Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Gender Issues

Time for an honest debate about rape statistics

UVA Rape Protests

I’m sure we’ve all heard about the bogus statistics touted by Radical Feminists about 1-in-5 college students being raped and thought “That’s bullshit”, but as good rationalists, who prefer to make their arguments based upon evidence, didn’t have up-to-date data on which to reject the Rad Fem narrative.

Well – the US Department of Justice have recently published updated data and even with the distortions of modern rape reporting basically says “That’s bullshit”.

new report on sexual assault released today by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officially puts to bed the bogus statistic that one in five women on college campuses are victims of sexual assault. In fact, non-students are 25 percent more likely to be victims of sexual assault than students, according to the data. And the real number of assault victims is several orders of magnitude lower than one-in-five.

The full study, which was published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a division within DOJ, found that rather than one in five female college students becoming victims of sexual assault, the actual rate is 6.1 per 1,000 students, or 0.61 percent (instead of 1-in-5, the real number is 0.03-in-5). For non-students, the rate of sexual assault is 7.6 per 1,000 people.

College Students Are Actually Less Likely To Be Victimized

Actual rape is a terrible crime which I condemn utterly, but the divisive way that Rad Fem’s are using rape to push their false narrative of rape culture is quite literally tearing Western society apart, to such an extent that even when actual rapes occur and a woman’s life is destroyed, a growing portion of the male population is increasingly suspicious, due to the “Cry Wolf” problem.

College reactions to criticism and political interference from the Obama Whitehouse are only exacerbating matters, specifically when you have “targets for dealing with on campus rape” and it is already in reality as rare as hens teeth, you inevitably end up creating a McCarthyist environment in which all males are treated with suspicion and College Kangaroo Courts hold inquiries which would put Stalin to shame.

If this continues, then we will see US Colleges, which are already overwhelmingly female,  become virtual deserts of male presence, some of which is exacerbated by the ever increasing costs of a US university education and the fact that there are far more programs and scholarships available to women and especially minority women than there are men.

Is this how the US finally goes into decline, because of a false narrative proposed by people like Anita Sarkeesian and supported by the Obama Whitehouse? Will the 2020′s return segregation to the US in the form of mandated male and female colleges?

I certainly hope not.

The DOJ Report in Full

The top management of Tesco supermarkets are cowards who have given in to demands for censorship.

The often attacked British press is, in reality, one of the glories of this country. In the United States the normal pattern is for there to be a single dominate newspaper in a town or city and for it to reflect the “liberal” left ideology of the education system (the “Schools of Journalism” and so on) – with, by and large, the only choices being to read the leftist line, presented as “objective, scientific, journalism” or read no newspaper. There is the New York Post, which gives an alternative view of New York and other matters, and the financial and business newspaper the Wall Street Journal (both owned by Rupert Murdoch – which is why the totalitarian left hate him, as he is basically all that stands in their way of gaining a leftist monopoly in the press), but there is little other dissent. Just as on television basically the only dissent from the leftist line is “Fox News” (also owned by Mr Murdoch) with all other television stations reflecting the leftist line.

In the United Kingdom things are very different. There are many newspapers on the left – such as the “I” and the “Independent” and the “Guardian” and the “Daily Mirror” and the “Financial Times” (anyone who thinks a financial and business newspaper can not be on the left has never met the “FT”), but there are also many newspapers on the “right” (in the conservative or old style liberal sense – not the socialist Fascist sense) – such as the “Daily Telegraph”, the “Express”, the “Daily Mail” and the “Sun”. However, annoying the press may be at times this diversity in the press is one of the glories of this country and people who hate it are like people who hate the Queen or Winston Churchill – they really hate Britain.

The left, at least the totalitarian left, seek constantly to destroy the free press in the United Kingdom. For example with the financial backing of, son of Fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley, Max Mosley (who won a libel case against being accused of being involved in a Nazi themed prostitute event – although he was involved in a Nazi themed prostitute event, work-that-one-out), the left ran a campaign against the newspapers. The left also used a claim in the Guardian newspaper that employees of the Sun newspaper had deleted messages on a murdered girl’s mobile telephone (a claim that turned out to be FALSE – they did “hack” the telephone, in the hope of getting information that would help them crack the case, but they did NOT delete any messages) to get Prime Minister Cameron’s government to impose some censorship on the press. “Hacking” mobile telephones was already illegal (and was done at least as much by Daily Mirror people as by Sun people – but the left does not care about that), and the new censorship rules will not make “hacking” any more illegal – but the left’s objective is censorship, the case of the murdered little girl was just a means-to-an-end to the totalitarian left. And Mr Cameron went along with some of what they wanted (partly because he was embarrassed at employing a person who had once been involved in telephone “hacking” himself) – and he should be ashamed of that.

It should be pointed out that the “Sun” and the, now closed down,”News of the World” are-were Rupert Murdoch newspapers. The leftist campaign against them was nothing to do with them “hacking” telephones more than the leftist “Daily Mirror” people did (they did not “hack” more than Daily Mirror people did) – it was a way of attacking Mr Murdoch, whom (as I have already pointed out) the left see as the main barrier in their way of creating a leftist monopoly in the media of the United States – yes the campaign in Britain was really, in part, about the United States.

However, evil never sleeps and the left have moved on. Far left activist groups have now pushed the management of Waitrose and Tesco supermarkets to physically cover up newspapers.

What exactly has the Tesco chain of supermarkets agreed to do? They have agreed to cover up all but the titles of newspapers that are on sale. The totalitarian leftist activist groups have claimed this will “protect” children (it is always “the children”) from seeing bare breasts. However, women with no tops on are a tradition of page THREE of the Sun newspaper – not the front page, there are no bare breasts on the front page (although there are bare breasts on show in art galleries – no doubt the totalitarian left will now try and get paintings and statues banned, at least if “the children” are their real concern……..).

The cat is let out of the bag by the boasts from the totalitarian left of getting “offensive” headlines covered up – not “just” photographs, HEADLINES.

This makes it clear what this campaign is really about – it is about suppressing, literally “covering up”, any OPINION the left does not like. It is the same sort of thing as the Frankfurt School of Marxism “Political Correctness” or “Critical Theory” that now dominates the education system – turning students into brainwashed zombies who will not tolerate any non “Progressive” opinions.

The evil groups behind the censorship of the press campaign are tiny – organisations such as “Child’s Eyes” and “Stop Page Three” have few members, they could not win any elections. But they do not have to enforce their totalitarian desires by winning elections – not when they are dealing with spineless cowards.

Tesco supermarkets, like so many corporations, is a bureaucracy without any real powerful individual share owners any more. The hired managers are responsible to other hired managers (at Pension Funds and so on – institutional share owners) and they basically want a “quiet life” – they have no passion for what they do, and they have no courage, no principles for which they will risk their jobs. Besides they are mostly ex university students – with all the leftist indoctrination (brainwashing) that a modern school and university “education” implies.

These hired managers at Tesco face ruthless leftist fanatics – who are prepared to do anything, anything at all, to enforce their desire for censorship, so the easy thing to do is to SUBMIT. And, besides, with their “educated” background a lot of the managers half agree with the leftist fanatics – with the totalitarian bullyboy (and bullygirl) censors.

