Okay, genius; define sex!

Yeah right (whatever!), but what does virginity until marriage MEAN? Why wait?

Okay, so what is lust?

Do you see a world with just pure evil and good; just angles and devils? Do you think that all of these generalizations will happen to everyone according to your text? Don't you think a couple can have sex before marriage, get married and still love each other and not have their lives ruined?

Strategy Mistakes Of Defending Virginity

1) Referring to loss of virginity as a problem, rather than a symptom:

Keep in mind that a problem is something that when stopped (in any way), results in something good or productive. A symptom comes from a problem. If you decided to end teen sex by never letting kids out of your sight, you'd have stopped it, but there would be a deeper problem remaining. The actual sexual intercourse is the END result of a severely liberal pop-culture. It is the elements of the every day life that builds all of the groundwork for teen/pre-marital sex. (added December 1997)

A quick-fix, microwave, artificial flavor, cleavage exposing, soap opera bedroom scene, here and now, in it for the buck, instant breakfast, thrills and spills, bang bang bang, glitter and gloss society has ABSOLUTELY no place for men opening the door for a modestly dressed women while going to a family dinner, and discussing the Bible on a date. You can't beat a gang on their terf.

Also, the debate adapts a tone of "Why shouldn't kids have sex" as opposed to "What has to happen to a kid for he or she to have sex". Debating the first question is destroying the issue before it starts; there is an underlying theme that the actual sex has nothing inherently wrong it; just the results. For example, if you take the tone that some sort of bad thing is GOING to happen as a result, then you have abandoned debating that the premarital sex itself. Even though it is true that the situation can be made WORSE if a kid has sex, not attacking the actual sex seems like you're trying to artificially add on things that you THINK will happen as a result of this harmless thing, or better yet, as a result of this "pleasurable" (I love that word - perfect camouflage) thing. Now, if something is so, so good and fun and joyful and erotic and satisfying and oh, oh, oh baby so nice... then isn't it irrational to think that bad things will come out of it? Isn't attaching bad labels or bad predictions to "enjoyable" activities what the old-fashioned-stone-aged-out-of-touch-Victorian-Puritan-holier-than-thou conservatives stand for? Do you see the trap? All of these tapes and programs that I watched when I was at a Nazi white supremacist Catholic school we a joke. These instructions were the aftermath of pre-marital sex: The pregnancy, the diseases, the rhetoric, the cliches... The issue of "Why shouldn't you have sex" was being argued like "Why shouldn't you buy a car". At no point did any of these instructors and tapes focus on how radical our dating culture is (a power struggle, fad based, knee jerk, go with what's cool, popularity status standard), or how the Church's and the Family's role have dramatically changed over the past few generations. This is the equivalent of seeing a guy on the street about to eat a light bulb, and instead of trying to ask why in the heck is he trying to do something so stupid, you get right into the inherent and immediate damage that the glass will do to him.

The solution is to strike at the roots. Assert that someone's values or standards are inconsistent with an ultimate pro-family agenda, or with any agenda that says that sex is NOT substantive. For example, defending sex before marriage (or even on the basis of just being "ready") can be construed as:

(1) A person's impulse is always right. All people are perfect, omnipotent and all-knowing. Anything done by the will of the individual can not be because they don't have all of the facts.
(2) Equating sex with something substantive; sex is nothing beyond a tangible act. There is no deeper meaning; therefore no consequences.
(3) Not seeing that after you've done it without waiting for your spouse, you have nothing special to give your spouse, and haven't acknowledged the inconsistency of doing the most intricate expression of love with someone who ranked UNDER your spouse.
(4) Marriage not being worth waiting for sex is very consistent with the notion that all social institutions are menial and decorative, or at least secondary to the knee jerk whims of the individual. There is nothing beyond the individual or what individuals deem important by their own opportunistic standards.
(5) Marriage is the ball and chain; the falling action of a relationship; a going-through-the-motions type of experience entailing no value. After all, you've already been physically intimate, so there's no rising action after the marriage. There's nothing left that you have saved. It's gone.

Sexual Morality CAM(Commonly Accepted Myths)

PART A: Cliche's (unfounded, emotion based and meaningless)

First, we must identify the vague term "urge". Is it just orgasm? No problem! Then all of the extreme programs that push masturbation could be used as a complete replacement for sex to avoid AIDS, pregnancy and all of the hurtful emotional politics and soap operas that come along with a sex based relationship. But the "safer sex" advocates still push that there is this "urge" that involves another person, thus making it a psychological issue, as opposed to a biological issue. Now, this is my trap. If there are ANY psychological factors involved, then there is an opportunity for confusion!! Not everyone gets everything right on the first try; to defend that when someone is "horny" and therefore a natural occurrence in human nature is to DIRECTLY imply that! Sex can not be legitimately equated with food. It is very easy to track how food is digested and used by the body for survival on which all people will agree; that can't be done with sex. Also, you can die from starvation; you can't die from lack of sex. The very term "urge" is evasive at best. It is something thrown in people's face to make them shut up when preaching virginity; a bully technique.

Second, even if there was some master blueprint in our psyche or nervous system to "get some", (no emotion, no love, no consequences, just a blind urge like scratching an itch with no further explanation) to just have sex solely on the grounds that you "care" (another blind, vague emotion based buzz word) about each other or that you are an adult and you "know what you're doing" (emotion based - opinion stated as fact hiding behind adulthood, which guarantees NO special instinct or knowledge of sex) would be to say that we are God; infallible, omnipotent and without flaw; perfect. People who rely on tradition (religion, family) as a standard are often passed off as blind conformists. The reality is that today's world tests us so much that people who subscribe to these standards do so because their actions are well thought out. Someone who never thinks about the implications of sex, and just sees it as an "enjoyable" (boy I love that word) experience to share with a "partner" (degrading and status neutral term) when they've "found the right one" (opinion stated as fact in an attempt to explain) is far more a conformist than someone familiar with religious doctrine, bible scriptures and conservative ideology for their source of actions.

Third, there is no follow through on this "perfect" instinct that we allegedly have. How can it be some sort of biological norm to have sex when you're a teen and yet you can get pregnant from having sex, and anyone who isn't an extremist will agree that is BAD to be pregnant as a teen?? When you preach condoms or birth control, you are going against the natural processes! SO, if you admit (by using contraception) that the natural processes are flawed in the human body (you don't have automatic contraception), then why do you vehemently defend that this "urge" for sex can never be wrong?? I thought that we are perfect and infallible! Sex is a basic human urge, and anyone who opposes teen sex isn't living in reality, well why do you oppose teen pregnancy (the natural result of teen sex)?

Also, my list of questions to "sex is just a basic biological urge" like hunger:

Victorious strategies of the pro-premarital sex crowd

The PROPS

Vices of the enemy:

"If two people care for each other, then they're GOING to have sex!!!!!"

"Look, will you get out of the stone ages and live in the 20th century?"

"So what's your hang up about sex anyway?"

All of this has a hidden (or sometimes overt) assertion. It is along the lines of asking "Do you still beat your wife?" No matter how you answer, they win and you lose. Sexuality has an emotional dimension to it and carries an intimidating psychological punch. There is no ideology and no substance to these shouting down techniques.

(2) Numbers or specifics ignored, while argument presented as solid:

Kids can be better protected with condoms.

How much more? This is flimsy and unsubstantiated. Stick worshiping, cave painting, idol homage logic. Also, that side greedily takes the credit for an already admitted minute number that is further still vague and flimsy. What is the rationale in claiming some huge ideological breakthrough and victory for this? Easy. When it comes to emotion and psychology, you can take a pencil and make it look like a nuclear bomb with enough shouting and hype.

(3) "I'm On Your Side" Technique: They merely say "I don't like teen sex any more than you do." or "I'm not here to encourage it. I feel abstinence IS the best choice by far." They just say it, and have the agenda of someone who has pre-ordained early loss of virginity for a kid. Wolf in sheep's clothing. What they feel and think they are doing is irrelevant! What they DO is what matters! What about the generic wife beater who says "I love you" but beats his wife?

(4) Build moral conflict up to be a luxury instead of a necessity: "It shouldn't matter whether you're a liberal or a conservative when it comes to passing out condoms in high schools! Saving lives is what matters!" The reason why we have these conflicts is because one side is killing kids today. Either conservatives are a bunch of senile old fogies that aren't in touch with reality and are sending kids to a death sentence by not given them rubbers, OR liberals through their pre-destination logic have built a tone and atmosphere that ALL kids are already doing it (even ten years from now that they can apparently see in some time portal) and are driving the last nail in the coffin for kids to be killed by AIDS by squashing the option of realistic virginity. One of us is wrong. The two blatantly conflicting agendas can't come to an agreement. One of them is only harmful and the other is only helpful. Compromise and negotiation only kills kids. Either the conservatives are promoting unrealistic virginity and resulting in kids getting AIDS from not being helped and educated, OR the liberals or unnecessarily compromising virginity, instituting it, and therefore laying the groundwork FOR AIDS because if there were no sex, there's no chance of getting AIDS through sex.

(5) False acknowledgment or pseudo-conceit:

Yeah, it's bad when you have sex and regret it.
You're right - people should think more ahead.

(6) Not giving anything to help virginity; only cater to the kids having sex.

It's what they DON'T do that does the real damage.

Elements of tremendous advantage of the pro-premarital sexers (PROPS)

Liberalism in an emotion based ideology. You do what feels good or sounds good at the moment. Knee jerk idealism.

