Testify!

     On May 17 a piece appeared in the New York Times concerning the recent outbreak of a new strain of bacterial meningitis among gay and bisexual men in New York City.  The reporter chose to focus on the night he accompanied a doctor who was vaccinating men in a gay sex club called Paddles in Chelsea.  Unfortunately, true to the currently fashionable politically correct assumptions, there was nothing in the piece which put the promiscuous conduct of the men who frequent such clubs in any kind of context.  The flavor of the piece is rather changed if one vital fact is taken into account--that it isn't inherent for homosexual men to be promiscuous.
     What I found much more interesting than the particular piece itself were the comments in response to it online.  I read through over a hundred of them.  There were several comments criticizing the men's sexual conduct--but mostly from women.  There was only one comment, out of all the ones I read, which was made by a man identifying himself as gay, and criticizing promiscuous behavior.  He stated that the sex club was part of the  "seedy underbelly of the gay community," and that "some of us don't live our lives this way."  Hallelujah! 
     Now if only such a statement by a gay man would appear someplace where the housewives in Iowa might see it, it would be the dawn of a golden age for some of their sons.

Return to Lancaster County

    In a previous post I made the statement that watching the gays and the Jerry Falwells fight their quaint old hidebound fight was like a trip to Lancaster County, but that in all fairness the Amish, with their practice of rumspringa, showed more subtlety of mind than the gays and the Jerry Falwells put together.
     Over the weekend I watched some of the series "Breaking Amish," and I'm embarrassed to have to admit that I may have been simplistic in making that statement.  I may have overestimated the Amish, I'm afraid.  In one episode somebody asked one of the young rumspringers something like, "Are you running away from being Amish?"  The girl replied, "I just want to do my own thing."  Which was funny, because the lion's share of the series consists of watching Amish kids go out and become American-style trained apes circa 2013.  Right down to the stylish clothes, the tattoos, and the drug abuse.  If that girl any more did her own thing she'd crawl off on her hands and knees and join the Moonies.  Maybe it's a sort of dirty trick the Amish play on their young people.  Maybe rumspringa consists of letting them go out there with no money or support, land with the scum of the "English," get the shit scared out of them, and run back home, never knowing that there were actually more than two options.  A semester of college would have given that girl a little different perspective than she gained from hanging around with the bimbos in a club.  But college takes money....  So I revise my previous statement.  If the Amish are consciously aware of what they're doing to these kids, then and only then are they more subtle of mind than the gays and the Jerry Falwells.  If they're unconscious of it, then I'm afraid they're just an exotic version of the same old thing.

The Emperor is Naked Already

     The Jerry Falwells like to say that the acceptance of homosexuality in our society is proof that our society is corrupt.  I would revise that statement.  I would say that the acceptance of homosexuality in its traditional dysfunctional Western form, which is a transitory cultural form not more not less, without any true honest examination whatsoever from anybody of the implications of that fact, is definitely proof of our society's corruption.
     On Tuesday Delaware became the 11th state in the United States to legalize same-sex marriage, which means that over one-fifth of the country's states have now allowed their codes of honor to be swayed by any fashionable wind that blows.  I certainly believe that on the one hand homosexuals should have the same right to be stupid and get away with it as everybody else, and that in a democracy the majority should rule.  But on the other hand I have to wonder why freedom of speech, a vital treasure of our democracy, didn't prevent such an oversight years ago.  It's been 44 years since the Stonewall riots and to this day not one person, coming from any position whatsoever, has publicly pointed out the simple fact that nobody knows what homosexuality is, and that maybe we should slow down and do it right.  Which to me is way more interesting than any mere question of marriage rights could be.

Get Thee Behind Me Satan

     For several years I had the pleasure of subscribing to the magazine "Biblical Archaeology Review," which in addition to the interesting articles about archaeology had an added bonus which I always enjoyed.   On a regular basis the magazine would publish a letter to the editor from some outraged Jerry Falwell cancelling their subscription because something, usually a photograph, was unfit to be in their Christian home.  It was usually a photo of a young female assistant working at a dig in the heat of Israel in shorts and a skimpy T-shirt that would set them off, but once it was a picture of an ancient statue of a female nude on the cover, and once it was a picture of an old bearded Israeli archaeologist at a reception shown with a drink in his hand.  Oh my God!  The reader was always beside him/herself that the magazine wasn't published according to born-again Christian standards.
     Which was all pretty humorous given the fact that the editor of the magazine, Hershel Shanks, was Jewish, and nowhere did I ever see anything printed in that magazine promising anybody a rose garden.  Mr. Shanks apparently found the letters funny himself because he printed alot of them.  It was their outrage that was funny.  They didn't simply write in with something like, "Thanks, but unfortunately my religious beliefs don't quite mesh with the spirit of your magazine, so sorry, I'll have to cancel my subscription."  Their letters made it sound like Mr. Shanks was an insidious secret devil-worshipper or something and they were mightily proud of themselves for not being fooled. 
     I have all the respect in the world for Lynyrd Skynyrd's "simple man."  I grew up in a small town and I love that type of guy myself.  But I think these people might be taking things rather over the edge of simplicity and into simple-mindedness.  Where I come from we call a guy like that "all hat and no spurs."  Or I always preferred "all heart and no brains."  Call me crazy but I don't think I'd want such a person to be my son's Scoutmaster. 