It is difficult not to despair.

Belgium bans Sexism – Good luck with that…

femme-de-la-rue

In 2012, Sophie Peeters moved to Brussels to undertake a film course and found herself shocked by the casual sexism and street harassment she encountered, to such an extent that she made a film about it “Femme De La Rue” (well what did you expect a film student to do? write a poem?)

In the film, she walks round her neighbourhood wearing jeans and a cardigan and then a knee-length summer dress and flat boots. A hidden camera shows that both times, men – from youths to groups of older men on cafe terraces – leer, cat-call and proposition her. She is called “whore”, “slut”, “bitch” and told that she looks up for sex. One man follows her saying she should come to his house or a hotel room. She says she gets this kind of comment eight to 10 times a day.

Belgium film on street harassment strikes a chord across Europe

I will not attempt to condone or underplay the harassment she encounters and documents, as it is both genuine and repulsive, but as per typical in these sort of circumstances, the cries of “something must be done” becomes music to the ears of politicians on the make, especially in Belgium where they are still embarrassed by their inability to form a government after the 2010 elections.

So instead of saying to the local police commissioner “Oy! Matey. Do your bloody job” and clampdown on this unacceptable behaviour using the numerous existing laws on the statute books that these people are in breech of, they come up with the usual “all encompassing solution” which is like a sledgehammer to crack a nut and threatens massive intrusions into free speech that are already under attack. (more…)

Maybe Women are Some Good after All?

But really, they should also include K-9 officers and enlisted.

From Clash Daily, via Weaselzippers, who got it from WSJ, where it’s only available to subscribers:

BOOM: Kurds Send All-Female Soldiers To Fight ISIS, The Reason Why is Hilarious

Posted on August 21, 2014

Kurdish women are bad-ass. You’ll never guess why they’re the ones on the frontline’s against ISIS. Check this out…

The Kurds have adopted a rather unique strategy for not only eliminating their targets, but also humiliating them along the way.

According to WZ, Kurds are deploying whole units comprised of female fighters to the front line, which has boosted their recruitment numbers, and given them a psychological edge over ISIS. One female fighter explained why the Kurds have decided to put women in the thick of the battle, and it’s sure to make radical Islamists go crazy.

“The jihadists don’t like fighting women, because if they’re killed by a female, they think they won’t go to heaven.”

Awesome. The Kurds have an understanding of what it will take to stop ISIS, and it isn’t peace talks or goodwill offerings. It’s bombs, bullets, and brute force.

Was it worth it?

We go to war for reasons. For resources, for land, for the hell of it. Sometimes for the very survival of civilization.

The last is the only one I fully back. Now Saddam was vile bastard beyond all possible redemption. Am I sad that he isn’t walking this goodly Earth? No. But…

Iraq (twinned with Iran and Irate) is planning to allow 8 year old girls to get married and also to abolish marital rape.

Nigh on 5000 US personnel have died* for the great task of enabling the freedom of preverts in Iraq to shag girls who haven’t had their first menstrual period. Eight year old girls want to play with dollies** and Lego and stuff. In my country (and the US and all the others) if you have sex with an eight year old girl you go to jail. You get put in the Sir Jimmy Saville Memorial Wing for a very long time. Rightly so.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am not a pacifist. If my land was under threat you’d have to drag me kicking and screaming from the seat of a Typhoon fighter. And, well everywhere I go I visit war memorials. I know my family members have killed and died so basically I can mooch around Europe without a rifle and bayonet. Now that was an appalling cost but it achieved something worthwhile. The legalisation of rape and kiddie-fiddling is not such a cause. It is not one for me or any right thinking person to get their boots on for.

And what right-minded person wants to have sex with a girl that age anyway? Utter sick bastards. They require treatment. I prescribe two spoons and a rusty farming implement. I mean if you don’t and can’t regard the man or woman you have sex with as an equal with absolute agency then what is the point?

We have enabled utter barbarism at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives either wiped out or maimed.

Or to misquote from the end speech at the end of the movie “300″, “We haven’t – at enormous financial, material and human cost singularly failed to ‘rescue a World from mysticism and tyranny’”.

*And a load of Brits and others and God knows how many wounded. And I have recently been watching Prince Harry taking a team of wounded soldiers across the Antarctic. Good on the fella but the wounds are tragic. On folks so young. It is heartbreaking.

**There is a very specific reason I mention this. Aisha was 8 when married to the middle-aged Muhammed.

The consequence of bias in divorce

Walking Away

I had an interesting conversation with my friend Jon in the UK the other day, in which he sat down to have a heart-to-heart with his nephew and essentially told him “Don’t get married“.

Although this was in the context of a particular, rather neurotic young lady, his argument was in a wider sense that it is no longer in the rational self interest of a man to enter into marriage with any women as the consequences of making a bad decision are catastrophic for both parties, but more so financially and emotionally for the man due to the inherent bias of Western divorce laws.

(more…)

Grab the Popcorn folks!

Keep Calm and wear your hijab

Imagine the scenario, a guy studying at a university asks his professor not to share study groups with any females (why? “because…penis”, obviously). This being a university in a modern western democracy obviously he was told “No”, because that would be sexist, and obviously no male, liberal college professor is going to risk his tenure against the massed hoards of feminists that exist in pretty much every western university.

The problem comes when the student says “because I’m a Muslim”, then all of a sudden the whole liberal ideology comes crashing down around their ankles because two pets of liberalism (feminism and Islam) are now crashing together with their respective demands.

Now, fair play to Professor Paul Grayson of York University in Toronto, because he told the student “No” straight out and in fairness to the student he said “Oh, OK”. The fun part is that the university itself is now telling the Professor that it is not okay and he has to respect the students religious beliefs.

Cue rapidly escalating liberal apocalypse as the inherent contradictions of their support for feminism comes into direct conflict with Muslim totalitarianism, chickens coming home to roost seems an apt metaphor.

Link to CBS Canada Report

*crunch* *crunch* – Hmm! Tasty!

Kenyan fiddling with a kid.

Sex attacker is confronted by his victim in Kenyan court… a female GOAT (and he is jailed a record ten years for ‘defiling’ it)

defiling the goat? He’s not precisely covered himself in glory has he either? I mean it might have been a very attractive goat – to other goats but… it’s a goat.

A man who was jailed for 10 years for having sex with a female goat came face-to-face with his victim in a Kenyan court.

The goat watched quietly from the corner of the court room in Malindi while Katana Kitsao Gona, 28, was jailed for bestiality.

I’m really not sure about this story. It is quite possibly the first time he came (oh, er missus!) face to face with said beast. My vague understanding (and I could be very wrong) is the only critters who have sex face-to-face are humans and bonobos. Personally I don’t think he ought to have got chokey. Surely the stare of the goat* and his naming and shaming is enough? I mean that happened a few years back to a bloke from Hull who was caught molesting a goat by a railway line. He was fined (the goat was deemed OK by police vets) rather than ten years in the tank but his career was ruined. He was a chef. Well, who is going to employ a chef who sodomizes goats? And it is sodomy by pretty much any rational definition. Call me odd and all but sex with another human regardless of gender is like whatever. Shagging a goat is basically not OK. Do I have to explain why? And why the Mail has to state prominently that it was a female goat is beyond me. I suppose you just shouldn’t shag the nanny.