(2) They embrace knee-jerk ideologies: No need for proof. It sounds good initially, so it's never checked out. Example:"I don't believe the government should have the right to tell me what to do in my bedroom." Sounds so great. Any non-psychotic conservative would never try to literally pass a law saying that you'll be arrested if you have sex a certain way of certain number of times or at all. It's insane. This is usually a wall to hide behind for abortion. When in this case, we are trying to stop a murder, not to dictate to anyone. We're trying to stop an unborn baby from being dictated TO! Being told when to die is the ultimate in dictatorship; that's what the pro-life issue is about.

(3) We deal with abstract themes; they deal with specific immediate and tangible: Actions and real progress comes from solid core convention (proven itself; not blind conformity), and central themes.

Cutthroat Techniques:

(A) Put them on the offensive; make them explain their side as opposed to just attack the conservative side
Question list...

(1)What do you defend "natural" when it comes to sex, but use birth control and condoms? (2)Put them in the "Now What? position:

You've got the rubbers; now how will you expect virginity to EVER go up with sex being more open, outward, and socially acceptable? How can you expect us to take you seriously when you say that you DON'T have a blatant anti-virginity agenda? Then when then say they're not, question their dedication to virginity. Safer sex educator having not been virgins in THEIR adolescence? Priority??

(3)Make the point that the more liberal pop-culture side lives on the premise that no one effects anyone else, so they find it ridiculous that conservatives claim that sex all in the air will effect any of the kids; and if it does, that means that it is their problem for being so weak. The truth is that the way that human nature is and works, being confused or affected by elements around you is NORMAL. People who claim to be unaffected by their surroundings or "think for themselves" are liars and usually unhealthy introverts. We don't live in vacuums, it's perfectly to protest when a culture against your values is always in your face. Besides, isn't that the same extreme civil right logic that liberals use in banning religion out of public places?

If virginity is sooooooooo unrealistic...

Then why is it realistic to think that...

(2) ...a guy won't cheat on you if propositioned by a gorgeous stranger or that it is reasonable to be hurt when you found out. He didn't do anything wrong; sex is a basic human urge, remember?

(3) ...a guy won't pinch a woman on the butt at a workplace? While embracing "boys will be boys" mentality (and girls too for that matter.)

(4) ...HIV cells which are five times smaller than the smallest gaps in condoms WON'T get through?

(5) ...every highschool teenager (zitless, skinny, bucksome and beautiful) knows waaaaaaay more than their parents about sex; as well know more about peer pressure and when they AREN'T being influenced?

(6) ...things like latex condoms, whips and chains, mirrors and Virtual Reality Cybersex helmets or part of some "natural" human element?

(7) ...sex can never be inappropriate because it is natural, and you can get pregnant from having sex, but to still argue that it is generally BAD to be pregnant when you're young?

(8) ...that after someone who has had sex with many people, will NOT start making comparisons to their "lovemaking" and make that a larger and larger factor in the relationship?

(9) ...college is a big mating ground where women wearing just panties prance around in the co-ed dorms and everybody "solidifies" in their sexuality, no one's alone or abstinent; and the liquor isn't 75% responsible for acquaintance rapes?

(10)...married people DON'T have sex as often as highschool kids?

(11)...the AIDS virus is really going to genuinely care about how much of a "basic human urge" is when it's infecting you and tearing your immune system so that you die of weird diseases and sores all over your body that doctors haven't even NAMED yet?

(12)...when all men see are women with tiny waists and over sized breasts in every movie, music video and TV show, that they won't eventually start setting their standards of what they consider attractive more and more narrow?

(13)...sex resolves tension, while you see the people who have the most sex are the ones that think about it the most and want to STILL do it the most?

(14)...the impulse to have sex when you're young is this blueprint to have a perfect social life, while more people than not REGRET having sex the way they did the first time and many more times than that???

(15)...a guy getting sex from a woman while living with her for years and years has any way to prove that he's going to marry her when he puts it off?

(16)...

You might be a boinker if...

(1)If you cry because your boyfriend cheated on you MORE than you did him...

(2)If your "one night" stands happen more than one a night...

(3)If you go to the pharmacy for condoms and ask for the "usual"...

(4)If your idea of playing Russian Roulette is spinning the chambers on your birth control...

(5)If you

The fetus is alive. There is much debate over a zygote, embryo and fetus being alive. The problem is that there is no threshold set. If sperm or eggs were alive, murder would happen millions and millions of times per day more than it does now. Also, from many pro-abortionists (I call even the pro-choicers pro-abortionists because tolerance is acceptance; I assure you that I don't do this out of malice; it is to not cloud the issue as if there are "three" sides to abortion - there aren't - there are two and two only) there is the confusion when they demand proof that there is life. So, my threshold is: anything organic that is left alone in its present continuing state (or acted upon - that clause was for people in hospitalized or other biological suspended status) that can become a person.

It's amazing that we all know that is a fetus is left alone it will become a person, yet there is so much debate to whether life begins at conception. The real root of this is the fact that the very essence of liberalism is ethical near sight: you do what feels good immediately with no further contemplation or acknowledgment of consequence. You can have sex as long as you use a condom; you can smoke dope as long as you don't inhale. It's too easy to not get into the issue because of the hostility that it generates. It's too easy to not debate whether the fetus is alive and a child being torn apart by machines and sharp metal devices; it's too easy not to deal with. You can watch an abortion on tape and not hear the baby screaming. There's nothing that proves to the slightest doubter that the child is alive. It's hidden; swept under the rug; not clear...

So it no longer becomes an issue.

(I like this line that I read from a college newspaper):
As a former fetus, that causes me to be concerned.

It IS a constitutional right: The argument for gun "control" is that the 2nd amendment says "a well regulated militia" is needed to keep the security or somewhat of the nation. Therefore, the gun control people say that it is ridiculous for people to say that it is their 2nd amendment right to carry firearms. The flaw in this is that the context of the time is at question: Keep in mind that we have a system that it is wrong and illegal for anyone to use powers not given to them, so powers not given to any person (citizen or politician) in the constitution, are powers that simply don't belong to them. If you want to change that, then do it through the proper legal channels. Now, the clause "well regulated militia" DOES refer to the people in general. These were the days when this nation feared a God and when we believed that we don't get our rights from the government; we believed that all people have inalienable rights and that there IS a definite right and wrong. This was before we had to establish a government agency to address our moral problems, and we believed that everything that needed to be done had to be done by some government official for us, and that it was some sort of taboo if someone took the initiative to do something themselves.

The American people ARE the "well regulated militia".

Interview with Alan Keyes...

Rush Limbaugh: When did this deterioration begin?

Alan Keyes: In our time, the immediate deterioration started in the 60's. But the roots go back to the 30's, when the intellectual traditions of our way of life, which looked to natural law and the transcendent authority that underlies it, were broken down by positivism and other ideas that came from Europe. Those were born in the latter part of the 19th-century, when evolutionary theory and other forms of the supposed refutation of the existence of natural law took root. But in our country it begins intellectually in the 30's. Then in the 60's, you see it breaking out during the context of the civil rights movement, which I think was not an accident. In point of fact, this whole notion -- that because this society had practiced racism, therefore, none of its conventions or mores had any ground or foundation -- was the bludgeon used at a practical level to destroy the self-confidence of the older generations who should have been defending those moral conventions against radical attack.

(1996 Republican Presidential Candidate Alan Keyes in an October 1995 being interviewed by Rush Limbaugh)

This is Keyes' way of saying that we've turned away from God and embraced science and Man's perspective as the ultimate and final truth. Evolutionism makes it quite easy to see that there is no God, and that we're all here because of some cosmic accident. In fact, many agnostics and atheists use this as a foothold for their anti-God views. After all, it is consistent; if the universe started out as some vibration with an infinitely minuscule force, and you let that "grow" or "evolve" for 4 BILLION years, then hey, why not? After all, it is consistent; if the universe started out as some vibration with an infinitely minuscule force, and you let that "grow" or "evolve" for 4 BILLION years, then hey, why not? Many people do this, but the idea of the Earth being 4 billion years old has been severely challenged. Many Christian Scientists say that the planet is only 10,000 to 15,000 years old.

This theme is not an uncommon theme in liberalism. They focus on the tangible and the immediate, as the modern world does; these times are their age! They do this with condoms as well; they fail to adequately address the psychological consequences of teen sex and the long term results, people's warped idea of intimacy, the regret, the lowering of the meaning of sex when you justify it by saying it was a heated moment, or it was a mistake in retrospect... These things are intangible, so liberals act as if they aren't there at all. Phrases like "moral consequence" are taken extremely lightly. They claim that these things are abstract and relative, while the "hard" and "solid" stats of HIV cells and condom specs are the only real thing on which to go. The one overwhelming flaw is that they fail to acknowledge the abstract element in the human interpretation. It is completely possible (and it does happen) for people to take so-called neutral facts and misinterpret them, or be misled by them.

I have my own version of what Alan Keyes said about things in the modern world being responsible for a moral deterioration in this country:

I had a history book written by socialists when I took HIST 222 (U.S. after 1877) in the Fall of 1993. There was a segment in the book describing things that happened in the 1920's. One of these topics were called "sexual liberation". There were a noticeable increase in the number of abortions and sexually transmitted diseases (back then that was the only way to tell that there was an increase in sex; they didn't have polls about that every weekend like today), which showed that all women around under the age of twenty (I believe the book said this was an influential age threshold of some sort) started having sex, either more or just doing it altogether. So, there was a clear case of virginity going down, and assumingly more sex from the people already doing it. Something had to have changed to result in this. The book agreed with this and even stated it. Articles about sex like Dr. Freud were published, and therefore sex wasn't "suppressed" or taboo like it was before these things started being printed. The insanity of my professor calling this sexual liberation. That was clearly objectionable; and it was treated like something we had to learn as part of the curriculum! Now, these people weren't freed in any way; sex was degraded because it was taken as something visible and tangible like a Field and Stream magazine and thrown up on the racks for speculation like a slab of meat at a barbeque. When that atmosphere is present, bias will occur, and it will always be in a way that people will interpret their feelings as some raw biological urge that needs to be quenched like scratching an itch. This is Alan Keyes again; this time in his Presidential campaign flyer:

Sex Education

Sex education is, as a rule, the private responsibility of parents. The government should not usurp this role. When parents choose to encourage school based instruction, I strongly support abstinence-based approaches for young adults.

