"We are living in the future; we don't need anything. I don't think I'll have to, but we'll see. I'm not anti-men. I love men. But there is an option if someone doesn't present himself."
Katy Perry feels wonderful.
ADDED: I'd have felt wonderful too, if anyone had noticed my Talking Heads allusion. I'd be tipping over backwards.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३९ टिप्पण्या:
Fish. Barrel. No challenge. No thanks.
This always drives me crazy. At what time in history did people at the time consider themselves to be living in anything but the most modern of times?
"Come on, it's 1014!," said some 30 year old singer somewhere, before she realized she was just living in 2014's olden times.
I bet she does.
I would imagine that after reading this a lot of men are going to present themselves. Well, maybe not men, but certainly dudes.
I don't quite understand what her point is. What does a gay couple raising a child together have to do with whether she decides to raise a child on her own? Is she saying that the gay couple will agree to act as a surrogate "man" in her life and "father" for her child?
It's very unclear. Is she just saying that nontraditional families can be successful, as demonstrated by the gay couple, and therefore whatever arrangement she chooses has to be presumed successful?
It's 2014 and everything's different. But 2032 will be just the same.
She may not need a "dude," but kids are better off with two partnered parents than a single mom (or dad) -- even a rich one.
2014 is the year of test tube babies. While several million more are flushed down the toilet or abandoned. Oh, well. This is what pseudo-normative men and women want.
She's pretty.
You know what I say? God bless. Good luck to you!
Rent-a-womb for Neil or David. Rent-a-sperm donor for Katy. So progressive.
I like Chris Rock's comment on how "you don't need a man" to have a baby: you can drive a car with your feet if you want to, that doesn't make it a good fuckin' idea.
Hopefully she'll be able to clone herself someday in the future.
"present himself"?
And one wonders why she's single.
Nothing is a step up from Russel Brand.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
I would imagine that after reading this a lot of men are going to present themselves. Well, maybe not men, but certainly dudes.
7/31/14, 5:27 PM
This dude would present himself repeatedly!
She's almost certainly right. She doesn't need a dude. Not these days.
The kid might, though. If that's any kind of a consideration.
Who is Katy Perry and why do I care?
Oops, I just revealed my age and political leanings.
"I don't need to post comments. I mean, Crack's and Freeman Hunt's are beautiful. I have a blog, welcome comments, but only I read them! They're moderated! It's 2014!"
""I don't need a dude. I mean, Neil and David, their twins are beautiful. It's 2014!...We are living in the future; we don't need anything. I don't think I'll have to, but we'll see. I'm not anti-men. I love men. But there is an option if someone doesn't present himself""
If the someone who presents himself isn't a super-fucking-genius, her kids are going to be riding the short bus.
She is right. She doesn't need a dude.
Now her children on the other hand....
How sad what we've done to ourselves. Now we think its just fine depriving children, on purpose. of a mother or a father. Terrible.
Hopefully she'll be able to clone herself someday in the future.
One per customer.
Guaranteed not to speak.
neil and David's twins? How did they get those? Was one the baby daddy or where they adopted.
Like it or not, we still need a man and a woman to have a baby.
Katy Perry has to worry more about her biological clock than finding a man. If she wants a baby she has a window, is all I'm saying.
@maybee.
Me. I felt as a kid I was living in archaic times. The TOYS!! They didn't DO anything. The most "electronic" were all boys' toys leading my mother to worry and try to force baby dolls on me when all I wanted was something that responded in the real world outside my imagination. Even the early computers In jus and hs I felt were archaic and obscenely rudimentary.
What I wanted, of course, was a fully functional ipad,
I still feel I'm living in archaic times as far as political / societal structures, but then you can't build a state of the art spy plane out of wood and lead, and human beings are still the raw material we have to work with.
"If you're African American, there's about a one-in-two chance you grew up without a father in your house. If you're Latino, you have about a one-in-four chance. We've become numb to the statistics." -- President Barack Obama
So has Katy Perry
jr565:
Rent-a-womb. It's 2014.
Incidentally, Katy can rent-a-womb, too. It's tres chic in 2014.
To be fair to Neil and David, and Katy, too, the normalization of rent-a-womb and donor happened with technological progress long ago.
Anyway, the biological and social experiments must continue.
"Katy Perry feels wonderful."
And I care why again?
My takeaway is that Rolling Stone is more useless and irrelevant than I could have ever imagined. I was only slightly aware that it even existed any more, but never thought it had become completely lightweight.
""Katy Perry feels wonderful." And I care why again?"
Because you, of all readers, had a shot at catching my Talking Heads allusion.
I only buy Rolling Stone for the pictures.
"Me. I felt as a kid I was living in archaic times. The TOYS!! They didn't DO anything. The most "electronic" were all boys' toys leading my mother to worry and try to force baby dolls on me when all I wanted was something that responded in the real world outside my imagination. Even the early computers In jus and hs I felt were archaic and obscenely rudimentary."
I think we all felt that way - but there were some very smart kids in our generation, or maybe a little older, who grew up and actually built those toys. The iPad, and the X-Box and all these other fantastic toys that I can still enjoy as an adult and share with my kids. Of course, my kids probably think they're lame because there's no direct neural interface or something. But no worries, because somewhere there are really smart kids who are working on that too.
When I was a kid I also really thought there should be Star Wars Lego, and now there is. And my sons and I are going to spend part of this weekend building some. It doesn't get better than that.
Hopefully she'll be able to clone herself someday in the future.
Actually, quietly and without (much) fanfare, in the last year human cloning has been achieved.
Katy Perry has to worry more about her biological clock than finding a man.
Another long-standing biological fact that is in the process of quickly becoming inoperative. In the last couple of years stem cells have been discovered that can grow into wholly new (and young!) eggs.
Like it or not, we still need a man and a woman to have a baby.
Except that the same stem cell technologies that soon will make it possible for a woman to make fresh, new eggs for herself, may well also allow men to make eggs (that are genetically thers!) and women sperm (ditto).
"may well also allow men to make eggs"
Or may not.
"We are living in the future." Ah, I get it.
First time I have ever heard that song. Good tune. However, when I think of "Katy Perry" and "Talking Heads" in the same sentence that does not involve a "not" or an "unlike", the song that comes to mind is this one.
And when I think of "living in the future" the song that comes to mind is this one.
She doesn't need a dude, eh? So, it's all about her, not what her child might need. Typical.
"may well also allow men to make eggs"
Or may not.
I was going to write back at the time this thread was active and say something like — “‘Or may not’ indeed, but how are you going to bet?” — but I did not then make that additional point. Now we see that it only took a half of year for that seemingly incredible feat to be accomplished. Whether we like it or not, we live in a science fiction world.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा