The Penis Should Be Attached to the Forehead

Tags

David Petraeus, editorial, male sexuality, sexuality

Seriously.

It’s a design flaw.

I intend to take it up with God the very moment I arrive.

The male pleasure stick needs to be out there visible to all.

It’s the only way we can be sure.

Sure of what?

That should be obvious.

Sure that they are not living up to their name sake when making any decision.

Think how simple it would be to avoid all this costly and embarrassing crap.

You see a guy with an erection, and you automatically remove all sharp objects from his vicinity. You refuse to allow him to make even the most basic of decisions without assistance from at least a thirteen-year-old. You take away his keys, his credit cards, his phone and his computer. You can let him watch old re-runs of the Beverly Hillbillies if you wish, that might even calm him down, although a man in the throes of a stiffy would probably get overly excited by Grannie.

When his dick is hanging down tickling his nose, well you know it’s safe to place him in control of such things as he is otherwise suited to by education and experience.  Such an easy system don’t you think?

WHAT THE HELL WAS DAVID PETRAEUS THINKING??????

I mean this is a 4-star general. Does that mean he is even modestly intelligent?

He has retired from service and taken the job that he says he craved to hold.

He has been married for eons.

He is getting up there in age when men start to appreciate steady, uneventful, calm, normal marriage, without bar-clearing fights and temper tantrums that result in credit card max-outs.

A little fluff of a nobody, with some seriously apparent psychological flaws, bats her eyes, and the General came to attention. And apparently stayed at attention, while his brain went into a coma. We would have known. We could have saved his career, and saved his wife all this unnecessary and awful publicity and public display.

This is not something new.

The Republican party, bastion of “family values” for everyone but themselves, regularly finds one of its members embracing somebody not their wife, sometimes even with pictures to seal the deal. I mean doesn’t it serve all of us to avoid this crap? Do we not have serious things to do in this country without the diversions of personal “oops I donked the wrong woman by mistake”?

Believe me I recognize that men are weak. Women are often able to forgive if not forget their man’s inability to keep it in his pants whenever a biologically identified female comes within one hundred feet, but can’t we at least minimize the damage these snatchers of free-hanging fruit do?

This is akin to a person confronted with heroin and thinking, “nah, I can handle it. I won’t get hooked. I’m smarter than the average duck.” Do all men think they can “get away with it?”

Is there a secret website that men go to wherein they can read stories of how other men “got away with it”? Are they encouraged by some statistics women are unaware of that informs them that 97% of all men who are unfaithful are never caught? Are we women being bamboozled day and night by our supposedly faithful spouses? Does the Contrarian have a squeeze on Aisle 27 at Lowe’s that he stoops a couple of times a month in what must be the definition of a quickie?

I only ask because any MORON with the IQ of over 12 and 1/2 would know that the head of the CIA cannot get it on with some “biographer” who had her own high level clearance, and obviously KNEW a lot of folks in the ARMY, and was on TALK SHOWS and was traveling in HIGH CIRCLES, and sending e-mails to HIM, without it getting out of the bag at SOMETIME, probably sooner rather than later.

I mean how likely was it to remain just their little tryst?

How likely?

About the chances Nate Silver gave Romney to win–9% or so.

I know this is hard to accept gentlemen, but it’s true. If you are at full-mast right now, I’m quite sure you cannot make sense of this, but save it until you are brushing little willie out of your eyes, and read it again. It will make more sense then.

IF YOU DO THE NASTY WITH SOMEONE NOT YOUR WIFE YOU ARE HIGHLY AND MOST LIKELY GOING TO GET CAUGHT.

So, if that doesn’t matter, then by all means have at it, but you probably are in the midst of a divorce in that case anyway. Otherwise–DON’T DO IT.

Got that?

Print this out, fold it up, put it in your wallet, and read it whenever willie starts to stir.

Got that?

Okay.

