Monday, February 28, 2005
I’m not entirely used to the notion of blogging yet. While I’ve been editing and publishing Annoy.com for over eight years – providing commentary and a mechanism to respond – it still seems to me that blogs, for the most part, are self-referential, self-obsessed meanderings of people who seem to think that their every thought or uttering (like “my pee was slightly darker than usual, but maybe it’s because it was slightly darker than usual when I woke up”) is of enormous significance.
Until I chanced upon an article written by a jerk – sorry columnist – by the name of John Derbyshire. Now anyone who writes for National Review should generally be ignored anyway. This is, after all, the publication that hired Jonah Goldberg simply because his mother, Lucianne, convinced Linda Tripp that taping private conversations was nobler than sucking dick for $200 and hour. However, the unfortunate looking Mr. Derbyshire wrote a diatribe that was so snide and holier–than-thou, that I decided to dissect his piece, smegma stinky as it was – point for point. Particularly after he delighted how the “magic of the Internet” freed him from the constraints of brevity in the application of his ill-will and confusion.
And to whet my appetite of what blogging enables, I decided to let rip. No niceties, neatly editorialized, but with all the ad-hom this arrogant twerp warrants. And the only reason his sorry looks are relevant to the topic at hand, is because when you’re talking about sex and sexuality, a frame of reference is usually helpful. Mister Hand, doesn't count. Further, he cloaks his middle class moralistic mendacity in “science” and pontification, when sometimes a hard-on is just a hard-on.
Why, one may ask, would I even waste my time on some loser that no one probably reads anyway, giving him and his retarded opinions more weight than he or they really deserve? He even seems to think that “everyone” hates him, like we all have nothing better to do, (just me), than dissect his crap. So yes, Mr. Derbyshire, go ahead and allow my trashing of your article to feed your ego. Looks like you need it. And perhaps it’s just because my pee was darker than normal this morning, although it could have been because it was darker than usual when I woke up.
Mr. Derbyshire's piece of shit, Metaphysics, Science, and Homosexuality, which was a response to his National Review article, in its entirety, can be read here. My responses are directed to him and at him. Maybe if there really is a God, she'll ensure he responds.
So jackass, first, assuming the religious basis for most of your points mattered an iota to someone who is not religious in a country that has a First Amendment to the Constitution that doesn't require any more respect of who you pray to in the privacy of your living room than who blows me in the privacy of mine, you offer nothing new or constructive. Sugar-coating shit simply sugar coats it.
In the first place, the main point I was making was not about homosexuality, but about current attitudes, and the metaphysics that underlies them. Whether homosexuals are indeed "born that way" is one question; whether it is "taken for granted" in modern society that they are is a separate and independent question. Either could be true without the other's being true.Who cares? Whether it's innate or because holy Father Fuckface made young Charlie blow him too often in the confessional when he was a kid, it's still a perfectly legitimate social choice. You don't like it, don't do it. That you would offer Satan as a "respectable" let alone possible "scientifc" theory is almost enough to stop right there, but let's go through your list.
(1) Satan. Homosexuality may be a manifestation of Satan's work. While the least scientific of current theories, this one is probably the most widely believed, taking the world at large. Most devout Muslims, for example, believe it, and so do many Christians.When people commit crimes because they "heard voices" they're either punished or institutionalized. Some of us don't base our behavior or actions on imaginary devils, fairies or mind conjuring. If homosexuality is Satan's work, feel free to thank me for a job well done.
(2) Social Construction. There is no such thing as homosexuality. There are only heterosexual and homosexual acts, which different cultures regard differently. The notion of "homosexuality" as a personality attribute is a 19th-century invention.
Not a bad point. Pity perfectly capable, spectacularly trained, intelligent men and women with a patriotic duty to serve the country they love can be discharged from the military for simply stating they are gay. Thus, even in the absence of "acts" where speech equals conduct, homosexuality as a personal attribute is very much a reality.
(3) Brain damage. Some insult to the tissues of the brain, perhaps at birth or in infancy, causes homosexuality.Stupid premise. Perhaps you're confusing it with homophobia. An "insult" on one's intellignece however, could be inflicted by offering them this a "reasonably scientific" theory to explain homosexuality.
(4) Choice. People choose to prefer their own sex over the other.Damn right. Some people prefer to listen to imaginary men wearing sandals in the sky when determining the gender they choose to fuck.
(5) Family influences in childhood. The Freudian belief is that having a weak father and/or dominant mother can form the child's personality in the direction of homosexuality.The much debunked Freud is hardy a yardstick by which to measure anything tangible. Very 1976. Especially from someone suggesting homosexuality might simply be a 19th century invention. It doesn't take into account those of us with perfectly healthy, strong relationships with our fathers who were very present in our formative years, or mothers who were loving and supportive without being over-bearing.
(6) Social stress. Rats kept in overpopulated environments, even when sufficient food and access to females are available, will become aggressively homosexual after the stress in the environment rises above a certain level.Hilarious. Perhaps you can kill them with kindness then. Just think, no homophobic torturing of kids, allow gays and lesbians to happily serve their country, marry who they like, and before you know it, the stress-free social environment will turn them all straight. Perhaps you should test it out.
(7) Imprinting. The individual's early sexual history can "imprint" certain tendencies on animals and humans. Many homosexuals report having been same-sexually molested in childhood or youth.Indeed. And many of those imprints are made by priests and other religious adults in positions of authority. But then again, so what? How does that explain gay people who weren't molested, or straight people who were?
(8) Socialization theories. The high levels of homosexual bonding in some ancient and primitive societies suggests that the common mores of a culture have some power to socialize large numbers of people into homosexuality.Nope. All the "high levels of homosexual bonding in some ancient and primitive societies" suggests is that it is highly unlikely to stop any time soon, no matter how many they try to electro-convert. And in some cases, there but for the grace of them, go you.
(9) Genetics, direct. Homosexuality is the expression of some gene, or some combination of genes.
Gee, I see how you would rate this along with Satan on your scale of "scientific respectability," but assuming it's a genetic issue, in your world view, your God either intended it that way or he fucked up. Choose.
(10) Womb environment - too much of a good thing. The presence of certain hormone imbalances during critical periods of gestation can have the effect of hyper-masculinizing the brain of a male infant. Paradoxically - there are plausible biological arguments - this might lead to the infant becoming homosexual.And you believe that this "hyper-masculinizing" of the brain is a good thing? What is your paradox? You can't decide whether Richard Simmons or Mark Bingham hung out too long in the womb. Maybe Mr. Bingham would have got up and danced to oldies on Flight 93 and Simmons would have rugby tackled overweight housewives in sweats? Or would have Simmons slapped the hijackers? Plausible indeed. What's your excuse?
(11) Infection. Homosexuality may be caused by an infectious agent - a germ or a virus. This is the Cochran/Ewald theory, which made a cover story for the February 1999 Atlantic Monthly.Don't sneeze on the baby or he'll be predisposed to suck cock? Sorry my daughter loves pussy, but she caught it by biting her nails. OJ made darker on the cover of Time, Kerry chooses Gephardt on the cover of the New York Post. As it so happens, the Atlantic Monthly said of me and my site in 1997: "The site is worthy of exploration for its irreverent use of interactivity, and there are also other kinds of provocative material here -- in particular, cogent essays on media and social issues that are as edgy as anything on the Internet." Do you believe them?.
(12) Genetics, indirect. Homosexuality may be an undesirable (from the evolutionary point of view) side effect of some genetic defense against a disease - analogous to the sickle-cell anemia mutation, a by-product of genetic defenses against malaria, negative to the organism but nothing like as negative, net-net, as susceptibility to malaria.No more than it may be an undesirable (from the evolutionary point of view) side effect of some genetic defense against over-production of ignorant, narrow minded blow-hards who make sex sound as pleasant as fucking razor blades. Ignorance causes disease. Not sexuality. I beleive it was Margaret Cho who said "anyone who thinks homosexuality is a disease, has it."
(13) Womb environment - too much of the wrong thing. Here the effect of the rogue hormones is to feminize the brain of a male infant. (I assume that there are theories corresponding to 10 and 13 for female infants, though I have never seen them documented.)Again, your notion of right or wrong makes so little sense, you need not have bothered differentiating 10 from 13.
The confusion between "genetic" and "inborn" is epidemic among the general public, however, to the despair of science writers. To readers suffering from that confusion - an actual majority of those who wrote to me suffer from it - I recommend the purchase of a good dictionary.A dictionary? You're presenting homosexuality being the work of Satan as a reasonable scientific theory and telling others to purchase a good dictionary. You should purchase a big fucking dildo.
From what I have seen of the scientific literature, I should say that numbers 12 and 13 currently hold the strongest positions, with much, though I think declining, interest and research in 9 and 10, modest but growing interest in 11, and some lingering residual attachment to 6, 7, and 8. The other theories are not taken seriously by anyone doing genuine science, so far as I know. If anyone has information to the contrary, I should be interested to look at it - though I should only be interested in research written up in a respectable peer-reviewed journal of the human sciences.You'll only deign to read "respectable peer-reviewed journals of the human sciences"? Read this, bitch. Last time I checked, St James' peers had some issues with some of his interpretations, but maybe that was just the evil work of the wicked witch, or could it have been Santa Clause?
I'm fascinated at what biological or psychological phenomenon might induce you to think that anyone gives a flying fuck about which of these theories is your favorite, any more than they care about whether your breath stinks, whether you scratch dicks with your teeth when you give blowjobs or what you think about when you masturbate.
(Lab studies - measuring sexual arousal caused by various kinds of images, for instance - confirm that the great majority of people everywhere are, in their inner lives, heterosexual, however they may express themselves under the constraints of their immediate environment.I assume you can present or link to these lab studies, or at a minimum inform which labs and what experiments were conducted, by whom etc. Interestingly, my inner-heterosexual, ironically, is signaling that you should keep your inner-homo as far away from me as possible.
The "choice" theory, which most of my correspondents seem to cleave to, has as its main supporting evidence the fact that some people have been "converted" from a homosexual lifestyle to a heterosexual one, usually by counseling, often by religious conversion. I don't myself find this very impressive. The numbers involved are small, and these conversions seem to fall into the category of fringe phenomena you are bound to get when investigating something as complex and variable as the human personality.Oh you clever, generous little twerp. Pray tell me what a homosexual "lifestyle" looks like. Homos only listen to Madonna while driving their pink SUV's to pick up their kids from soccer practice? What is a heterosexual "lifestyle'"? Lorena Bobbitt, Paris Hilton or Ann Coulter? Bill O'Reilly or Charles Manson? Do you think every gay person is predisposed to undulate on gay pride floats in gold thongs hysterically waving rainbow flags? Hopefully you're not referring to your own, tedious little white-picket fence, nuclear-family structure as a 'lifestlye" That represents neither life nor style. That's about as quaint as a fucking Geneva Convention. Usually it's those with weak personalities or who aren't successful at getting laid, or who are petrified of the stereotypical "distant or absent father" that claim to be suddenly "converted". Have you ever met any of those people? It's not pretty. At the end of the day, who cares? If someone chooses to be gay, con-fucking-gratulations. Unless you plan on participating in this choice, what's it to you?
You don't seem to be a "hate figure" to me. I don't give a rat's ass whether you're a homosexualist or homosexual, buddhist or like fucking chicks with dicks in Nazi uniforms. For my unsolicited two-cents worth, you appear more like a pompous asshole who writes for a publication where the likes of effete girlie-men like William F. Buckley make me wonder how you can even discern the nuances of masculinity in half the theories you advocate above, and Jonah Goldberg, which makes me wonder how you can discern what "respectable" is, let alone writing.
Because I am a strong First Amendment advocate, I believe you have the right to your fantasies and religion, as well as to the cowardly expression and insidious cloaking of your fear and insecurity. Your trite "it seems to me arrogant and unkind to tell people that they are 'called to chastity' if they do not hear the call themselves," for instance, is about as authentic as your "appropriate modesty," while you wallow in your distorted sense of self-importance.
I think, (and I know you care because it said so in the Psychology 101 handbook), that pseudo-moral hypocrisy is a far more social negative than homosexuality. Heterosexuality, even if you deem it "the bedrock institution of all societies," is absolutely merely one of a number of possible, and equally moral, "lifestyles." It's not that difficult to mimic either, so trying to lay claim to procreation as a justification for the exclusivity of marriage as a heterosexual institutionstituiotm is not yours to claim. If marriage is just about procreation, annul the marriage of Bob and Elizabeth Dole, and rethink Viagra as an insurance benefit.
If, as you assert, "male homosexuality is the source of public-health problems, (and was so even before the rise of AIDS)" why are so many women and men, straight or gay, who are engaged in breast cancer and other disease treatment and prevention causes, emulating the strategies initially formulated by gays and lesbians during the American white male AIDS crisis? Blame and ignorance are a far greater health hazard, and my hands don't appear to have any blood on them. How about yours?
I would even go so far as to day that if the fatal damage you refer to results in fewer arrogant twats spouting their vitriolic, holier-than-thou "moral" emptiness, the better off society will be. If your bedrock, centuries old institution can't hack it because two guys or two girls decide to make a commitment to one another, then let it fucking crumble. It's already a failure, and you can't even blame gays yet. It was on its way out long before Britney Spears trailer-trashed it.
If homosexuality inconveniences you, dig your beady eyes out and blow your eardrums, or shoot yourself in the head if you don't have the capacity to mange otherwise. Or get some fucking therapy. However, exercise a bit of restraint, discretion, reticence and a decent respect for those of us who don't give a shit about your fumbling, incapable and error-prone God and your glib, worthless judgments.
If marriage is the bedrock you so proudly claim represents a celebration of heterosexual pairing, reconsider asking why gay people might feel pride in something they can't help. While, of course, you vomit your bargain-basement bravura, moral hypocrisies and pseudo science to high-school children. Assholes like you make gay people who don't actually give a shit about mimicking your dismal, woefully inadequate institutions want to get married just to fuck it up that much quicker for you. You want a gay agenda asswipe, there you have it.
I don't know what century you're trapped in, but your superiority complex is ridiculous as your essay. All this highfalutin crap when after all is said and done, you think you' re a better parent, citizen, educator and morally superior human based purely on the tightness, moistness and location of the orifice you stick your tired shriveled dick into. Get the fuck over yourself.
[John Derbyshire can be contacted at email@example.com]
I like this weblog. I think I am gonna post my message here.
I like this weblog. I think I am gonna post my message here.
I like this weblog. I think I am gonna post my message here.
Please be careful when buying Tramadol.
Please be careful when buying Tramadol.
Reprinted from SPHA magazine and copied from the Congressional Records of the US.
Originally printed in the 'Gay Community News' by Michael Swift Feb 1987.
"We shall sodomize your sons..."
"We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce
them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your
seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all
male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our
bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us."
Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of
the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we
will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be
with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one
man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of
Please be careful when you buy tramadol online.
Please be careful when you buy fioricet
Please be careful aboutloss weight
Please be careful when you buy tramadol.
Please be careful when buying Tramadol.
Please be careful when buying from an online pharmacy .
Please be careful when buying penis enlargement pill .
Please be careful when buying penis enlargment pill .
Please be careful when buying penis pill .
[url=http://qhdajjqy.com/uqcc/yucx.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://rtoyfykm.com/xerc/ackv.html]Cool site[/url]
Buy online viagra
Only good viagra links for you