Now, there are a few little quirks here that need to be explained. I'm sure that someone reading this now, is ready to e-mail me and ask how could he make such strong claims.

[FIRST] He said that these programs "encourage" kids to consider sex before marriage. I'm sure many liberals get upset when they are accused of fostering pre-marital sex. The reason why we take this tone with them, is because tolerance is acceptance. I don't care if some kids will have sex anyway (which isn't the case) if you play any part in it, you're guilty.

[SECOND] He said that the government should not take the parents role. Liberals retaliate by saying that parents are gutless and their kids turn to sex because they never discussed it with them, and all of these programs (which they never explain how they will help) are a response to the parents not doing their job.

Now, we've got to keep in mind that old-fashioned interpretations of universal and eternal truths and rights (like staying a virgin until you get married) DO get outdated. The truth is never outdated because there is an ultimate right and wrong, BUT the times can warp people's perspective so that wrong is right and right is wrong. So of course with the horrible generation gap (making an entirely different world as was when the parents grew up) parents are going to fail miserably with making any real grounds teaching their kids sexual ethics (which can only be done by enstilling values, not teaching them directly like a "Just say no" slogan); the issue is that people must take steps so that the parents are back in the position of it, not left out and replaced by the government.

Keyes is right on the nose.

I'm a whitebred Cajun from Ville Platte Louisiana, but now living in Lafayette LA, and am disgusted that defense against racism is used as a tool for people's political gains. First of all, something or someone is either racist or not; there is no such thing as conservatism being "closer" to racism that liberalism. Quotas are not going to help any black American get ahead in life, and especially not blacks as a whole. We've had social liberalism for decades and has that helped the poor blacks of America? NO! And if you want to talk about the "rich", look at the rich Democrats in Congress Like Ted Kennedy and Whoever Rockefeller (who owns the earth and 3/4 of the sky). This notion that the Republicans are a bunch of Country Club snots and that the Democrats are a bunch of middle class statesmen is a fallacy. You're not capable of caring more for minorities because you’re a liberal or a moderate; you're just more prone to pimp racism for your feeling good and your political gains.

Now, I'm sure that many middle class black conservatives (Yes, they DO exist) won't like me using the idea of gangster rap to connect with my mutant complement of conservatism: hardcore nerdology, but nevertheless, there is a distinct connection, as I explain later in the page.

(A weird quirk) - I want to first make a disclaimer here. I am only addressing things that I have seen, so if someone sees any part of this separate statement as a jump, then remember that I was only calling it like I saw it.

Rush Limbaugh makes a lot of jokes and even I am angry with him for some of his pot shots. One time he mentioned some woman's name and said "bow wow" after. I couldn't believe it. Anyway, I will still say that too often liberals take a joke or a comment and get far too offended by it. One of his undeniable truths (I'm sure he meant this in a lighter tone) is that feminism was made up for ugly women that saw they couldn't use their body to get ahead in the workplace. Now, too often when a woman stands against any kind of yodeling and very slight sexual remarks, she can be accused of being some sexually inferior frigid lesbian, or something to that affect. It's ridiculous. You take a stand against blatant sexual insults and disrespect and YOU are the one with the problem. Now, you may ask how can I relate to this:

Isn't it already obvious? I can be accused of being nothing more than some geeky sexless nerd that is concocting all of this babble to make up for my sexual inadequacies, and the fact that I can't "get me some". Just like in one of my flames, I was accused of being jealous of "them". I would assume that this was those either having sex or promiscuous. So, I just made the case that yes, I want to date way more than I am and that I am unhappy because I feel incredibly distanced from women in general, and I have dated far less than I ever wanted to, and most of my attempts at women die or soon die into nothing, but why does that make me no longer credible? We have serious problems, and my social life has nothing to do with a case that I make. Debate the logic, not the person. Like on "The Sexes" on Pathfinder, this liberal wench told me "Get laid, then come back to us". They have their heads so far up in the clouds that they resort to these emotional intimidation tactics, and no logic. So, some women who feel that feminism is the institution that protects them from the swimsuit calendars, the harassment, the yodeling, the butt grabbing, the glancing down their shirts... is the only protection that they have. Now, I disagree with that, and feel because of pseudo-conservatives who aren't the models of morality that they should be, hurt conservatism and help liberalism.

I'll summarize with this one example:

When I was doing some research on the liberal tilted media's reaction to Gingrich and the Republican Congress, my library computer search led me to "Ms." Magazine; an ultra liberal magazine. There was a poll that asked the women their views on pornography. Forty something percent had the liberal attitude of "freedom of speech, let's not become Nazis" and almost the exact same percentage had the attitude of being against it. They had stories of being in relationships when they tired to act like these "women" and were in serious competition. They were hurt and felt incredibly degraded. This is a serious moral issue and these women who were subscribers to this feminist publication sure didn't have a liberal viewpoint of "freedom of speech: who's to say what's right?" Liberalism needs to be exposed for what it really is, and when it happens, feminism will not be regarded as a protector from any sexual misconduct.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Things which make it look like I agree with feminists:
(keep in mind that I DO consider these planks of deep conservatism)

I'm against beauty pageants

It's kind of timely that I post this because 1996 Miss America (Ali Landry) is from my home state, Louisiana.

I see no point (in a world where women are supposed to be equals) in these "contests" where women parade in swimsuits in high heels (like a woman said in Jane Whitley a long time ago; if they want to show how healthy they are, then let them take a physical). There is nothing intellectual or productive about these pageants. I'm not sure how many conservative are for or against them, but I feel that these things are totally incompatible with social conservatism. There is simply no need for this.

I feel women are horribly exploited by the media; as well as the media being responsible for warping our standards of attractiveness

I heard a stat a while back that the national weight of women is getting larger while the ideal weight is getting smaller. The idea that only 10% of women in this nation are truly beautiful is unfounded and aristocratic. I think most women are beautiful. Cosmopolitan spends five hours making up a woman for the front page of their magazines, and by just from the fact that I have to go to the grocery store, I've seen these pathetic displays of what we are being trained to think as femininity more than I've been on dates (which isn't saying jack). This media blitz is savage, and it is a modern day form of elitism. We have the brainwashed males of this nation catering and paying homage to all of these golden calves instead of trying to search in themselves what they want out of a relationship and how they will treat a woman when they are out with one. I've seen one of these muscle mags with a woman with no top in a G-string. There is absolutely NO need for a woman to be that naked, even for these muscle mags. It is a cloak of decency used to hide this sexual materialism.

I don't believe in the slightest tilt that women are more at home in the kitchen as opposed to men.

The idea that the man has to be the bread winner is archaic.

Things that I totally disagree:
(If you're a feminist and you don't believe these things, then fine. If the shoe fits wear it)

A career and marriage are at odds.

Opening a door for a woman, planning where to go for the night, or pulling out a chair for her in somehow condescending or dominating

A relationship compromises your individuality

(this isn't finished!)

Okay, here's a juicy one. The usual stance is freedom of speech. Now, when someone advocates donkey porn or strip joints or what have you, and someone tries to stop them, that is the cliche'. Now, here are a few defenses of pornography:

1-First of all, you can't really define pornography

2-And if so, who's to define it?

3-It sets an ugly precedent of letting authority tell people what they can/can't watch

4-If you don't like it, don't look at it

5-The alleged harmful effects of it are a fallacy brought out by a Victorian Society

6-How can you really trace any mental harm to pornography without conjecture? How can you concretely prove it's wrong or damaging?

7-Once you ban this "evil" how do you plan to enforce this?

8- Censorship, Blue Ribbon Campaign and fear of the "snowball" effect...

( LET ME KNOW IF I'VE MISSED ANY OTHER MAJOR ONES)

Now, I'll tackle these one by one:

CLAIM ONE:

1-First of all, you can't really define pornography

Community standard has been a popular option in these issues, also the clause of "prurient" interests (relating to an obsessive interest in sex) has also been used. Techniques like these cut through the chase and just tell the parties "quit with the masquerade, and through your cards on the table". Wonderful!

There are many things in life that can't be defined clearly! When Louie Armstrong was asked "What is Jazz?" he said "If you gotta ask, you'll never know." Many people define pornography by "I know it when I see it." The real issue is the intentions, environment and atmosphere of the alleged porno:
Why is it displayed where it is?
What purpose did you want to serve?

When you dig into this, push will come to shove and it will be easy to decide whether the "material" has a right to be where it is. The persons behind this will be exposed for what they are. People just don't want to dig today; they're afraid of what the might find. The truth, for example. Pornography DOES exist! Therefore an agenda must be written against it. Defining it can be made easy when you pry into the forces behind it and also, an issue not being black and white does not excuse you from activism or obligation.

Literal definitions can get hectic and are ultimately ineffective. After all, one of the many reasons why conservatives bash liberals for pushing condoms is because they want something 100% effective, not partially effective, so a literal definition in law defining pornography would not be doing the cause justice. I even heard a story of a woman doing an article on breast cancer and couldn't use the word "breast" when on-line, or some sort! There are paintings of full nudes, as well as statues that have a natural essence to them, and there are women with not even really skimpy bathing suits on TV that have such a disgusting tone to them, that they just don't need to be on TV; so this issue is not of raw definition. And it doesn't need to be! When you are familiar with someone who owns a bookstore or a movie video shop, and see what they stand for, the material which they order will be a result of that, people will know where they want to send their money. When common people become more vocal, people will know that they can't set up porno shops on certain streets; standards will be set. This issue is not as hard as the Liberal Elite would have us believe.