The Big Lie of the Anti-choice Right

Tags

abortion, abstinence, pro-life, religion, right to choose, sex education, sexuality, women's bodies, Women's issues

It is probably true that there is no basis of compromise between the two sides. One either believes that there is a fundamental right of a woman to control her own body or one believes that  conception and the resultant life trumps all other issues from the moment that sperm meets ovum.

We can all agree to that. What choice people profess, and most anti-choicers refuse to acknowledge, is that choice people also want to reduce abortion in every effective way possible short of legally restricting the right. Nobody is “for” abortion as the “pro-lifers” are want to insist.

Reasonable heads should prevail, one would assume. The question should become, “what can we do to effectively work toward reducing abortions?”

It would seem obvious that we can get together to work on that, right? Wrong.

Because that is part of the big lie of the right. They are not so much interested in reducing abortions as they are in winning on this issue, and controlling women’s bodies. And that suggests that it is not some “overriding” moral conclusion that is beyond religion as they claim. Make the argument that abortion is a religious issue, and wait for them to begin howling. No they claim, it’s not religion, its simple morality. Odd, since they will surely claim that all sense of morality comes from God, thus non-believers cannot be “moral” exactly.

If abortions are immoral, then reducing abortions must be more moral than merely  stubbornly objecting to abortions as being immoral. And the dirty little secret is that abortion is only part of the agenda for the religious right. The other item on the agenda is “contraception.” And this of course is very much a religious issue, and depends on a very specific type of belief, namely that sex is only for procreation and that to use any type of barrier to conception is a slap in the face to God.

No matter of course, that an omnipotent God can presumably frustrate the best efforts of humans to defy his wishes. It is the internal desire to take conception out of God’s hands that is objected to. And most every if not all the right to life organizations are anti-contraception.

There is a fascinating article by AlterNet on the subject, and with some amazing statistics. Tim Ryan, (D-OH) and pro-lifer, has been removed from a pro-life board of directors because he favors means to reduce abortion, including contraception. He has gone public and is underscoring that the real war is between a tiny segment of the “pro-life” movement, and the vast majority of pro-lifers who are like him, fine with contraception.

The realities are stark. Abstinence only programs are a failure, at best postponing for a few extra months, teens experimentation with sex. Worse, when they do begin having it, they don’t use protections and have a much higher incidence of STD’s and pregnancy, thus abstinence only programs actually result in increased abortions.

Study after study shows that broad based sex education works. States are moving away from AO after watching their statistics start to re-climb, back to comprehensive sex education, a proven method of reducing STD’s and unwanted pregnancy. Joining with Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Ryan sponsors the “Preventing unintended pregnancies, Reducing the need for abortion and supporting Parent’s Act,” which aims at instituting practices found useful from the “The Third Way,” a left-center think tank.

Various anti-choice organizations now call Ryan “so called” when it comes to being pro-life. But when polled 80% of those who self-identify with a pro-life stance, also are pro-contraception. The bill supports contraception, help for poor women who wish to carry to term, comprehensive sex education, and help for adoptive families. No pro-life group supports the legislation.

Only the Catholic church 0pposes contraception, even though 90% of its faithful use it or are in favor of its availability. There is no denomination whose support of contraception is below 88%. Jewish support is at 97%.  Even 70% of Republicans and Independents favor contraception and only a measly 2% of them don’t.

According to Ryan, only 20% of the pro-life movement favors no contraception, but they seem fully in control of the movement. Ryan urges that those within the movement need to hold that 20% accountable now.

It is obvious that this minority has an agenda separate and apart from reducing abortion. And I contend that that agenda is religious in nature and is theocratic in intent. It is nothing less than to impose religious concepts of sexual behavior onto the public at large, regardless of what their religious believes are or are not.

Certainly, it is perfectly fine for anyone to believe personally that contraception is wrong for them, and somehow against God. One’s personal theology is sacrosanct. However, to allow it to intrude to the point that one will not work for a  legitimate goal of reducing abortion, is telling to say the least. It in fact shows all too clearly that something else is at stake. The article is a real eye opener. It is what I have been contending for some time, and what no doubt others have realized as well.

It’s not just about “life” its also about controlling women and their sexuality.