Anyway, on with this tale of utter depravity…

According to Jimmy Kimaru, chief prosecutor, Gona was caught sexually assaulting the goat in a bush.

It really doesn’t get better than that. Some of us dream of Brad Pitt or Keira Knightley on a Caribbean beach and some of us fuck goats in the backwoods of Kenya. Admittedly a female goat but quite frankly that doesn’t make a quantum of WTF to me. And why did this vile crime happen?

Gona, who pleaded guilty, told the court his wife is disabled and depends on him daily. Despite this, the judge jailed him for a record 10 years for ‘defiling’ the animal.

Well, as I said before some crimes are in a sense their own punishment. This is a very libertarian stance. Would you employ the goat-fucker of Malindi? No and neither would I. If you were his wife would you not seek a divorce? Obviously you would! There is not a court on the planet that would deny you. I mean an affair with another human might be forgiven but screwing a goat in a bush is simply unforgivable.

And now we get onto arguably the meat of the deal. I think the Dr Who character of Captain Jack is interesting. He is frequently described as “bisexual” but he is is actually “omnisexual” and I think calls himself that. So why does that matter here? He fancies males and females of every bipedal, thinking, speaking race in the Universe. OK, I’m fine with that but a goat is different. What is clever about Captain Jack is a couple of things. The first is there is very little hint in Dr Who of interspecies pregnancies (I’m gonna get called on that) and in that respect it is much more on the biological money than Star Trek (score one for the Brits!) but it acknowledges that sex is not just about procreation. And it acknowledges another thing. If one accepts that (and some don’t) then you have to face a tricky question and Captain Jack answers it very well. He is prepared to fancy different species so therefore he can’t see gender as that important. I think that is interesting. Obviously Captain Jack would never fuck a goat but he kissed both The Doctor and Rose. I guess what I’m getting at is that interspecies sex is acceptable in a fantasy setting (think Beren and Luthien) iff (not an sp) the species are roughly comparable and able to give informed consent and stuff. In short an Elven princess is one thing and a goat is quite, quite different.

Seeing as there is a species difference either way I’m not entirely sure if I can make a solid point here and I have to just really on the “yuk” factor to a certain extent here but… let’s face it making love to Arwen in the Royal Bedchamber of Minas Tirith beats the Hellskis out of goat-fucking in a bush in Kenya.

Pretty much anything beats that. The last time I had a filling beats that.

Quotes from The Mail.

*Goats have nasty stares. I recall an incident on a Greek island in the ’90s when I was surrounded by goats and the leader of the pack – a big billy with horns poised at my scrotum gave me a vile stare. I thought it about to charge and de-bollock me but then the goatherd turned-up. I have rarely if ever been more pleased with a Greek fellow entering stage left. I had also accidentally nearly troden on a snake about ten minutes before which was seriously nonplussed. Beautiful island but full of things that wanted to kill me.

Shieldmaidens.

From wikipedia

When Leif Ericson’s pregnant half-sister Freydís Eiríksdóttir was in Vinland, she is reported to have taken up a sword, and, bare-breasted, scared away the attacking Native Americans. The fight is recounted in the Greenland saga, though Freydís is not explicitly referred to as a shieldmaiden in the text.

Jebus wept! A pregnant half-naked Viking woman charging you with a sword. I’d run away. And do it screaming like a 1D fan. That one must have been emotional. And yeah I’d well call her a shieldmaiden.

I am no man.

The idea that women can’t or don’t fight is bizarre. Anyone who feels that way ought to have met some of my ex-girlfriends or Freydis with her tits out and a sword in hand. No, my domestics never got quite that dramatic. We had knives or hammers at extremis but that was all.

But by buggery, charging bare-breasted with a sword. Respect!

That is fucking top quality. It really is.

I have done questionable things. What I haven’t done is ran like a total mentalist with my 34Ds out whilst wielding a sword.

I kinda wish I had.

A Balanced Contribution

Further to SaoT’s “not a debate” thread (which I have no issue with) and referring in particular to the last sentence of Robert Edwards’ comment:

The sad truth is that some birds are, as you say, ‘easier on the eye’ than others, so good luck to them; it must be q. rough being a munter, but those are the breaks, I’m afraid…

I’m afraid I can’t let Robert’s gauntlet lie unmolested.

You see, I’m no oil painting.  Neither are most of the women in my family.  We are all Plain Janes and therefore, if you accept Robert’s point of view, munters.  We do, however, possess brains, personality and, in the main, senses of humour.  We are also, by and large, with a slight emphasis on the large in my case, successful.  I don’t feel, or have ever felt, hard done by in the looks department.  Despite the lack of visually stunning facial attributes I still managed to bag a successful man.  A design engineer in fact.  We have a comfortable, if modest life together, we live in a nice area and after almost thirty years of marriage he still treats me like the sun shines out of my every orifice.  The lack of any kind of easy on the eye beauty ideal has never held me back so no, it isn’t q. rough being a munter.

I was a beautiful baby and have the pics to prove it.  However, I didn’t live up to the early promise.  Never gave it a second thought because you see, I could beat the pants off the pretty, giggly girly girls when it came to smarts.  Boys, make-up and fashion have never featured on my conversational radar because I would much sooner watch paint dry.  Like the bulk of the female population I don’t envy good looks and I’m of the opinion that if you’ve got it then why not flaunt it.  And, as Robert says, good luck to those who do.  If they want to decorate some bloke’s arm or use their physical attributes to sell goods or catch a well to do hubby then go for it and go for it hard because there is a shelf life to beauty unless you want to go the way of the scalpel.  Smarts last a hell of a lot longer.

I’ve seen pretty girls bed hop like sex crazed frogs in the hope of catching the man of their dreams.  It never seemed to quite work out for them and all they got was a rep for being easy; popular but not wifely material.  I never had to do that to catch a bloke but it isn’t because I’m a munter and no one ever asked me.  I wouldn’t lower myself.  In fact I feel sorry for the lasses who believe they have to flit from bloke to bloke in order to work their way up the social ladder.  I got there through sheer hard graft and using my noggin.  My significant other half came along later.  However it was my well fitted uniform skirt over suspenders (it was bloody hot in the summer of 1976) that initially snagged him.  Right after I nicked him for speeding…

I might be a munter in the eyes of some but I’m not some hairy-lipped, envious as hell, face that sucked a thousand lemons femiloon.  I scorn the harridans who dictate how a gorgeous lass should behave.  How very dare they vilify any woman with the guts to strut her stuff.  They should give us all a break, STFU and go shave their armpits.

Having said that I have a confession to make.

If some fairy godmother popped up and offered to make me easy on the eye as well a keep my intelligence I’d jump at it.  Who wouldn’t want the best of both worlds?  However, if the same FG offered beauty at the expense of 25% of my IQ I’d tell her where to stick her wand.  You see I prize intelligence more than looks.  As for todays female role models – gawd help us!  I’ll never be inspired by or aspire to be a Cheryl Cole, a Jordan or a WAG.  The very idea of living a life like that leaves me cold.  I’d sooner put out my eyes than read about them or watch them.  They have no interest for me.  I’m far more interested in politics, science, shooting clay and off-roading.