I'll elaborate on these later...

Anyone with the initiative.

3-It sets an ugly precedent of letting authority tell people what they can/can't watch

It sets an ugly precedent too, when schools become systematic breeding grounds and petri dishes for crowd conformity and promiscuity and the innocence of being young is destroyed because of an atmosphere generated by societal decay like porn and unbridled sex. THAT'S an ugly precedent! Conservatives aren't the censors, the pro-pornographers are! When that trash empties into the streets, they contaminate a clean environment - so there's your precedent!

4-If you don't like it, don't look at it

Sooner or later, you always manage to affect me with it.

5-The alleged harmful effects of it are a fallacy brought out by a Victorian Society

Information is always biased - Victorians say the same thing about the sex stats in France and so forth; that they're really crumbling.

6-How can you really trace any mental harm to pornography without conjecture? How can you concretely prove it's wrong or damaging?

Look at what it stems from! That is the concrete!

7-Once you ban this "evil" how do you plan to enforce this?

Indirectly - it will die. I don't advocate having Big Brother in people's homes

8- Censorship, Blue Ribbon Campaign and fear of the "snowball" effect...

One recent issue of my friend bringing up the fact that on some user groups on the net of seeing videos of men beating women until they die cause me to think about this. The whole conservative notion of free speech is that with freedom, comes responsibility. The conservative premise is very consistent: if the culture of porn will breed rugs and kiddy porn, and the oppression of people (i.e. promiscuous people sexually abused trapped in that lifestyle, drug addicts forced to perform on sex movies...) then outright crime will be bred out of the tolerance of porn.

Now that this is set, how can one enforce this? Well, like all else, with some initial non-censoring regulation. There is already a such thing as porn licenses; so we could pressure these groups in court for drug tests, proof of age and even identification requirements to make it easier to capture the illegal porn pushers. When there are initial steps like this taken, you don't have any censorship and you can lay groundwork for the porno people themselves acting as oppressors. Also, again, massive investigation and boycotts that with which they have to comply could be a tool for people voluntarily separating themselves from the porno community.

My SEX Q & A to today's parents.
Do you do and say THESE things with your kids??

The KillCo Abortion Kit

Have a little girl talking with a little boy and discussing what game to play. They look at the old toys and see that these things can no longer keep up with their modern needs and tastes, so the boy says "I know, let's play abortion doctor!"

So the girl says it’s a good idea, she gets up on the table and puts her legs in the stirrups and the boy says "Not yet, your not pregnant yet"

So, They have a Joycelyn Elders doll that you pull the string on her back and she says:

"Safer bullets and safer guns"

"Every child, a planned wanted child"

"Sex education from birth"

And for an EXTRA $25.95, you can get the pull-string dolls of the girls parents! Just pull the string and the two Republicans parents with Bibles stitched to their hands say...

"We don't want you seeing that boy"

"Don't kiss until you're married"

"Don't ask us about sex until you're 35"

So, the girl takes a female condom and a plastic penis from the Joycelyn doll and plays with her fake I.D. that the child can slide their own picture in. They open another doll which is of a college kid with a football jacket. The anatomically correct aroused male doll comes with a few plastic pretend pills of Rohypnol to knock her out with. She goes to $0.50 long-neck night and the boy hides behind the doll mimicking the frat football player and asks her to come to some Frat bash and gets knocked up by some 23 year old jock.

So, she gets a NOW pin out of the toy package and says that she has her right to the abortion.

Now, the girl has to reach into the plastic bucket of name calling and pull all stats concerning violence against women and throw them at the boy for disagreeing with her, as an avoidance of his arguments.

Now, she gets on the table with the plastic fetus under her shirt and the boy squirts all kind of blood and turns on a vacuum cleaner while pulling the fetus out. Now, for kicks, he puts one of those hard plastic ridge sticks with the grooves in a slot, slides it in the fetus, (this winds the toy motor) and yanks it out REAL hard, so that the motor turns...

turns WHAT you may ask?

The Gingrich stole Congress??

There is no such thing as "moral decay" today!

The babble doesn't hold up! Today we have worked hard to overthrow the racist, country-club, imperialistic institutions that those evil, dreaded Founding Fathers instilled in us; and we have done it well. With the momentous Sexual Revolution in the best decade of this nation's history, the 1960's, we have now established the ideal nation. We have a Utopia today: If a child has the wisdom to see that her (or his) parents or being to restrictive by telling her what to do, she can seek refuge with the state; if a parasitic growth starts to invade a woman's body as a result from her sexual freedom expressed, she can have it removed as easily as she got it; imagine those conservative hypocrites telling a woman what to do with her own body!

And to think that we can have a nation based on the ridiculous assumption that people's rights are "inalienable"! Clearly an oppressive viewpoint! It is the perfect way to make it impossible to change and improve morality as we naturally evolve as a nation into alternate lifestyles, and a more flexible, less oppressive and male-based family structure. Kids at a younger and younger age are realizing that they can express themselves sexually and not have the "moral repercussions" that they have been previously brainwashed to think that they'd have! The ridiculous notion that a "God" gives us our rights is just another ploy. With that, the rights can never be ensured or identified; who's to say what are the rights given to us by this "God"? But, when the State becomes the ultimate authority and ensures your rights, they are clear and identifiable! There is security and clarity! And to make matters better, children at a younger and younger age can learn indiscreetly that here is no divine "Creator"; that the natural processes of the evolution of chemical substances (which came from random vibrations in the universe, giving us sub atomic particles, leading to atoms, leading to matter) led us to be here in this world. Of course, the children aren't told this directly, and better not to pressure them with it; better to have them not know this hidden agenda until they can handle it. Imagine; to have the ludicrous claim that our entire time on this planet should be spent on the pursuit on intangible "moral" causes that have never proven to exist! After all of these years, we now have lifted the restrictions on our sexual and reproductive freedom! And to think that those anti-choice hypocrites label the greatest "evil" as "moral relativism" when it is the issue of morality that will always be relative! There will never be a set "right" and "wrong", so it is hypocritical for any conservative to assert that freedom of the individual (what they call "moral relativism") is evil, when they can't even define evil without using "evil" in the definition!

How are you doing?

Let me introduce myself to you. I have an INFINITE number of names, but... none of them are important right now. What's important is you. You see, you have a problem, and we both know what that problem IS, don't we? It's all of this: the world, the outside... It's getting to you isn't it? But that's okay, I can help you. I can bring you happiness; I can get it for you; I can make it happen. The problem is not the world; the problem is you. You see, now that at this point in your life, you are beginning to feel the strain, the strain of the outside. Don't fear it, it's your guts telling you that something is wrong. Don't be afraid; I'm here to help. You want happiness don't you? I can bring it to you; I can get it for you; I can make it happen!

The problem isn't that you're not trying hard enough; the problem is that you're trying too hard. The others don't try as hard as you do; and yet they are the ones that are happy! Doesn't that mean that you are the problem, and the problem is that you are simply trying too hard? The reason why you make yourself all of this trouble is because you don't know as much as they do. They're happy and you're not. You want happiness don't you? I can bring it to you; I can get it for you; I can make it happen! You want the misery and the suffering to end? All you have to do is compromi-- Uh, I mean-- update your standards! Make them fit with the times! Don't go against the flow. Look where going against the flow has gotten you so far! It hasn't made you happy. Isn't happiness what you want? You don't achieve happiness by going against the flow. Take what is already there. Do what is already done. Only then will you be happy.

Your next question may be: "Where do I start?"

It's easy! Just start here and now. All you have to do is just not speak up next time you have something on you mind that differs from the outside; don't think that maybe somewhere out there, the outsiders are wrong; don't question tradition; don't question the masses. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying do anything radical! You don't have to change much about yourself. Just one action; just one word; just one thought; just... one... HIT!!!!!!!! That's all you need, and then you'll be on your way. You'll be on your way to happiness. I know happiness. I know how to get it for you. I know how to make it happen. Follow your gut. The masses can't be wrong. They KNOW better; that's why they're happier. You want happiness don't you? I can bring it to you; I can get it for you; I can make it happen...

The way jocks Republicans choose their prom date nominee

In bitter remembrance of the 1996 primaries...

Higher Stakes

Quotes

This title article and graphic first graced my webpage on April 22 1997

Virgin Resistance! webpage "salutes" and "commemorates"...

(Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! The LOSERS...)

"Why did Bobdole get pimp-slapped in the '96 election?"

The biggest mistake that I've seen many conservatives make is analyzing the election itself; as if the public that says in polls that they wouldn't trust President Bill Clinton and that most of them thought that he wouldn't finish his second term, and STILL elect the scoundrel, just popped out of nowhere; as if you "conservatives" couldn't see the apathetic and misled masses building over all of these years. When we have a national moral reference frame like that, the results are predetermined. This "election" wasn't about this election. Do you get it? It was about our current culture; the good ol' US of A, in all of its splendor and dazzle, that has systematically bred a population that stands for the exact opposite of the principles on which this dying nation was founded. How long did any of you "conservatives" out there think that we could go along our path of "biology" based sex, pop culture brainwashing, anti-God, beer drinking frat party female co-ed gang raping, strip joint idolatry of sluts and whores and NOT affect our choices for President?? (The masses now led by emotion and relativism are the machine that will elect a Jimmy Carter and a Bill Clinton again and again and again) At least one good thing came out of all of this, that conservatives (being disappointed with most of the voters for reelecting Bubba) know how it is to feel alienated to the degree that I do every day of my life. How hard do we have to continue to get slaughtered in sexual and religious issues before many conservatives realize that in the modern world (which focuses on the tangible and the immediate, monopolizes on moral relativism, and dominated by the pop culture, instituting trend based materialism), we have to deal with factors and variables that our predecessors NEVER could even conceive, much less deal with??

And a few of you (and I mean few) have e-mailed me and told me that I shouldn't put gunshots and soldiers on my web page because I'll "turn people off". Bobdole doesn't have ...(oh excuse me, past tense!) didn't have gunshots on his web page and look what happened to his narrow pathetic, "message". Wait a minute... did he even have one? Conservatives like Bobdole (if that isn't an oxymoron) are the reason why I use aggressive tactics and don't worry about PR, brown nosing and tip-toe politics (I made that term up myself). Passiveness, docility, "playing it safe" and fear of offending people by articulating our side of the argument adequately, and using that as an excuse to do nothing but have hollow rhetoric from Kemp and Bobdole (with a few pre written pot shots and cheap safe zones to only reach people who are already conservative and voting for the ticket) for 2 hours at the dog gone convention, when they should have been hitting like some real men, will never get us anywhere; and if that weren't true, then Bobdole would be our new President (or better yet, good ol' George Bush would have never lost in the first place).

I have far more stuff to say about conservatives getting their tails kicked and the sloppy, elitism in the Bobdole campaign (censoring Pat Buchanan at the convention and his horrible PR commercials cut and made by his hired guns of the establishment) but I wanted my new temporary intro page to be somewhat short.

Farce TV Scripts...

Star Trek: The Next Generation
Enterprise NCC 1701 D

"The Best of Both Worlds (part I)"
We are Borg.
You will be assimilated.
Resistance is futile!

Parody:

Star Trek: The Sexed Generation
Enterprise NC-17 D

This is YEARS old...

[FACT] If you are a San Francisco cop, and are investigating a murder with has been described verbatim in a book that the suspect has written, and you meet this woman and she says that she’s writing a book about a cop getting involved with a murder suspect and then being killed by her, the most logical course of action to take is to screw her.

[FACT] Everyone has extreme homosexual desires, but men don't look as sensual when they kiss each other, so only women are shown doing it.

[FACT] Independence and strength of a woman is indicated by how much she boinks and flashes cops, curses, screws other women, throbs her nipples, moans, associates with killers, and digs into peoples lives for her to use them for her career and ego enhancement.

[FACT] If you don't bleed from it, then it is not real sex.

[FACT] Sex was designed to be nothing but a tool that you use to show the opposite gender that by screwing them and getting sexually addicted to them, that you don't need them at all.

[FACT] "Tension release" is a codeword that men use which really means to spill semen into your psychologist.

[FACT] Bisexuality and homosexuality are indications that you are in contact with the real you and that you are unashamed of your body.

[FACT] Dancing isn't dancing unless you have plans to screw your partner. There is not way to cap off a good nightly dance other than screwing your partner. Dance clubs that have men's and women's bathrooms separate are repressive and not in contact with reality.

[FACT] Women like to be beaten when you screw them.

[FACT] When a woman digs into your back and makes you bleed, you should be happy and congratulate yourself for accomplishing what you have been put on Earth for.

[FACT] Manhood is not measured by how many women you poke, but by how hard you slam them into the wall and how long it takes you to shoot them after you finish bopping them.

[FACT] Womanhood is not measured by how many men you poke, but by how many men you poke after you screw a woman.

[FACT] Youth and vibrance is measured by how many homosexual experience you have in your college years.

[FACT] If it is discovered that some incident happened once, then that means that no matter how sick and disgusting it is, that means that EVERYONE thinks about it, EVERYONE does it, no one regrets it, everyone will defend it, and those who object are simply not living in the real world and need serious psychiatric help, which entails a screw by the doctor of their choice.

[FACT] If you are having a high speed car chase in San Francisco while you are chasing a hot, flashy, expensive car, all of the other cars on the road will move out of the way, only after putting up a convincing act that you could have almost hit them; and will not see this behavior as abnormal because they see that there is a hot, flashy, expensive car and that must mean that you are a San Francisco cop chasing your gorgeous bisexual murder suspect, and you can not be interrupted because you are going to screw after you catch her, because you are a San Francisco cop and that's what they all do.

[FACT] A woman isn't luring and attractive unless she is a murder suspect and you know of all of the twisted things that she likes to do with men, which can be screwing them and killing them, not necessarily in that order.

[FACT] A sociopathic woman whose only thrills and buzzes in life consist of tying men up, bopping them and telling them about other men about it while she flashes them, and playing with some of her dike toys, is fifty times smarter than any seasoned police officer or detective.

[FACT] Sex isn't sex without murder.

[FACT] Murder isn't murder without sex.

[FACT] All women love to whore around, especially when their lesbian girlfriend is watching.

[FACT] It is no longer fashionable to smoke a cigarette after, growling, snarling sex. it is much more politically correct to stab the guts out of your partner with an icepick; not hurting yourself, but hurting others - something that boinkers (and their sympathizers:liberals) do best.

[FACT] Measuring a woman's character by her breast size is wrong. It is better to time her to see how long it takes her to expose her genital hairs to a group of strangers. The faster she does it, the more of a woman she is.

[FACT] No one uses condoms anymore. Why worry about dying of AIDS when you will be stabbed to death before orgasm?

[FACT] Men are a completely and totally obsolete sex. The only long and hard thing that now stimulates women are icepicks.

[FACT] There is nothing wrong with a woman who ties men up with rare silk and writes stories about killing them in the middle of getting off.

[FACT] If you want a full pardon an logical exemption from the suspicion of a murder, screw the cop.

[FACT] All cops are nothing but a bunch of horny, sexually repressed, societal rejects that wouldn't know a murder suspect even if she bit them on the butt; which I'm sure is done anyway.

[FACT] After years of Hollywood demagoguery and pop-culture brainwashing, people are realizing that the slut image is wrong, so now sluts are made a double degree college graduate, very rich and bisexual, so now nothing is wrong with it.

[FACT] In the real world, when a woman just gets out of bed, she looks like she just spent five hours in a beauty parlor.

[FACT] As long as there is a chance that the woman you are bopping is going to kill you, the sex will be exciting and will be labeled as the "f*** of the century".

[FACT} No matter what, it is imperative that all cops are depicted as bums in all sex thriller movies.

[FACT] Psychology is the profession where the doctor porks the patient so that it will screw up the patient so that he will have to go se another shrink.

[FACT] When you slam a woman into the wall and rip her clothes off, and screw her, she will denounce you for doing so, only after you're done with her.

[FACT] And last but not least, the politically correct 11th commandment of the 1990's...

[FACT] If enough murder, blood, hot cars, female lust objects, boinking, hard nipples, moaning, moving bare breasts, cursing, gunshots and cliched road stunts are sloshed randomly together and squeezed into a two hour time frame, this concoction will be passed off as a blockbuster movie which will be eaten up by the American public, even more hastily than the dope that so many of these producers are on.

You might be a liberal if...

Traditionally, when someone speaks of censorship, one thinks of the government stopping an individual or an organization from saying certain things. Usually, this is associated with violence or some other form of intimidation. There is a new technique that is frequently used by liberals; it is a credibility factor. The idea that people are inherently all knowing and that all they have to do is touch or contact something to know all about it. (example) Only women can debate abortion because only they can be pregnant. Look, if the fetus is alive, it doesn't matter if there is some genuine element of hurt or fear or whatever that only a woman can feel. The issue is that the fetus is alive. Feelings or inconvenience does not take precedent over human life. (another example) You have to have sex in order to adequately discuss it. I'll tell you right now that the people who have the most sex are the ones that know the least about it. Promiscuous people have openly admitted that sex just gets to be nothing and it is totally different when you're in love. There is a psychological factor that is totally ignored. You are not encompassing the entire element of sexuality during raw intercourse; if this were true, then we could disband the Roman Catholic Church and just go to the nearest whorehouse for all of the moral guidance that we need. Also, we could advocate kiddy porn and kids at 5 having sex so that could really sexually satisfy their wives when they get married. Values are instilled, not taught. You do not learn about sex and relationships from "experiencing" them like some mountain hike or stereo manual. The right view of sexuality comes from the acknowledgment of precedent:(now that I've established THIS, what does the result in?), and of acknowledging that there is a right and wrong as well as the fact that we could never attain it, so that we always have to check ourselves, and there will always be a need for a moral authority, in convention and tradition

And since these emotionally tinged issues carry a sting when they are thrown in people's faces, they can be used as a weapon of intimidation. Too often, the pro-premarital sexers resort to discredit a conservative or a virgin on the grounds that they haven't been promiscuous. They avoid logic; avoid specifics; avoid any of the separate points that may be made in the argument. And why shouldn't they? It's a perfect weapon! Avoid all of the issues and just rely on emotion. This is the new way of silencing people: a false credibility factor.

In The Bible, in the book of Genesis, the story of the Tower of Babble, man was trying to built this structure so high that it could reach the sky to "make a name for " themselves. (Genesis 11:4) Of course, God put an end to it. He said, "If now, while they are one people, all speaking the same language, they have started to do this, nothing will later stop them from doing what they presume to do." (Genesis 11:6) There is a new book out called "The New Tower of Babble", published by a Catholic company. The author says that today, man is trying to do the same thing with the belief that there is no right and wrong. When this is accepted, man becomes the ultimate and final authority; nothing that society does is wrong. We then grant ourselves the status of Godhood. We are once again building a tower to reach God; to be on his level; to be as he is.

The main reason why the belief that there is no right and wrong is so hypocritical is because the statement nullifies itself!

