatment" as this committee is condoning, labeling me "ill" and "dysfunctional." And maybe it was just me, but I couldn't handle getting treated like that by my brother the same way I could when I got that treatment from my peers after I came out (because, frankly, once I stopped giving a fuck my Freshman year, so did everyone else as far as bullying me went.) I resorted to harming myself as a catharsis exercise to cope with the heartache and grief that hindered me from living my teenage years a little more fully. At twenty-one, I go to therapy (NOT REPARATIVE THERAPY) and visit my doctor monthly, and I'll tell you one thing: My sexuality has not been addressed as an issue by either, the only issue being addressed was that people still viewed it as an issue despite the development of science and society proving otherwise. Needless to say, how this discussion got handled was a bit triggering, and so my point of sharing that painful (and irrelevant-to-a-degree) moment in my life is to remind current partakers/future partakers of this discussion that you are going to be engaging in a very fragile topic and your words will turn into daggers and fists if you do not think about what you are going to say. If you're not going to be careful with how you voice your opinion, and you're not going to back it up with recent sources that support your claim as much as you support it as a fact, then this may not be the topic for you. There are many other people on LB who may have had some rough patches in their life, and things like this can be very triggering if handled incorrectly. It is very easy to be feckless with your words when you don't think about what damage you could do to someone who hears or reads them. BUT NOW BACK ON TOPIC. Reparative therapy to "treat" sexuality does not work because sexuality is not a distortion and it is not an illness; it is wired into your DNA like the amount of certain melanin in your eyes and hair. So as an analogy, you could wear colored contacts or bleach/dye your hair to change what it naturally is, but it doesn't change that these things are not of you. They are manipulations of your image, and reparative therapy does the same exact manipulation to your emotional well-being. Every day you are coming home to yourself with a self-loathing that is the product of the "therapy," the ongoing "treatment" that "keeps you from turning gay/lesbian/bisexual/etc. again." I am a major in psychology and reparative therapy is considered one of the most dangerous and fruitless "forms of therapy" if not a complete mockery of therapy in general. There have been very few cases of a post-reparative therapy patient actually living a happier life, if not no cases at all. It is a dangerous thing, and I question the integrity of any psychologist/psychiatrist who practices and utilizes that form of therapy knowing fully well how damaging it truly is. http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy http://www.splcenter.org/conversion-therapy http://community.pflag.org/page.aspx?pid=503 God knows how many times I had done research all throughout high school and for my psych courses, so I am more than prepared to give more sources.

FUCK. LDR AKA LG Tarzan or Hercules?

It could be. I just don't know if a written interview is any more reliable when it comes to understanding someone's responses as it would be if it was a text-message conversation. It all becomes about interpretation. I could be entirely wrong in how I took the interview, I might very well be, but I figured I'd put it out there either way.

I don't know why it's becoming "worrisome" that Lana appears to have a multi-dimensional personality. While I love when Lana's humble and sweet, interviews like this are delicious to the brain because it's fresh. It's human. It's what a majority of the media asked for when they said she was just an emotionless doll. I don't see much of a different Lana, I've read a few similar interviews from a few months back, so I'm not sure what is really the problem with some of her responses. I laughed with her, I took humor out of a lot of her cynical responses. I don't know, I read this a lot differently than it seems others have. Everything just seemed very casual and facetiously "uppity" to me, while also keeping the "I don't give a fuck" rather real and clear. That's all I see here, just someone with substance whose feelings are raw and uninhibited. Which is as they should be. I don't think it's her growing an ego, I think it's just her getting her backbone back and being able to articulate her feelings fearlessly without feeling like she owes the world someone sweet and lily-livered. Sorry, I'll take a Lana who can be humble some times while giving the critics a clear middle finger while she spills salt in their wounds with a smug smirk on the occasion. She may be talking about how it's affected her, but if you look at where she is now compared to what a lot of articles and reviews had to say about her, all of it sounds very "Look who's laughing now?" Even when she says that she is disconnected from other artists. I don't think there's anything uppity or egotistical about that. So many artists have had the same answer, she's no exception. You do get to that point as an artist that you start feeling like you identify more with yourself and your experiences than you do the experiences of other artists and the work they did based on those experiences. She's growing self-sufficient as an artist. And she sees that other artists just aren't doing the same thing. I don't know, I didn't grab anything worth breaking a sweat over. She's complex and sometimes her feelings are conflicting, that says a lot more than most artists and human beings. She has substance, it just isn't always the sweet, soft-spoken kind. And I like it that way. She's fallen in shit and walked out in gold so many times, sometimes modesty just isn't warranted. It especially isn't warranted when you've taken every article and review about you to the chin so many times. Lana should be entitled to saying "Fuck them, I know what I do and I do it great." There isn't enough of that. Right away so many people chalk it up to having an inflated ego. It can never be just being secure in your craft, loving what you do and knowing that you do it well; I mean, who does that? You've got to be an idiot if you don't stay on the ground long enough to let everyone else throw a few extra kicks on you before sticking their thumb in the air like they're Caesar, like their opinion of your talent is all that can validate your existence or worth as an artist. (CUE THE EYEROLL) ... Get real. Every time an artist finally starts being more self-assertive and fending for themselves and all the time they invested into their work, right away no one wants it anymore. I'm sick of insecure artists. And this isn't to anyone here, this is just a random rant, I'm just growing as tired of the "Where's Lana gone?" kind of responses as I've gotten of what most of the general public and the media in America has had to say about her like as if they have not let a single talented soul slip through their fingers in the past decade. Lana hasn't gone anywhere, she's just not cherry-picking what thoughts she wants to showcase for her interviews. And I fucking praise that.

Twitter! Ms. Piggy or Ruben Studdard?

Gods & Monsters vs. You & Me

Courtney Stodden.

Backfire vs. Dynamite

Goddamn, you all know how to give tough choices to make. Queen of the Gas Station vs. Jimmy Gnecco

OMFGYESOMFGEVERYTHING But oh my god, WHY IS ROLL NOT IN THE ROSTER?

I don't know what it is about you, I just know it's not what it was; I don't know why red fades before blue, It just does.

Either the live performance of "Without You" at Noveau Casino, or "Hollywood's Dead." There was never a better "Without You," studio, demo or live,than the Noveau Casino version.

I really can't just take both and get the Eiffel Tower? Beard or tattoos...I have never been so conflicted in my whole life. Barrie-James. Would you rather sit on a seat-less bike for five miles or skip around a ballroom floor that was covered in thumb tacks?