Uncle Sammy Wants You II

     Suppose a girl, a white girl, was molested by a black man, and she grew up to be afraid of or hateful towards all black people.  Would there be any question that she had a problem, and that she was less of a human being until she dealt with it?  And what if the KKK came along and took advantage of her problem to recruit her.  Would there be any question that such a tactic was dishonorable?
     It's always struck me as suspicious, and troubling, that gays avoid the issue of self-identification due to trauma.  There's no question that there are individuals who self-identify as gay, and practice homosexuality, because they were sexually abused as children.  So why would the gays make such a sacrifice of credibility over an issue which probably only effects a few individuals?  I think it's reasonable to demand that any man volunteering to be my son's Scoutmaster be aware of such an issue, and be honorable enough to take it into account in his conduct.  Is it honorable for a person who is actually homosexual to have sex with somebody who is fixated because of trauma?  Where is that question in the rhetoric?
     This is certainly an issue for heterosexuals.  It's a well-known fact that a common sign of sexual abuse in girls is promiscuity.  It's so well-known that any himbo in a nightclub has heard it, and even if he's a creep and chooses to ignore the implications, he knows full well that there are all kinds of reasons why a given woman might be willing to have casual sex with him.  So why haven't we ever heard the gays publicly talk about this issue in terms of their conduct?  It's almost as if they don't want to admit the true complexity of human sexuality--as if maybe such an admission would cost them something.
     Of course, there's a price to pay for everything.  If in a parallel universe gay people, instead of spending wasted effort hindsight-rationalizing the old dysfunctional cultural form they happened to have drifted into, and instead had faced forward into the future and thought more about the welfare of kids coming after them, all kinds of benefits could have accrued.  For instance, when the so-called "ex-gays" said their piece, they could have simply responded, "That individual was never actually homosexual in the first place."  The gays could have had that.  But they traded it away for a handful of magic beans.  So now, homosexual kids are still being traumatized, and in new and subtle ways which didn't even exist before the time of the gay rights movement. 
    
    

Uncle Sammy Wants You

     A couple of weeks ago the people of California were witness to a strange kind of child abuse.  An issue concerning the well-being of thousands of teenagers was debated in the state, mostly between the usual two combatants, without either the gays or the Jerry Falwells showing any true concern about the kids themselves.  A court heard arguments concerning a state law which prohibits therapists from trying to change the sexual orientation of minors.  Some Californians, including gays who say that such therapies hurt them in their youth, want the law upheld.  Others, including of course the Jerry Falwells and their darlings the so-called "ex-gays," who say therapy helped them, want the law repealed.  Strangely, it doesn't seem to occur even to the therapists to say that a blanket answer might be simplistic; that maybe we could all stop playing games and stay on the high road when it comes to the welfare of children.
     I get a huge bang out of "ex-gays."  They're the walking proof that human sexuality is complicated, which renders their involvement in this issue ironic to say the least.  It's too bad that not one of them has apparently grasped the implications of their experience, the true mystery of things, and find a new third position, instead of just scuttling back to the Jerry Falwells.  I have to wonder at a person who could go through an experience like that and not learn anything.  But then, a mystery can only be faced alone.   No drone has such balls.
     The Jerry Falwells like to say that the gays recruit young people.  In fact, they do.  The gays recruit young homosexuals--into their crap traditional culture, whether they're consciously aware of what they're doing or not.  If the gays and the Jerry Falwells hadn't successfully smokescreened all other drones in our society with their quaint little battle for the last 44 years, the role of culture in how homosexuality is seen and practiced would have been admitted years ago, and these kids would have been born into a better world.
    
    
    

Collaborators Wanted

     Oppressors have a classic dirty trick they like to pull on people they're trying to keep down.  It's the oldest trick in the book, and you don't even have to be conscious of what you're doing for it to work.  In fact, so much the better if you're not conscious of it. It works better that way.  All it requires is an astounding capacity for self-delusion.  Any drone can do it.
     Say you want to justify owning slaves.  All you have to do is withhold all human dignity; decent living conditions, education, etc etc; then point at them and say, "Look at them.  They're animals."  Want to keep Chinese people out of the California of 1849 and away from white jobs?  Drive them off the gold fields they came to work, force them to take whatever menial jobs they can get to survive, force them to live in squalor, then point at them and say, "Look at them.  They're strange and alien.  They eat rats.  They're all opium addicts.  They're filthy."  Say it loud enough, and Congress might just outlaw Chinese emigration for you.  Want to keep women down?  Withhold development from them when they're girls, and they'll grow up to justify your every underestimation.  Classic.
     It's when the oppressed cooperate with it, though, that the trick really works well.  If your victims buy into your propaganda, you've got it made.  They'll jump through your hoops like a trained poodle on the Ed Sullivan Show.  Say you were raised in Anytown, U.S.A., circa the late 20th century, and you really don't want to have to give up the heterosexual-only, missionary position-only concept of human sexuality you've grown up with and gotten used to, because to question it now would shake your whole little drone reality right down to bedrock.  Wouldn't it be a dream if homosexual people did you a huge favor and just kept right on embodying the pathetic this-or-nothing cultural form they've been forced to settle for in the shadows for 2000 years, thereby continuing to prove you right?  The church has already done the setup work for you by making it impossible for homosexuality to take an  honorable form for all those years.  As long as it doesn't occur to gay men that they could simply criticize the Uncle Toms who are out there jumping through the Jerry Falwells' hoops, making a spectacle of being exactly like what the Jerry Falwells think they are--suspiciously exactly like--you've got all the justification you could ever hope for.  It's pretty sweet when your victims insist on cooperating.