Being a munter is no bar to ambition.  All you need to do is look at Charlie Jug-ears’ squeeze.  She might look rough but that didn’t stop her hooking the heir to the throne.

Being plain ordinary isn’t a burden.  Lacking the ability to turn heads never killed me nor turned me into an envious bitch.  My existence isn’t rough by any stretch of the imagination.  Munter is just a name.  I shall wear it with pride because I had to fight for what I have.  It didn’t get offered to me because I have perky boobs and a face that the Royal Navy could use to supplement their depleted fleet.  If individuals need to pigeonhole me as a munter because nature didn’t grace me with a certain type of physiology then it says more about them than about me.  I inhabit the middle ground, a place between stunning and munter.  And let me tell you, it’s bloody crowded.

Diane Abbott partly to blame for breakdown in joined-up thinking.

She’s at it again!  Diane Abbott flaps her gums and spews weapons grade bollocks.  According to the headline she reckons that broken families, obesity and alcoholism are partly down to people like…erm…herself.

Scratches head.  That can’t be right, can it?

Oh, wait, this is what she said…

Ms Abbott, the shadow public health minister, urged the left to recognise that problems such as obesity and alcoholism, often stem from such breakdown.

Or can be the cause of them perhaps?  But let’s not let that little worm of a fact get in the way of HMS Titanic Diane as her hulk chugs magisterially into yet another iceberg of leftist folly.  Let’s not forget stuff like this.  The State runs its own lucarative sideline in busting up families because Nanny knows best and not always for the better.

Feminists should be able to talk about these issues and they should not be confined to the pages of women’s magazines, she argued.

That’s all we need, more vapid pedlars of leftist, man-hating, groupthink twaddle in the mainstream.  Thanks, Diane.

She told The Guardian newspaper: “As a feminist, perhaps we have been ambivalent about families.

Actually, your party has done it’s level best to make sure that the State interferes in family life at the most basic level, usurping the authority of parents.  What are you, Hatty and your legion of feministas going to say about that?

“In the 1980s, we used to say: ‘A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.’

That’s because you were, and still are, deeply stupid.

“The more academic version was: ‘The family is the site of women’s oppression.’ So those of us who came of age at the height of feminism had very mixed views about the family, since it seemed to be defined as a heterosexual thing with a certificate, children and mum at home.”

I come from a long line of working class women.  They didn’t have the luxury of staying home and playing at happy families.  They had to get off their arses and work hard as well as bring up the kids and run the home.  They didn’t moan about oppression, they just got on with it.  As a result they worked themselves out of poverty to the point where their descendants enjoy all the trappings of a middle class existence.  But it didn’t stop there, Diane.  We descendents still work  hard because we want to keep what we’ve worked so hard for.  We work to counter the tax everything and then tax it again spite your Labour rabble heaped upon us in the name of “fairness”.  We don’t down tools and fuck off to some arty farty, women’s supplement to produce reams of snide shite about the sisters who refused to abandon their responsibilities.

But “some kind of stable family structure” was vital and was what most people want around them, she said, adding: “I do not think we should abandon that terrain to the right.”

But isn’t that exactly what you did?  For bloody generations?  Now all of a sudden the Right, when it comes to preserving the structure of the family, is no longer wrong because it suits your nu-puritan authoritarian agenda?  You double-dyed, hypocritical sack of offal!

Ms Abbott also called for local authorities to be given greater powers to stop fried chicken shops and other fast food outlets from proliferating, and to stop alcohol from being sold cheaply, especially near schools.

Yes, because high street names like KFC and Micky D’s are destroyers of families everywhere.  All you have to do is look through their propaganda covered windows and see families enjoying ripping themselves apart eating poison that the staff are forcing down their throats because no one in their right minds would do it by choice.  After all, the kids should be eating healthy food so that they can remain thin and whip-like just like you, Diane.

As an aside, anyone advocating more power to government, local or otherwise, should be stewed for eternity in a vat of their own statist venom.

She claimed young people were not only eating fast food on a regular basis but that their lives were also being “saturated with porn and sex” to a much greater degree than children’s lives were two decades ago.

Wow, Diane’s on a roll!  But where is the evidence for this porn “saturation”?  We only get her big, fat lefty opinion.  However, she has an answer to the problem.  Oh, yes indeedy.

She called for tighter controls on children’s access to the internet to help tackle this.

Which, reading between the lines, means tighter access to the internet for everyone because…think of the cheeeeeldren!  I think that sorely abused guilt horse is ready for the knackers yard because it’s plumb worn out.

Parents also had their own part to play, she argued, accusing some of being guilty of “McParenting,” compensating for a lack of parental responsibility by buying consumer goods for their children.

Because let’s NOT support the industries and workers who make such trinkets that people actually want?  Because buying presents for our kids is evil and the worst kind of parental abuse and must be stamped out?  What a load of McBollocks.

Instead of reading to their children or taking them to a library, such parents might be dressing their children in branded clothing and mistakenly believing they were fulfilling their parental duties in so, she said.

You could begin with removing the VAT from books and stop closing libraries. You could also stop encouraging the never have nor never will have a job underclass to produce kids they have no intention of working to keep.

At what point of buying children clothes they like does parental abuse/neglect begin?  Or should everyone refrain from buying nice stuff for their kids because they don’t vote Labour Diane abused her own brat with buying him nice stuff and sending him to a private school and is now laying a lefty guilt trip on us by way of redemption?  What frigging planet does this moron inhabit?

She starts off blaming the family busting femininist agenda yet somehow ends up blaming breakups on parents being nice to their kids.  As a bonus she gets in wedges of the lefty ban everything we disapprove of agenda between the cracks.  This shambolic piece of tosh is something we should pay attention to?

Oh Diane, you vacuous polisher of HoC bench leather, your nauseating stupidity that passes for righteous campaigning pollutes the air we all have to breathe.  Can you please just stop?

For the children…

I’m an IT tech*. I am 38. My wife is 33. I have a cat and he is a minor but a complete innocent (he doesn’t have any bollocks for a start) and certainly no interest in pr0n – or at least not what you or me would regard as pr0n – I dunno about you but the torture and killing of small mammals doesn’t do it for me. It does it for Timmy and he is only seven so clearly the TV and internet is to blame. The cute little sod.

Therefore to protect the children I don’t have I shall have my internet hobbled by the government unless I sign-up to the preverts registar. Now I am not really into ‘net pr0n – I’ve had a look, obviously, and so have you and it’s like whatever. In fact, truthfully, much of this has been intellectual curiosity – the categories that exist such as the truly stupifying ones like “ugly” intrigue me. Why? To the very limited extent that I like pr0n it’s tasteful images of very attractive naked women of the sort you find on Met Art or Domai that I like. Domai even has (or had) a positive review on it’s front-page from the Daily Telegraph which is enough to make a retired Colonel’s monocle pop-out. But so what? That is my kink (I am given to understand a not uncommon one and indeed nothing that would look out of place at the North End of Trafalgar Square) but that is not my point. As Ian B said recently if the photo shows an illegal act it is the act that ought to be illegal and not the photo. The photo of course ought to be gold-dust to those prosecuting the act itself – “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury can you deny it was the accused pictured here with a tub of vaseline, a gimp and a cocker spaniel?” As long as we all play nice (and no spies end-up dead in bags) and it is consensual (that doesn’t really include the dog) then we are adults and do adult things like have sex in all the myriad forms that takes (enough to blow Sigmund Freud’s eyebrows off! – Yeah he’s meant to be woo woo but he isn’t is he? I mean if you get off on potty-training then seek professional help and not my bed-chamber) and that is cool. I mean I once met in a club (Queen’s Court, Leeds) a gay bloke who only fancied straight men. He was good-humouredly bitterly amused at his predicament. Takes all sorts I guess.

So, what is wrong with this nonsense?

The first and most obvious thing is the assumption that because many households have children everyone must have censorship put upon them. But that is not really what it is about. Of course actually seeing in the flesh is fine (until the Republic of Gilead is established) but an image is something else (just out of interest – do they know how high they create the image?). The last lot who thought that had bones through their noses and thought photographs took their soul or something. Yet this is an acceptable form of policy discussion in Britain in The Century of the Fruitbat.

The second (and I am not hanging my hat on this peg – my objection is vastly more one of principle – but it must be noted) I always turn Google SafeSearch off. It is a crude tool and will block all sorts of things. I will give good odds that the government filter would make it difficult for gynecological cancer patients to access discussion forums etc because they involve “rude” words. It inconveniences me looking up stuff on graphics cards and fighter jets…

The third is the assumption that pr0n is “corrupting”. Is it really? I grew-up during the early eighties and the VCR revolution. I grew-up in the age during which pr0n didn’t exactly grow on trees but seemed by a process of abiogensis (as yet unexplained by science) to be readily found under hedges. Didn’t do me any harm. I even recall Jordan when she was a 34A. I thought she was well fit**. I think she was 17 at the time so call me a retroactive peado. But seriously nobody springs into life as a sexual adult upon the moment of their 16th birthday. For me (and I bet for you) there was seeing people in magazines and movies and thinking them foxy (and if you’re at all like me I bet you’re embarrassed by a lot of the ones you hada crush over in your callow youth – and yes, that applies just as much to female readers – perhaps more so – I remember the lasses in my year at school going mental over Bros. Sweet Jesus. They had the Grolsch bottle tops in their shoes and neckerchiefs and all. My mum, in her youth, was hit by Beatlemania but… Well, how very dare I compare that with Bros? And even my Mum said that whilst as a teen she liked Paul but on sober reflection she reckoned George was the looker. But anyway, isn’t being a kid about being a bit naughty? How else do you learn? Well, I guess there is “sex and relationships education” which sounds like enough to put anyone on the permanent slack. But whilst that is to do with sex it’s about as sexy as genital warts which are also to do with sex but not sexy. Unless you are into that sort of thing – somebody will be. God help them!

The fourth is that obviously if it’s pr0n today by a week on Tuesday all bets are off as to what else shall be banned. For our own good you understand. Again not a point I hang my titfer upon because whilst there is the thin end of a slippery slope here pr0n is worth defending in itself. It is not just a line in the sand (though it is) but important in it’s own right. That is the first principle of defending lines in the sand anyway. Defend each line because it itself matters. Not because abandoning might lead to tyranny. Tyranny will already be there anyway, waiting for us, in a ’70s gown, legs akimbo.

So it comes to the climax. Oh err missus! And it comes to this. I don’t really do pr0n because he has a wife you know. She has a vagina you know (of course she has – she’s a woman!). And indeed like tits and everything. So what earthly use is Pr0n if I have free access to Coke, not Pepsi (or indeed Shirley)? Well, I dunno! I suspect it adds to the general gaiety of nations. I mean anything banned in North Korea or Iran is good, right? I like pr0n in principle. I like attractive women getting their kit off. Now men doing the same… Well, I’m a liberal-type (unlike Hattie Harmann) so fine. There is a market. But what really winds me is this. At university I did a physics degree and a night-class in life-drawing. We had two models. One was a bloke and the other was a bird who looked like she had just walked out of the studio of a Pre-Raphaelite. Now, this was weird. I mean I tried to draw. And he was trickier than her (men are apparently) but what got me was this. I was a single(ish) heterosexual man and she was an extremely attractive naked female yet I had to wield my pencil, not my cock and what really got me was (a) how it was all done in the best possible taste (b) I almost took the job as a model but didn’t not because it was getting nekkid but because it was holding poses until your legs fell off and (c) the guy who ran the course was a postgrad art student and it was like this. I tried very hard to place on paper an image of this lovely lady (and also the bloke) but I have never felt more naked than when the bloke who ran it took a look at my drawing and said, “Keep trying!”. I actually felt more naked than she did! We just saw her body. He saw my soul. I mean she was just beautiful but was my rendering of her? Let me put it bluntly. At the end of the evening I would bundle-up my piccies and I would much rather get nekkid myself than show them to anyone. I think I did better with the geezer oddly enough.

And here is the point. Were those models exploited personally? No. Was it pr0n? Depends how one looks at it but I would say there was no difference. Really. Did it exploit? I can’t recall what I paid but the models were on like 7 quid an hour which was OK money at the time (I considered it – early ’90s) so is that an exploit? I think not. I think not because I didn’t feel an exploit was going on. It just felt nice. And by buggery – if I am to learn to draw then I guess someone has to get their kit off or it’s still-life’s of baskets of fruit (Imagine studying art in Tehran!). No. Almost the entire schtick of porno-phobia is not about the specific alleged exploitation of the models (we’d have a beer afters – that’s how exploited they were) but this bizarre generalization that it is every women who are obscurely exploited whether they chose to model nude or not. Despite the fact there was a male model too! Despite the fact the female model was perfectly happy. And despite the fact this wan’t pornography (though how does one define that?). No. If you ask me it comes down to one thing. There are women (and men) who people are prepared to pay good money to see in the nip. And there are men (and women) who are pig-ugly. Life is not fair. Certainly not to politicians. And they hate it because nobody will give ‘em 7 quid an hour to model. They have to ponce off the tax-payer instead and sit on moral high-horses. Purely because the populace is prepared to pay Eric Pickles and Tessa Jowell not to disrobe doesn’t mean we ought to be banned from seeing genuine lookers in the nip. That is why they think it generally immoral. ‘Cos they are ugly and they can only take a moral high-chair rather than get their tits out. I bet Pickles has bigger ones than Jowell, mind. That is a horrible thought.

*I have seen things on HDs you people would not believe… And no it wasn’t attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. The one that springs to mind was a video of a naked and heavily pregnant woman declaiming her own poetry. It was emotional. Oh, it was explicit alright but that is not the same as erotic. I had to ask for details because the presenting problem was a fucked IEEE1334 which to all intents, purposes and tastes – the tongue can be a diagnostic tool – had had marmalade jammed in it. It was flatly denied that any child had touched the machine despite the fact the disk also had a lot of Barney the Dinosaur on it. Really nice Acer laptop buggered by a kid. Either that or something unspeakable and dreadful had happened to it. I did re-jiggle the softwares so the performance art looked “OK” for a certain value of “OK” (reasonable raspberrys) but I don’t do hardware with laptops. There is no jam in it for me, so to speak. Perhaps the moral to this story (if there is one and there isn’t) is that kids probably do more harm to computers than vice-versa.

**In a kind of filthy shag, not date sense. That’s “filthy” in a good sense. Seeing as I was a spotty teen who was good at maths and all that it was all fairly hypothetical anyway. Obviously nowadays I wouldn’t touch her with a disinfected 36″ hitting stick. Though if Cate Blanchett and Uma Thurman decided to oil-wrestle on my living-room carpet…

The Jerem(iad) Hunting of the Snark

According to The Guardian the greatest mystery of modern times has been solved by a cosmetic gynaecologist* from Florida. Yes, he has found the G-Spot of legend! The spot that launched a thousand Cosmos.

An aside: is it just me or are those magazines for ladies getting more bizarre in their sex “advice”. Cosmo or something claimed on it’s front cover recently to have discovered a load more sexual positions. Short of claiming to have re-jiggled human anatomy God alone knows how any of this is possible. I mean this is from the (in)famous Perfumed Garden written by a Grand Vizier for an Islamic Potentate way back…

SEVENTH MANNER-El kelouci (the somersault). The woman must wear a pair of pantaloons, which she lets drop upon her heels; then she stoops, placing her head between her feet, so that her neck is in the opening of her pantaloons. At that moment, the man, seizing her legs, turns her upon her back, making her perform a summersault; then with his legs curved under him he brings his member right against her vulva and, slipping it between her legs, inserts it.

It is alleged that there are women who, while lying on their back, can place their feet behind their head without the help of pantaloons or hands.

I think the second paragraph there is a bleg by the Vizier for funding for more field-work in India because it is mentioned this and other chiropractic delights are due to India where according to the author, “It is well for you to know that the inhabitants of those parts have multiplied the different ways to enjoy women, and they have advanced farther than we in the knowledge and investigation of coitus.”

Of course it was well known! It still is. It is one of the two central truths of sex that never go away. The first is the one hinted at here that girls from foreign climes are always dirtier. Whether it is performing the somersault without pantaloons or vaginally firing ping-pong balls in a Bangkok nightclub to the general hilarity of an Aussie stag party the grass is always greener on the other side of the verge. I shall quote Byron:

“What men call gallantry, and gods adultery, is much more common where the climate’s sultry.”.

The other thing that was ever thus (apart from vaginal intercourse which of course was ever thus or I wouldn’t be writing and you wouldn’t be reading this drivel) is the bizarre belief that every generation has that the stuffed-shirts of the older folks were never got off to get it on. Everyone remembers the “unamused” Queen Victoria rather than the one before Albert died and the very saucy letters they wrote to each other. I shall quote Larkin here:

“Sexual intercourse began in 1963 (which was rather late for me) – Between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Beatles first LP.”

Of course – and I have flicked through it once – DH Lawrence’s magnificent octopus is unreadable bilge and just isn’t sexy at all. Maybe it was for Lawrence but then he was a git.

Anyway, back to the G spot of myth and legend. Well to paraphrase an eminent Victorian there are lies, damnable lies, statistics and statistics about sex. Indeed “sexology” (he’s got an “‘ology” that makes him a scientist) is perhaps the shabbiest of alleged sciences. It is all made-up. De Sade, Sigmund Fraud, Alfred Kinsey, Alex Comfort – the whole lot of them said more about themselves than about anything else. I suspect it is down to the use of surveys which are generally misleading (or leading). I’m tempted to write a sex-book myself. Find someone you fancy (and who fancies you) and just you know make it up as you go along. Right! Done that! And you know what. That’s also the fun way to learn. On the job so to speak. Not reading bloody Kinsey! I mean even educated fleas can manage it.

Anyway…

Ostrzenski, a cosmetic gynaecologist and director of the Institute of Gynecology in St Petersburg, Florida, examined the anterior vaginal wall in the body of a deceased 83-year-old woman and, as the New Scientist reported, found “a clearly defined sac in a layer between the vagina and the urethra close to the perineal membrane”. The sac, furthermore, was “around 16 millimetres from the upper part of the urethral opening” positioned at a 35 degree angle, and “less than a centimetre long”. Inside, Ostrzenski discovered a “‘worm-like’ structure with three distinct regions that broadly ‘resemble erectile tissue – normally found in areas such as the clitoral body’”.

That is class science that is! I mean New Scientist is a vile rag (I always preferred Scientific American until that too dumbed down to the level of an eight year old). Do I need to point out the methodological flaws here? I don’t think so. Anyway Ms Barton of the Guardian witters on to no apparent purpose** for several hundred words further…

I suspect personally that the G spot is a semi-myth. There is something that feels a bit different roughly where it’s meant to be but I’ve never found it opened the gates of female sexual paradise. Maybe it does for some but they are all of course in other countries where the climate is sultry and undoubtedly having wild swinging from chandeliers sex with (or maybe even without!) pantaloons.

*Think of it as extreme vajazzaling. Actually this is possibly untrue and I suspect The Graun is incorrect in it’s use of “cosmetic”.
**Much like most searches for the G spot. Or to use the technical term a “frigmarole”.

Miss World

The most enduring image of the last Miss World pageant held in London 40 years ago is of angry feminists storming the venue and pelting the celebrity guests with eggs and rotten tomatoes.

Forty years on, the protest was more muted as Venezuela’s Ivian Sarcos, a 21-year-old human resource graduate and wannabe social activist, was crowned Miss World on Sunday amid the usual razzmatazz at a song-and-dance event here.

Wow! I’ll lay odds Sir Bruce Forsyth was at both. Some things never change.

A group of women gathered outside Earl’s Court in West London to protest against the “objectification” of the female body, They raised slogans and waved banners, one of which read “We’re not ugly, We’re not beautiful, We’re angry.” Another said “Miss World is the jewel in the crown of rape culture.

Emphasis mine.

Among them were some from the famous 1970 protest — now much mellowed but still angry that women should be judged by their looks alone.

Some things never change do they? I read somewhere recently that young women in Britain are more likely to have university degrees and on average earn more than their male counterparts. Indeed I believe Michael Gove or some such numpty was predicting dire but unspecified consequences from this. What amuses me about the Miss World protests – well there is quite a lot, but we’ll go with this first – is that I know a lot of women with professional jobs who are not judged on their looks in that sphere but in the context of a beauty pageant of course that’s what they’re judged on! Now Usain Bolt might, for example, tell extraordinarily witty anecdotes after dinner over the brandy and cigars but that’s not what Nike (or whoever) bung him cash for. Indeed I suspect Miss World herself wasn’t judged on her looks whilst doing her human resources degree. Whatever that is anyway. I’ve always found the staff of personnel departments to be selected for the job on the basis of their undiluted misanthropy.

But what really amuses me is it’s flogging a dead horse. Both ways. The whole beauty pageant and “I want to work with animals and children” schtick is tired beyond belief. As is the hyperbolic “feminist” attacks on the show. “Miss World is the jewel in the crown of rape culture.” recall. It is the unspeakable (and yes, they may well have been angry but they were also certainly ugly) protesting the irrelevant. If they can be utterly hyperbolic and stuck in the early ’70s being goosed by Sid James then I can regard them as such throwbacks. We live in a world which in many regions or cultures is profoundly sexist. There are forced marriages, bride burnings (if the dowry ain’t up to scratch – India, largely), female genital mutilation, lack of access to healthcare and education yet this collection of alleged feminists turns up to protest something that is almost quaint and moreover not broadcast on any UK TV channel and hasn’t been for years. It can apparently be viewed via the internet but really! I mean seeing as the internet is real pornography’s home objecting to Miss World seems to somewhat miss the point. Moreover I for one wouldn’t have known anything about the show if it hadn’t been for the protests – I had completely forgot the whole sorry spectacle still crawled on – in much the same way the BBC’s “Children in Need” telethon always ambushes me. Indeed the protests seemed quaint and from another era. Some things never change. It really was “Carry On Girls”. I’m thinking of getting into quaint protesting myself. Me, Manchester Town Hall, a placard and a megaphone and, “Repeal the Corn Laws Now!”

It’s like a few years back when the Afghan/Pakistan “tribal areas” were hit by an earthquake and everyone rallied round to help with the rescue and rebuilding (not that there was much in the first place to rebuild) there was an interview with a twinkly tribal elder. It quite stunned me. He said something like, “We are good Muslims so we welcome this help and will be most hospitable [good start - I said he was twinkly] but when they rebuild the primary school it must only teach what is needed which is the recitation of the Qu’ran and then only to boys otherwise we’ll kill the teachers and burn it down”. I think it was about that time that “nation building” in Afghanistan was a doomed enterprise. Or was it the point were some warlord abducted and kept a teenage girl as a sex-slave as a reprisal for the theft of the best fighting dog in the province? Or was it the cartoon in The Times around 2001 which riffed on the ‘Nam-era “bomb them back to the stone age” with “Bomb them forward into the renaissance”.

So, I dunno but I suspect. Almost every campaigning group I suspect if it doesn’t get disbanded at the right time drifts into bizarre pointlessness. Yes, there are many (I mentioned a few) feminist issues around the globe left to fight. Actually quite a lot but this self-parody does nothing to the purpose. One has to wonder why feminists still frequently attack “sexism” in the least sexist nations on the planet and the anglosphere nations and much of Europe certainly aren’t the “high value targets” they ought to go for. Why target an utter irrelevance like Miss World in London when Saudi Arabia has an active protest movement of women who just want to drive cars? I mean that is where the real fight surely is now? Not here. Feminism to a large extent won here and that’s a good thing. I mention the Saudi driving thing because… I first heard of it because a Saudi Prince set-up an airline and he was rather liberal and had a female pilot working for him. She had to be taxied to the airport where she’d get behind the yoke of a Boeing. The Saudis had thought to ban women driving but not flying 200 tonne airliners. Is that not utterly ridiculous?

I couldn’t join the RAF for pilot training and that had nothing to do with a womb but with a view. I suffer from astigmatism, short-sight and RG colour blindness. None of that is located in my pelvis. I mention this now because like good looks it is something outside of my control in much the same way some women (and indeed men) are better looking than others. Get over it sisters! Everyone else has. OK, not in the context of a hot date (but does not the looks criterion apply across the board – gay, straight, lesbian, whatever?) but you see a doctor or an accountant then looks don’t matter – not when one cures your illness or does something cunning with your tax-return. And is not good looks just the same, essentially random, stuff as my eyes keeping me from flying a Tiffy (undoubetdly there might be probs which would be other reasons for turning me down but that was an absolute “no”) in much the same way looking like a right hound prevents you being the face of Chanel? No, it ain’t fair but it’s life.

Life isn’t fair.

And it isn’t even feminist is it? I do not believe for a millisecond that men are less “objectified” than women. As I said I know quite few women with professional jobs. You ought to hear my wife and her sisters talk about George Clooney or Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt or Gabriel Byrne. If women are stereotyped and have to look a certain way to be attractive I would argue it’s even worse for the blokes. Yeah, actually it is. I mean I can go for the slyph-like “elven thing” and the voluptuous Marilyn thing also lights my wires. I guess I’m saying there is no stereotype for me when Cate Blanchett and Kate Winslet both do it for me. Winslet because you just know she’d be right dirty. And if Halle Berry joins us in the hot-tub…

Note what I have done there. Without thinking too hard I have mentioned actors who are (a) about my age and (b) people I respect not just for their looks but their talent. That they are also good-looking is a bonus. I also have a thing for Helena Bonham-Carter and obviously for Uma Thurman.

So what am I playing at?

Well, obviously, looks are a factor (but not the whole nine yards). But so is brains. Why should one be like “OK” and the other “shallow” when neither are a choice? Indeed who defines “brains”. My wife is a professional linguist. I’m a linguistic dunce (The only Bs I got for GCSE were in French and German) but unlike her I can solve partial differential equations. She does gerunds and I did matrix mechanics. I have no idea what a gerund actually is. I can do covariant differentiation and Fourier analysis. Both of us could have a reasonable go at calling the other thick but we don’t. Everyone is different. I once dated a woman who could hardly be called physically gorgeous but that’s life and she was fun to be with. Life is like that. It is the deranged “pseudo feminist” harridans who don’t see that and not me. I can appreciate beauty and smarts and fortunately by and large I’ve managed both but I’m prepared to trade. Or in short I’m not as shallow as those protesters at Miss World who ridiculously see it as an either/or and think (know) that men always want their idea of a stereotypical beauty rather than anything else. They only think that because they don’t really know men or themselves.

Gay Marriage

As far as I know none of the nine Republican candidates for President have produced any campaign adds (or made any campaign speeches) about “gay marriage”. The media have asked them “gotcha” questions about this (and other such topics) but that is about it.

Sorry Paul, but you have provoked a rant here.

Now, I beg to disagree on several points here. Either my eyes deceived me or I saw on my 32″ HD Samsung a Republican shindig with a banner behind some of the candidates stating the bizarre arithmetic that “Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman”. Michelle Bachmann’s husband (who doesn’t exactly look a straight arrow to me anyway) runs clinics specialising in the absolute snake-oil of “Praying away the Gay”. The amazing thing about such “treatments” is that they do sort of work. In the ’60s and ’70s they did similar with a Rube Goldberg type contraption that measured erections when the subject was shown images of naked chicks and lads and delivered a shock if tumescence was prompted by the “wrong” gender. It worked – for about a month. I don’t know whether they played Beethoven’s ninth in the background but they might as well have done. So God knows about the new form but it would appear that certain portions of US society have advanced from Heath-Robinson style “science” to good old hellfire. A positive I feel.