"There is no right and wrong"

This is a little redundant of the first topic: The NEW censorship. A lot of what I say is so tied together that it is difficult to tell when it is proper to end one topic and begin with another. Moral issues are like that; when you pull from core themes, you do end up with a lot of overlapping specifics.

The main idea that I'm trying to get across in this topic is the ludicrous (but growing) notion that we have in this country; the belief that doing a certain thing makes someone the absolute authority on it. Like before, you have to have sex in order to be able to debate about it. A deeper exploration of this belief would be the concept of a more hardened outlook is more realistic. I've seen more and more frequently that people who have been through mentally harmful experiences in their life have adopted the belief that there is no real truth or justice in reality. They attribute this wonderful revelation to the experience or lifestyle that they had as a learning session. For example, someone who was raised in a household with a miserable marriage and/or been through a heart breaking relationship adopts the belief that true love is a fallacy. Their "experience" has "taught" them that is so. I've heard the tired arguments: Humans are naturally polygamous (can't stay with one person forever); Love doesn't exist in nature; it's some superficial element that we tack on to sex... bla bla bla. Now, here comes the tricky part: they are convinced that the only reason why others do not have these beliefs is that they have not been through what they have been through. For example, if we both have a vase and I break mine, I will believe that you are a fool for thinking that your is indestructible. I will believe that the only reason why yours hasn't broken is because it hasn't been through what mine has. The same thing goes for this thing with true love. Romance and relationships are trashed when they are warped and distorted in the modern world. Anything is faulty when it is not done right!

Then there is the hardened factor. You give yourself this power of rank because you've been through something that emotionally scarred you. So the others are some rookies, or "young pups" because they haven't adopted the beaten wife mentality like you have. You lash out at others who have faith in what you have lost faith in. The "experience" becomes a criteria...

VALUES instilled in the home of a two parent heterosexual household are what determines someone having the right outlook in life; Not pathetic "experiences" of regretted sex and life-draining relationships! Experience is NOT the only teacher - and not only that but experience isn't ANY kind of teacher! Look at humanity... do we really learn from our mistakes????

I've had numerous people tell me that they've had sex and regretted it, but it was a learning experience!!! Oh, so your body is now nothing but some petri dish for you to "learn" about "stuff"! If that were true, then every one in the world would have to smoke dope, do acid and go to treatment centers for a few years, toss away their virginity and get into a few sex-based relationships, and Lord knows what else, so they can be "seasoned" for life!! People, do you see the danger here?

What more needs to be said?

This moment was so beautiful that I will treasure it always:
One time I was arguing with a friend of mine as to whether or not people's lifestyles affect each other. I cut right to it and said that when I am trying to talk with a woman, she can not afford to give me the benefit of the doubt as to whether it is safe to be alone with me. If I am interested in her, she may even decide not to try to get to know me better because the risk of me being anything from a two bit liar to a full fledged rapist is just too great. So, I have suffered for the actions of others. Now, my friend gleefully jumped on this and said that was not the result of society; that's just being careful. So, I happily jumped onto him and said that when we leave my apartment, we will not do it with red foil wrapped around our head to protect us from gymnobeams. Why? Because we never heard of that! So, if lying, womanizing and raping men wouldn't be so commonplace, then, it wouldn't be so hard to earn a woman's initial trust!

After he had been asserting for quite some time (and quite aggressively with his finger pointing at me) that we don't affect each other's lives, he gave in...

Beautiful!

This one is so nasty that I don't know where to start. First of all, what makes sex great is the investment in the relationship and the lifelong commitment that the couple makes; not body lotions, gels, tools, mirrors and horno-porno. When we resort to these measly physical things, we are going along the lines of thought that sex is just a physical act. It's just the nerve ending and the endorphins. It's just the rush... I often use the analogy of breaking a tape at a track race or getting a 50 foot goal at the buzzer in a basket ball game: In these acts, the physical thing done is nothing special (breaking tape, getting the goal) but what it MEANS and the value and investment tied to it gives the person the rush that they feel in the pit of their stomach, and such. We are slowly but surely moving toward the notion that sex brings intimacy; that sex is the STARTING point of a relationship; that sex is something separate from a relationship that we just so happen to slosh with a relationship for convenience; that all we are is physical, sensual creatures who have no other motivation or stimuli other than our nerve endings and G-spots, and that there is no such thing as a constant, unchanging goodness or righteousness in sex, so that we have to reinvent human sexuality (I guess God didn't get it right the first time and His mistake must be made Correct - no, the capital C is not a typo) with all of the current trends such as specially engineered condoms and body lotions manufactured by this nation's new religious heiarchy: The Pre-Marital sex elite, in order for us to be "sexually satisfied".

Another glaring example of this is an instance that I had the honor of being witness to on the Phil Donahue show waaaaaaaaay back. There was a runway show for sleepware. This guy comes out, then this woman in a one piece lingerie and the audience acted like a seal when you throw a fish and did the "ooooohs" and "woooooohs". While these "models" were doing their little thing, the speaker (announcer, director, runway chief, or whatever her title was...) said that this lingerie was so special and so "sexy" (I HATE that word used in any context) that "IT SHOULD ONLY BE USED WITH HUSBANDS AND LOVERS" (this may not be an exact quote)...

WHAT?!?!?!!?!?!?

Yeah, I had sex with her, but we're waiting until our wedding night to do it with LINGERIE!!! Oh yeah, baby! I can't wait!

You know, it's a good thing that we live in these times where we have lingerie for us to have sex! Imagine how that lifeless act of sex would have been before we had lingerie!! Boy, we live in fortunate times!

I might elaborate more on this later, but I'm only going to site one case and analogy for now. Again, on Donahue, they had a woman stripper who was asserting that stripping takes guts. Stripping is foolish, not brave. I thought about this for some time and wanted to dissect it. I'm sure that especially their first time(s), they get cold feet, get nervous and push themselves to do it. So they have this feeling of tremendous effort (going against their conscience) and label this an a triumph and a praiseworthy accomplishment. Okay, let's use another story. Let's say that you are waiting behind a corner to smash someone's skull in with a pipe to take their wallet. While waiting, your heart is going to beat fast, you are going to get anxious, and you will leave the bloody, broken corpse thinking that this took guts...

The confusion here is that something like stripping (where you are lowering yourself to a display item) that consists of a direct use of your body, carries a tremendous psychological and emotion weight. So of course the woman is going to go through all of these feelings and turmoil. Strippers have been interviewed and have admitted that "it's a good feeling" when they are dancing around naked and when looking at the men they "know what they're thinking". Amazing! Intimacy suppressed and rationed away for the ransom of their body... Any woman who wasn't the victim of some horrible circumstances would be happy in a relationship with ONE man, and not need to "have a good feeling" of flattery or being the object of sexual attention at some breast bar. This is not some individual choice; this is a choice made for you, by your environment and the sexual Powers That Be who capitalize on your misfortunes of having to resort to this in order to have some version of love.

This goes back to another spot on my page when I said that sex carries an emotional tinge to it, and it stings when used as a weapon. You can't shout "Hey, haven't you got the guts to get laid?" and make a lesser virgin bow his/her head down in shame. You have been told that sex is power. That is a half truth. It IS power, but not for you. When you play with that fire, YOU get burned and are merely the puppet that is playing with a smaller puppet. You look at your puppet and say "I must have power, for this little puppet is moving exactly how my hand is moving..." Without looking to see what force is moving your hand.

This argument is used to promote an inherent perfection in human nature and that raw sex by itself is innately good; requiring no preparation or moral teachings. It is also used as a tool to attack social conservatives for asserting that morality and sex go together; that they are inseparable. Of course if two kids are put on a desert island, they'll have sex with no teachings! That's the POINT! What kind of argument is that? The reason why you have convention and standard is so that people don't live by their whims; so that they are taught to think things through and that every knee jerk impulse that you have to do with your body does not make you aware to how much you can hurt yourself when you do so! It's the oldest form of false advertising!

What a ridiculous argument...

I've seen the women get to darn skinny and with the makeup and unrealistic walking that they do down these runways, I've come to the conclusion that the industry has gotten like turning the knob on a pair of binoculars when you already have a focus, it gets blurry again. Hollywood is tripping over itself; they don't know what to do anymore with their every changing standards. They're getting narrower and narrower with their barriers of attractiveness.

You know, I have always had trouble remembering how many "L's" in Hollywood. Then during the wee hours of this morning (July 19 1996) I invented this technique to remember:

There's NO "Holy" in "Hollywood".

(New tidbit added May 1997)

Tolerance is the sole perpetrator of systematic injustice.

It's a culture like that which gives the growing notion that a playboy boinker has some kind of edge or enjoyment that a married man doesn't have for being married and faithful to his wife; or that kids should "experiment" and be "free" before they settle down for the old ball and chain. Smaller examples of this would be a guy going to a strip joint only on select occasions, men buying swimsuit posters, women giving jerks the time of day or even so much as dating them. Large examples of this would be saying that men can know more about morality than God, or that a person who has done drugs, lived a life of crime or been promiscuous is wiser and has advantages over someone in life who has not.

This is yet another topic of how focusing on the tangible and the immediate results in us living by 100$ lies. In the issue of drugs able to be taken enhance "sexual pleasure" (or orgasm) and the growing acknowledgment that the bikini babe blitz is re-establishing a definition of sex. The New Age, modern world and pop-culture are so arrogant in asserting that how many moans, grunts and sweat beads occur during intercourse are the ONLY standard as to how satisfying and even how "moral" the roll in the hay actually was. This growing belief has many faces; do not be fooled into thinking that just because today most people don't defend one night stands and the notion that marriage is only a "ball and chain" that we are not in danger. Oppression and nationwide slavery NEVER worked that way in the first place. All we need is the slightest belief and tolerance that an orgy can be great, but "you have to have morals", so therefore this "fun" should not be partaken; as opposed to the belief that there is NOTHING pleasurable in an orgy and that the feeling of "pleasure" is merely brainwashing and the enslavement that their body is used against them as a numbing device to bury all of their pain and attempt to deal with their REAL unresolved tensions in life. We can't have a "99% wrong" approach to orgies, bikini posters, pre-marital sex, cheating on your wife, and porno when you don't have a girlfriend. Under this, we give the only edge that the boink-culture really needs to assist in the degradation of our Sexual Reference Frame.

If "sexual satisfaction" was only the act itself, and all that mattered was nerve endings and skin cells, then the notion of cheating on your spouse being a BAD thing is ridiculous!!! They why don't we have a whips and chains professional boinker lie in the corner of your bedroom and when you tell you wife goodnight, Candy Cane and Lynda Lace can hop into bed with you, push your wife on the floor and...

WHOOOOOOAAA BABY!!!! Look out and try not to wake the neighbors!

The best way to see if a sentiment is wrong, or if an action is rooted in the wrong sentiment, is too take it's applications to higher and higher proportions.

Sex is NOT physical! The intercourse is merely the physical manifestation of sexuality! Anyone who believes different is a cog in the machine that makes it OK for married men to go to strip clubs, have strippers sit on their laps for their bachelor party, and makes women and wives feel like chopped liver when they see their husband who has promised his life to them, gawk at another woman. We've got to draw a line here. That's why people are so confused at hurt today in issues like this; because there are no barriers! You should have a situation where you put all of your feelings in one person (i.e. marriage), not this communal, halfway, semi-individual nomadic savage arrangement that you still have to share your husband's fantasies and brain with other women down the street or on TV, or on breast pimping swimsuit calendars.

Another example of this pop culture that only acknowledges the physical when push comes to shove; AND more importantly how our pop culture trying to get everyone to "relax" and be "liberated" is only a cheap trick to get people become chained through the actions of their own hand.

NOTE: Independence is not threatened in dating. Avoiding it is sign that you DON'T have independence.

This is even another example of this blurred line mentality of sexuality, resulting NOT in liberation, but in only confusion and scars. Make up your mind. Which is it? Or you having a normal conversation or are you pursuing this person? Spitting out tidbits of your sexuality in this "just flirt" garbage is like smoking a joint. It's lowering a precious part of yourself to that of some blow up woman for a cheap rush of power to get attention or arouse someone for thrills. You lower your sense of self worth when you do that.

Premise of Bobdole gangbanging Pat Buchanan: (a friend of mine and I concocted one night)
Screw a friend - you're a traitor. But if you go out and use your victory to screw your enemy WORSE than you did your friend - you're a patriot!

I've been saying for MONTHS that I would get around to doing this, so let me lay down some initial stuff and promise to develop this more; I have sooooooo much to say, it's hard for me to find a place to start

(2)Bobdole HAD no vison! I'd like to see him go off on Hillary Clinton for comparing the family and the home to slavery and life on Indian reservations like Pat Buchanan did in the Republican Convention in 1992!! At every given point, when he stated something about a conservative premise, he didn't articulate it or explain it! As I've said before, he came off with mere rhetoric that appealed only to people who were already conservative. AND after all of the bashing from the liberal media that we have about how we were all idiots for thinking that a 15% income tax cut would be good, I didn't hear Kemp OR Bobdole make a case at the convention that the premise was the money circulated better in the PRIVATE sector! Our public is so dumbed down now, they WANT higher taxes!

NOTE: mention the CNN embarrassing town hall discussion...

(3)Bobdole and Jack Kemp's speeches were nothing but hollow rhetoric! It was sick...

(4)They mentioned Reagan too much. I love Reagan, but their premise seemed to have been "Hey remember that guy you liked so much? Well, he was a Republican! I am too!!! Vote for me!!" Bobdole said [You want Reagan? I'll be Reagan]

What kind of a foolish, poll chasing, opportunist idiotic promise was that????

(I'll add to this later - MAY 29 1997)

Point from June 3 1997...

From Slick Willie and Algore, Bobdole took an unfounded beating on "building a bridge to America's past". Bobdole confirmed all of the liberal allegations that conservatism, the Republicans, and Bobdole all want to go back to slavery and sanctioned wife beating. At the entire speech at the convention, he should have put together all of the research of the sexual and moral statistics that have skyrocketed from the 1920's and pressed hard that we can't justify all of our moral problems today because we no longer have segregation and women's suffrage. He left himself wide open for a classic liberal beating and did NOTHING to refute their arrogant allegations.

In today's incredible and systematic moral slump in which we're in, even most of the conservative Right is tainted with the same elements of which they lambast liberals for being composed.

(1)Inability to feel true fear of how bad things really are (i.e. the degree).
(2)Inability to grasp aggression and adequately rise against it.
(3)Inability to get intricate enough to fight the enemy they ALREADY admit exists! We can't win with convention! Pop culture isn't a mere disorganized homogenous glob! It is intricate, focused, polarized and aggressive.
(4)Inability to implement their OWN ideologies beyond cheap rhetoric!
(5)Scared to "offend" people! Consider being a people pleaser a higher priority than the truth!

Articles from December 1997

Also, this would have been bad because with the Republican Congress, everything that happens in this country will be pinned on the Republicans. Every time some kid skins his knee at a school it's the Republicans fault. Now, normally I wouldn't mind that since me being a Republican, I feel that bad things wouldn't happen under properly implemented conservatism. My problem here is that with Bobdole doing Bobdole's job for Bobdole, Bobdole would have not pushed as much as a privatizing, government slashing agenda that conservatives assert is needed, which would have resulted in a less healthier economy, and of course all of this would have been our fault. The media could say that the Republicans have Congress and the White House, and they can't deliver. This would be a death blow citing for all Democrats to lambast Republicans.

These articles written March 2006

I hate to abuse the word rape for anything except rape. I believe that pop culture is doing nothing short of clubbing kids over the head, and in a drunken state, brainwashing them into having sex. In sex debates, liberals tend to shove it in conservatives's face that premarital sex is this hardcore reality that can not be escaped from. With today's push for so much sex in today's media, it is no mystery as to why there is so much premarital sex. I admit that there is a tendency to sin within mankind, but mankind also yearns for guidance and structure, and when an evil structure like pop culture exists, they take that mold over churches and parents who are not as dynamic as today's slutty pop culture. I call this the rape tax. It is like a tax that is imposed on people that they have no control over. All I have seen all my life is brainwashing and peer pressure and indoctrination. With this bombardment, I hardly agree that today's exploding teen sex is this constant that can not be adjusted.

A message needed to be sent to America that with a philandering slime ball like Bill Clinton, we can not tolerate one who lies so much. To all the liberals that were offended by the impeachment, the message is clear. If you don't want to go through all of that again, just don't elect a son of a b***h like that ever again. Any decent American should see why it was such an embarrassment having Bill Clinton with his lies and sex scams as President, YET the liberals were saying that it was the conservative opposition to Clinton and the impeachment itself that was making us a laughing stock! The Clinton loyalists had NO SHAME. They called Kenneth Starr a pervert for exposing a pervert!

When a son of a b***h has as much power as he did, his god-hood must be refuted, and no price is too much, even if the Republican would have lost the entire Congress as a punishment for the impeachment.

I have often charged that today conservatism is rotting from the inside. What I mean by that is that on the surface, you have diehard conservatives and card carrying Republicans, but inside they have faltered. As with much religion today, I believe party affiliation has degenerated to gang colors. What I mean by that is that the labels become arbitrary and amoral, having no core ideology, other than you are on this side and I am on that side. I have often charged that the moral deterioration has become so bad in this country that the thought to rise against it is ludicrous. It becomes an outright heresy to even SPEAK against it because it is so powerful! I was speaking to a right winged Roman Catholic once and I was saying how weak the church is today against pop culture and he asked me what more do I want them to do! As if there was the slightest advancement being made! One of my other Christian friends told me (in all of my counter media ideas against pop culture) that maybe this wasn't my battle! This is a battle for ANY conservative Christian.

I could write this article to the point where it would be so huge that the Internet couldn't hold it. BUT in my old age I have learned a few things more. Women fall for bad boys because bad boys are FOCUSED. They know what they want: SEX, ARM CANDY! The drive they have is very seductive and they can make a woman feel wanted and treasured. A focused man is an attractive man. I, being a bipolar computer nerd NEVER come across as focused, and I am a loser with the ladies. One thing that I'd ask any woman who is fed up with trash men that they fall for is that if they meet me, to give me a serious chance, to IGNORE their impulses and instincts because they will interpret me as out of focus and therefore cluttered and unattractive.

There is so much to say and there is nothing to say. If you use a condom and gets AIDS anyway, can the condom makers give you a refund and uninfect you?

(Can you blow that saxophone Billy Boy, Billy Boy?)

Clinton in 1992

Clinton is a man that I am going to hate for the rest of my life. I forget my first memory of him but one of my first few memories was Jennifer Flowers and Phil Donahue. On Phil Donahue, Donahue was pressing him about the affair with Jennifer Flowers. Clinton was adamant as he was on a 60 minutes episode that the affair, or whether he had one, was his business. Donahue told him something to the effect that if Clinton was running for President of the United States, that Clinton should expect to be questioned about personal issues. I agree with this because no man having an affair should be in charge of social policy that has to do with giving condoms to our kids. It is a myth that a man having affairs can still do right for this country because no matter what, you have to choose a side in your actions. No matter what, you are favoring one side of morality, either liberalism or conservatism. This is the whole idea of the term sublimate and the term social engineering.

Once when Tom Harkin was running for the Democratic nomination in 1992 against Bill Clinton, he was asked at a press conference whether he thought his campaign was helped by Bill Clinton's latest problem. Harkin gets a sarcastic look of bewilderment on his face and asks "What's his latest one?" The entire group had a big laugh over it, as always with Bill Clinton. At this point, Bill Clinton had three "problems". One was saying that he smoked marijuana but didn't inhale. Another was his affair with Jennifer Flowers. Another was something having to do with Hillary being a lawyer and was supposed to be on opposing sides on something and presented a conflict of interest. I found it curious that in 1996, Harkin was at Clinton's side with a smile. It just goes to show how all these butt kissers are all in the same trough. So anyway, Paul Tsongas beats Clinton in New Hampshire and Slick Willie made his comeback to get the nomination and win the race in 1992. He became the first person in US history to lose the New Hampshire primary and win the President's race. There a time when he clashed with Jerry Brown in a televised debate (I think) having something to do with Hillary. So, Clinton turns to Brown and starts to act as if he is being civil but barking at him at the same time, and this was so fake it was pathetic. This guy is an ACTOR. There was also this quote floating around that one of the Kerry's said about him: that he was an unusually good liar, and then said that he didn't mean it as an insult!

During the debate between Al Gore and Dan Quayle, Quayle cited that Clinton said that he did not protest against the was in Vietnam and it was later found out that he organized protests. Quayle cited Clinton's lies and all Gore could do was bring up Dubya Senior saying "read my lips; no new taxes" and him breaking that promise. Gore had no defense for Clinton. At the convention, he said that he was fed up with being lectured about "family values". Of all of the people that need a lecture, it sure is Bill Clinton!

Clinton in 1996:

The time where I was ashamed to be an American under Bill Clinton was with the debate over partial birth abortions. This is where the baby is fully formed and in the later part of the third trimester, and is pushed out of the mother feet first, then body first with the head still inside of the mother, then a sharp metal object is pushed into the skull of the baby and sucked as to kill the baby, but for it to still count as an abortion. Clinton said "They don't want answers; they want an issue" regarding the new Republican Congress. This is an example of a typical liberal calling a conservative partisan because they don't want to cave in to a liberal.

Are WE the NEW pioneers? Could reestablishing agrarian morality in the modern world be the NEW frontier for the following generations in OUR era to tame??

I got inspired from this from a segment by none other than Ross Perot aired on C-span. Accompanied with video taped testimonies of kids on the camera, he spoke of the scared, discouraged aimless Generation X and cited speeches and footage about how they were inheriting all of these problems and there was so much for them to do as adults...

I then had a revelation that was an inescapable conclusion (under the context of all the current division and power struggles among us...)

My generation will have to do something much more demanding and sinister than just not be slackers and work hard...

They will have to choose a SIDE!

A thought of mine that I had today: (May 28 1997)

Passiveness is the WORST form of extremism

They just want to sit in their cubicles with their brains numbed in these booths separate from the rest of the world for eternity

Good extremism is when you stick to your guns, and you don't back down just because someone is trying to intimidate you. Evil extremism is when you have a set viewpoint and no matter how much evidence is against you, you don't change. This can be called a hard wired mind set. What I call mid-winged extremism is these so-called moderates that claim to be tolerant and open minded while being just another version of intolerance and elitism. Bob Dole did a good job oh this when he banned Pat Buchanan from the Republican convention in 1996, just like a damned NAZI. Also, one time John McCain clashed with Alan Keyes on abortion. McCain said that if his daughter was going to have an abortion, it would be a family decision. Keyes said this was ridiculous and the same if there was a family meeting on whether to kill the grandmother. McCain snaps at him and says that his military experience taught him plenty about killing and that he didn't need a lecture from Keyes! What kind of childish irrational tangent was THAT?!? This is the kind of stuff that these "moderates" do: have their views that don't need to be defended because they are right by default. These guys think "Hey, I am not for huge government and I am not this hard nosed pro lifer, so that makes me rational!" Then they proceed to act as a dictator with no resolve to check themselves because they have had their own ego fed to "prove" to them that they are rational, so they no longer need to be in check! These people do not check or question themselves at all! This is the attribute of an extremist.

Classic violence advocacy extremism (Timothy McVeigh, Trench Coat Mafia): (a)You have become over simplistic in your once complex ideology
(b)You have degenerated to rationalizing to attacking individuals instead of institutions
(c)You have completely fused your personal anger with your political angst

I have lived these three things, so this is how I have been able to identify them.

My article asking the simple question that why is it that these people and this wing says that we should look to practical, "realistic" immediate solutions to society's problems instead of the "unrealistic" conservative route of restoring teen virginity, getting rid of abortion, divorce, pornography and such, while these are the SAME people that supposedly got rid of SLAVERY, legal WIFE BEATING and RACISM, that were all very deeply entrenched social institutions for centuries????

The annoying and dangerous sentiments of the pop-culture has now seeped it's thought and every day life of immorality into allowing Bill Clinton to be made into a secular POPE! He is granted full infallibility by the masses and can do no wrong! This is now how our politics will be run; the guy with the softest voice and bedroom eyes will now be our new KING!

I have observed with Alanis Morisette in "You outta know" and Ice-T in general, that they have struck a chord with people. I have observed that these leaders are not entrenched activists with established resources such as being in direct political power or being a constant media activist such as Hannity, or Franken. I feel that the problems have become so complex and so overwhelming that no one single body can address them anymore. Eminem has some political pull, then the Republicans have some pull, then the Pope has some pull, then Limbaugh has some pull, then OReilly clashes with Ludicrous and so on. Families and churches are a JOKE today as far as being a focused unified power to guide and shape society. As a conservative, I believe that conservative answers are best for these problems. The problem however is when any and every conservative entity that I can think of is compromised and/or oblivious and/or rusted in erosion there seems to be no entity to be qualified to implement that conservative activism! HOPELESS! This is YET ANOTHER reason why I get into gangsta rap so much and embrace some points made by liberals, is because as with all wars, there are scattered bits and fragments laid all over the place during the aftermath. And in this, it is almost as if some liberals who know better, pick up a piece of conservatism somewhere and actually USE it. You may have a big liberal admit that it is ridiculous to just give teens the green light to have sex, and other such issues.

I have always campaigned against distinct sex roles like women should stay in the kitchen, and men should know all about cars and sports, but under my new aggressive conservatism, trying to keep convention rooted in truth and consistency instead of blind conformity and the delusion or order has led me to rethink some minor planks of denouncing sex roles. Could men and women have inherent roles that may be deviated from as individuals, BUT have general, natural, tilts to as sexes?

Too often, liberals discredit current conservative action saying that if we still ran the show when it comes to a nations' morals, that we would still have slavery and racism and wife beating and rape would be legal. It seems that we have to not say that liberalism was OK then, but not now. We have the say that any liberalism then was only a front of justice, when justice really wasn't served to women and blacks (there are many problems that women and blacks have today decades after these times of "liberation"). There are already articles about this, but this will be a long one on my part; me not handling this one exactly right could make it seem like I am trying to go back to slavery.

When Pat Buchanan once said that "extremist" is one of the new political cusswords, I erupted in laughter. With political correctness, there is a hypersensitivity advocated by many liberals that when you simply say the truth, people get hostile and cry foul, as if freedom of speech doesn't apply when you are disagreeing with a liberal. Liberalism is an emotion based ideology. Therefore, when you disagree with someone whose feelings are part of their ideology, they take it personally, and say that you are not playing fair because it is construed as a personal attack. I have seen this with a certain breed of liberal, and as well with some conservatives. Being the alienated conservative that I am, I have observed that I have a lot of volume, flare and passion to the way I present myself and make arugments. I have often asserted that with mishandled emotion, a human being can gravitate towards coldness, the exact opposite of emotion. This explains a new coldness that I have seen from certain extreme liberals (not all liberals, and not all extreme liberals) that is hostile towards a passionate conservative such as myself. We are the exact opposites when it comes to outward emotion and ideology. Under these new rules, you can not offend someone which means that you are not allowed to disagree with them. Judging gets equated with disagreeing as well. No conservative object is allowed to exist without some liberal adjustments, just as with primitive times, if you worshipped some other gods than the gods of the State, you had to acknowledge that the State's gods existed as well, and could not have exclusivity as part of your religion. So if you push virginity, you have a liberal saying that you must also give a condom to a child in case they will ignore your virginity teaching, and you must not assert that a choice in life is "wrong" because that will be offensive, extreme or judgmental. Abortion is another case. Pro choicers say that they may not be for having an abortion BUT they will allow someone else to have one, even if they think it is murder. For the Day of Purity that was advocated on highschool campuses for teen virginity, a girl from an organziation of gays, lesbians, and straights said that this was wrong because it implies that some people are not "pure". These new liberal rules are an integration attempt, in one which you are allowed to have some sembelence of a conservative opinion, but as long as it is not asserted that you beleive it is right. This is like the "Fairness Doctrine" that was being pushed by anti Rush Limbaugh advocates in Congress a few years back. My conclusion in all of this is that if disagreeing with someone is going to be labeled as hate speech, then there may as well be no first ammendment at all.

The Republican takeover in 1994 was a hollow victory. We are counterfeiting an efficient political system and enforcing the delusion of a national revitalization. The social problems give us the economic problems that we are trying to address separately. Careers aren't rooted in our hearts but in our pocketbooks; we can push a merger to marry to competing companies, but we can't marry someone of the opposite sex and make that marriage work. The more materialism that we have, we are miserable and can't figure out why; we've used the scientific approach in moral situations; we've turned nature into a religion; we've made ourselves our own gods and continue to say everything is perfect and use that as the basis to continue our pursuing to become perfect. We live the lie on the basis that there is no truth.