And herein lies the rub. “Certain portions”. The most zealous anti-gay (well he’s basically anti-everything else) American is the reprehensible Fred Phelps who is absolutely completely nucking futz and his “church” is only really attended by his family (the vast majority of “ordinary” Americans are vastly more homopilic than you might think – I have spent quite a lot of time over the pond you know). I first heard of Phelps many years ago. So bizarred was I by his “godhatesfags.com” website I emailed the local paper in Topeka, KS. I received a very nice reply that Fred Phelps was alas very real – I thought it a spoof. This was before Phelps got the wonderous URL “godhatesamerica.com” which I have only now discovered is superseded by “godhatestheworld.com”. Talk about winning friends and influencing people!

This is what Phelps has to say about my country. Charming isn’t it? Especially in its complete inability to use an apostrophe or understand the UK constitution. By Phelp’s metric a “fag-enabler” is pretty much anyone who isn’t rolling the cattle-trucks or making pink triangles.

I’m not comparing Paul’s comment to utter Phelpsian insanity but…

Over my life-time (and I do know the USA quite well having spent several months in total there and having had a long-term relationship with an American) both here and in the USA probably the most remarkable transformation of social attitudes I have witnessed is that towards homosexuality. Being anti-gay is just not an electoral asset. Indeed of the folks who might support something like the FDMA you will alienate vastly more over the fact it is deeply unconstitutional. Americans are married under state law, not federal law. I suspect a lot of US right-wingers who might be expected to care about such a matters will draw their horns in over the constitutional issue. Frankly on the “morals” front the likes of Bachmann Perry Overdrive are preaching to a mythical “middle America” that probably never even existed in 1955. It certainly doesn’t in 2011.

And it’s not the BBC, or the Washington Post or the schools and universities “brainwashing” or some such – it’s just life’s rich tapestry. I’ve got to say this to you Paul. Got to. Every time you go on about brainwashing I feel stupidly belittled. It reminds me every single time of a quote from Bertrand Russell. Russell stated that he’d rather have his philosophical opinions reported by his “Worst enemy in philosophy” than by someone ignorant of the discipline. I agree. I can filter as much as that old goat could. It is a disservice to suppose otherwise. And perhaps as much to the point I was never indoctrinated. I learned electromagnetism and quantum mechanics and general relativity and stuff. If I’d wanted to learn sociology I could have traded my Nikes for a pair of socks and sandals, grown a pondering beard and given-up any hope of sexual congress – like ever.

But Paul, I haven’t even come to my major point.

Anyway what is there to “argue” about on this matter? What ceremonies groups of homosexuals conduct on their own property is no one’s business but their own – as long as no is forced to “recognise” such “marriages” by “anti discrimination laws” and so on.

God knows about the use of scare quotes but there is a lot to argue (or “argue”) here. The whole point and conception of marriage (at least in English law – and I doubt US laws are much different) is that it is intrinsically public – when they liberalised the civil marriage laws here to include hotels and such public access was and remains an issue. Indeed in the USA which of course has different marriage laws across the states because it is a state issue and not a federal one there is a long-standing “gentleman’s agreement” to recognise out of state marriages. Marriage means nothing if it is not generally accepted. It is essentially a contract between two people which has to be recognised by the wider community in order to mean anything.

So essentially secret homosexual trysts up in the hills (assuming they own them) don’t really cover it. The entire move towards gay marriage has not been about setting-up a secret society of “supergay-friends” but towards the union being generally recognised.

And I shall re-iterate my point. There are a number of religious organisations in this country who are currently conducting “sham” gay marriages. They are doing it because their theology has no problem with homosexuality and would like to marry gay couples on the same basis (and on land they own) in the same way they do straight couples. These are essentially (there may be others) the Quakers, some Jewish organisations and the Methodists. Why the sham (and then there has to be some sort of “civil partnership” ‘do’ as well to make it legal)? Why? Don’t get me wrong here. I have no problem with the various other religious groups who don’t want to conduct same sex marriages. The entire thing is for whatever faith to decide by whatever means. Fine m- their perogative. But the current law means the religious building I am warden of cannot celebrate homosexual marriages (though it is one that can do heterosexual – I know because I clean the place good and proper for the dealie – I mean it’s their big day right?) But no gay marriages despite (a) this religion has no issue contra homosexuality and (b) a number of our regulars are in homosexual relationships. How is that fair?

If as a libertarian then surely you must allow faith groups who have no issue contra homosexuality to be allowed to conduct marriages as they see fit. Surely Paul! That is the issue. I know a lesbian couple quite well who cannot legally be married here despite the fact that this religious organisation doesn’t actually see their relationship as wrong in any sense whatsoever. In a very real sense this is not even about gay rights (I would personally regard it as about fundamental human rights) but religious rights. Now, fine for assorted religious sorts to be anti-gay or lesbian. They can knock themselves out on it. They don’t force anyone to worship there do they? No they don’t so fine. But why extend that ban to other faith groups that don’t think the same? C’mon Paul, you’re a libertarian so you believe in freedom and freedom of religion has to be be way up there. You might not like what the Quakers, the Methodists and Reformed Judaism wants but nobody beats you into a meeting house, a chapel or synagogue.

This is exactly the same point that whilst some Muslim women might cover their hair it’s not a general legal requirement in this country (it’s debatable whether it’s even a Qu’ranic requirement). It is in Iran (but the Ayatollahs are fucking mental) and they also hang gays in Iran don’t they? If we’re not way better than Iran then I pity us. But we are. And we ought to be proud of this. Because quite simply this is what seperates us from goat-buggery.

You might not like gay marriage (why does it matter to you?) and fair play to you but if it is going to happen it (like any other marriage) has to be generally recognized otherwise it is utterly meaningless. Yet it isn’t is it? It is clearly very meaningful to the primary parties involved. Or let’s put it another way. I got married (to a woman) five years ago without any plans for offspring so what is so fundamentally different? Is my marriage wrong too?

Or yet another way. One of the drives for gay marriage happens in ICU. You may have lived with and loved someone for 40 years but you still don’t have the legal right to turn-off the life-support. Marriage (gay, straight or whatever) is pretty much the only chance anyone has to choose their designated driver. I personally think that matters and I personally think that matters more than the genital configuration of the other party to the deal. Allegedly under Iranian law it is legal to fuck a goat if you subsequently slaughter and sell it in a different village to where you gave it the full 7″s. I have been to many places on roughly three continents but that is just dark-age fucking barbarism.

I’m OK with even ugly people having sex but goats – Jeebus of Nazareth that is where I draw the line. I mean if you have to lift a tail to enter into congress then I draw a line in the sand that must never be crossed. Oh, I don’t know! OK, I guess (as long as no animal cruelty is involved) but don’t expect me at the stag night. Well, not if it involves fucking one up the Arras.

And on that bizarre point I’ll leave it. Except I don’t honestly see why Paul is contra gay marriage. Let me go fully 20mm Hispano-Suiza on it. For me to believe Paul has a point here he would have to sincerely believe (and convince me) my marriage (he doesn’t have one and I’ve just had my fifth marriage anniversary) is as utterly worthless as a gay or lesbian one. This I don’t believe. I have done questionable things. Sometimes against city walls. I also got married to the person I love. That was my call and hers and it had nothing to do with being straight. Anyway who said we were both straight? I never did. We did some moderately interesting things as well.

Well, why not?

More fun than being a Republican. Apart from Gary Johnson.

%d bloggers like this: