Archive for the 'Sex' Category

Feb 20 2014

Speaking of love and romance

Its a pleasure to see a lawyer talking about alternatives to marriage and the inevitable pain, our fucked up divorce laws bring with it.

 

“When I was a child,” Diana Adams began, “I had a doll house and a rich fantasy life. I imagined that I was a cancer-curing surgeon, a world-class ballerina, and a TV show host all at the same time. I was also an amazing mom to all my dolls, but it was always a little mysterious about where they had come from and whether they all had the same father. A little neighbor boy once said to me, ‘I’ll be the daddy.’ I thought about that for a moment. I said, ‘No, you can be my gay lounge singer friend. That’s much more fun.’ I’ve always liked boys. I just like them better in groups.”

Over the years, the aspiring ballerina/surgeon/TV host shifted her focus to law. As a lawyer, Adams now runs a Brooklyn-based legal firm oriented toward providing traditional marriage rights to non-traditional families like the one she imagined as a kid. As an openly polyamorous woman, Diana lives inside a version of that doll house today. Along with her primary partner Ed, she is currently romantically involved with several other men and women.

As I have repeatedly stated here-marriage is indeed an outmoded institution that needs to go away. And more importantly-the nuclear family construct is about 30 years behind the times:

Our laws are about 20 years behind what families actually look like. I'm working to create alternatives to marriage, because I think that if we could choose marriage affirmatively instead of it being a default, it would make relationships stronger. Marriage is an incredibly intense contract. It's a legal-financial contract that you're making, declaring that you're going to be the other person's social welfare state and safety net if they screw up. I mean, you’re signing the most important document you’ll sign in your life and people read it less carefully than a cell phone contract. People have no idea what they’re actually committing to and are horrified a lot of times when they find out.

Yup! Been there-got the T-shirt.

But there are alternatives:

What kinds of alternatives to marriage are available?

There are different options. Domestic partnership, for example, has tremendous possibility to create a more expansive version of what a relationship can look like. Domestic partnership was originally created as an alternative for gay couples who couldn’t legally get married. But then, all these surprising things started happening where these other kinds of people started using it for their own purposes. For instance, many elderly widow friends have entered into platonic domestic partnerships. It’s a situation like the Golden Girls. These are friends saying, “I live with her, and we watch out for each other, and I want her to be the person I can share my health insurance with.”

2 responses so far

Feb 14 2014

Since it’s Valentines Day.

We should talk about what should be the most important part of the holiday. The post dinner/flowers/movie/carriage ride in the park/romantic walk in the park sex. Sex is always, ALWAYS, the perfect ending to any holiday.

So over at The Atlantic, they had a nice article about the myths about that most dreaded of conditions-virginity.

Laci Green grabs a thin sheet of latex, stretches it over the end of an empty toilet paper tube, and starts cutting away with a pair of scissors. "I'm makin' a hymennn," she sings before holding up the finished product to the camera, where, on the other side, more than 700,000 subscribers now await her every upload. "Ta-da!"

Since 2008, the 24-year-old YouTube sex educator has been making informational videos about everything from slut shaming and body image to genital hygiene and finding the G-spot. This particular scene comes from a clip called "You Can't POP Your Cherry (HYMEN 101)" which explains, with the kind of bubbly, web-savvy humor that makes her a popular vlogger, that the hymen isn't a membrane that needs to bleed or be broken during intercourse—it's actually just small, usually elastic folds of mucous tissue that only partially cover the vaginal opening and can, but don’t always, tear if stretched. A year and a half after it premiered, with well more than one million views, Green's video debunking one of the most enduring misconceptions about virginity is also one of the most popular segment she's ever recorded.

So maybe the ex was not really lying to me that it was her first time-right?

Actually I have been with two women who said it was their first time, this was a long time ago-and I was quite ignorant on a lot of things, and furthermore I was trapped as a slave to a lot of really, REALLY , screwed up ideas about what was "moral" when it came to sexual activity. Now some 30 years later, my thinking has radically changed. All sex is good, and people deserve to have as much guilt and consequence free sex as they can get. ( With, of course, the usual caveats about consent, incest, age of consent etc…..).

So it was kind of interesting to read about the actual let down the "first time was for a lot of people". My first time was great-except for the naggging voice screaming "SIN" in the back of my head.  This voice was competing with the one going, "pussy feels great, don't you want to know for yourself?". The latter voice won out-and for what its worth, 30+years of experience have proven him right and the first voice wrong.

So anyway, I found the article interesting as it told the women's point of view:

When Therese Shechter lost her virginity at age 23, it wasn’t the firework-spouting, momentous occasion she had come to expect. On the contrary, it was kind of unremarkable given the hype. Now a filmmaker, Shechter spent much of the past six years working on her new documentary How to Lose Your Virginity, which revisits her experience—including the basement apartment where it happened, now, funnily enough, a flower shop called Bloom—and explores the "myths and misogyny" behind one of society's most institutionalized rites of passage.

Through interviews with historians, abstinence advocates, sex educators, and self-described virgins and non-virgins alike, Shechter learned she's not the only one who had certain ideas about what sex is supposed to be like. There are a number of pervasive and loaded myths about virginity: That having sex for the first time will be an irreversible transformation that changes your body and mind; that there’s a “right” way to lose your virginity, and how you lose it will affect the rest of your life; that it's going to be the most pleasurable, magical feeling; that it's going to be the most painful experience of their lives. These myths persist in part because of a lack of information about what happens to the human body, specifically the hymen, during sex—information that's often not taught in schools, that's not always found online, and that's not always available from medical providers.

“I’ve spoken to lots of women who are just terrified of having sex because they think it’s going to be this horrible pain and [they’ll] bleed gallons of blood,” says Shechter, whose documentary makes its broadcast premiere on February 8 on the Fusion Network and is airing in cities across the U.S. and internationally in coming months.

 

After spending a good deal of time overseas, its clear Americans and others have some really screwed up ideas about sex. Muslims of course have the worst ideas about the doing the deed, many that have been passed down to them through their history. Asia, in my experience was so refreshing because of the matter of fact attitude I found in so many women about sex. ( The S.O. used to have a very matter of fact attitude about sex-she liked it. Until she stopped liking it or worrying about her hormone levels. That it might leave me more than a little frustrated never enters into her equation. But she knows when to use it to get what she wants still. )

For evidence of just how strongly these ideas about virginity and sex are rooted in popular culture, Shechter points to the number of businesses that profit off them. Genres of pornography fetishize virginity and frequently depict the moment innocent school girls are "corrupted.” Hymenoplasties, or controversial surgeries that "reconstruct" the hymen to induce bleeding during sex as proof of virginity, have become an established practice around the world (stories about the trend have appeared in Time magazine and The New York Times, which, it’s worth noting, called the hymen "the vaginal membrane that normally breaks in the first act of intercourse" in its reporting). In her film, Shechter meets with a wedding dress vendor who markets a dress's virginal qualities as a selling point.

 

As Susan Sarandon said in the movie Bull Durham, women all deserve to wear white-and as I get more mature-I have come to agree with her fully.

 

Seriously though-these time worn and completely silly ideas about sex have bad ramifications. They keep both men and women from seeking out needed counseling and contraception. Everyone, yes I said everyone ( even the fat chick) is entitled to lots of completely wild and orgasmic sex. Anything that stands in the way is just plain wrong.

Because hymens vary greatly from person to person, they’re not reliable indicators of virginity—How to Lose Your Virginity even features a film clip from the 1940s saying as much—but the myth that looking at a hymen can reveal whether a woman has had sex can still discourage women from seeking medical care. "The biggest question we're asked is, 'Can a doctor or a boyfriend tell if I've had sex before?' Zeldes says. "Many people think they can, so they're scared to go to a gynecologist or a GYN exam because they're scared, one, that it could make them not a virgin, and, two, someone would be able to tell."

But what Blank and Zeldes say is one of the most widespread consequences—and the one Green says convinced her to make her video in the first place—is simply fear. Myths about virginity cast a shadow of negativity over young people’s attitudes toward sex. They keep can people from taking ownership of their sexualities and bodies through informed decision-making. They can turn what could be a pleasurable and fun experience into an event that’s scary, stressful, and needlessly traumatic.

So hump away boys and girls-its the greatest sensation there is and you don't get near enough of it, and life is short.  Here is to hoping your Valentines Day is a good and erotic one.

 

Happy (Slutty) Valentines Day!

So when and where was your first time?

3 responses so far

Jan 14 2014

Who needs a sabbatical?

Well it’s been two years since I have right royally pissed off the feminist lobby, and it is January and I am cold. So it is probably a good time to jump back into the pool and piss them off again.

Navy Times had a recent article up discussing the idea of sabbaticals, and how they could “help retain women in ranks”. After all, a military career is hard and all, and it is increasingly getting in the way of having it all:

Across the military services, leaders are experimenting with programs that will give valued officers and enlisted troops, men and women, the incentive to stay. Also, as the Pentagon moves to bring women into more jobs closer to the combat zone, military officials believe it is crucial to keep mid-career female officers in the services so they can mentor those on the front lines.

 

“We have innovative things we’re trying to retain women in the service,” said Vice Adm. Mark Ferguson, vice chief of naval operations. “It’s about creating the personnel policies that enable someone to say it’s Navy and family, instead of Navy or family.”

 

In other words, the Navy wants to create a “mommy track”. For what reason, I have no real idea, but it appears they do.

I’ll pause a moment so that you can throw up, and then, scratch your head and utter a cheery, “WTF?!?!”

It seems to me they are not getting the point here.  But I will explain why in a minute. For now, lets remember how hard it is for a service woman to “have it all” shall we?

In October, Katherine left the service and moved from Camp Lejeune to California to be with her fiancé. It was a difficult decision, but in the end, she said, she chose stability.

“For women to have a family and a career, it’s just extremely difficult. And, being in the military, it is extra sacrifice, you have deployments, you have workups, and it just makes it that much more challenging,” she said. “The Marine Corps is a lifestyle, it’s not a job. You dress it, you eat it, you breathe it, you live it. For me, I want to focus on getting married.”

So far, Sarah has chosen to stay in. “I love being a Marine, I love the people I work with,” she said. But not long ago, Rachel said she also is weighing similar issues.

It’s not an uncommon dilemma. More often than men in the military, women choose their family over service.

 

Here is a news flash madam, yes it is about choices, and when you chose to enter the service you made a choice to deal with these complexities. It’s pretty lousy to get in, decide you don’t like the rules of the game and then instead of coping with them, decide it’s better to change the rules and the playing field.

At the risk of being branded with the “M” word-I will remind you that there were reasons that society evolved into the roles for men and women to play in it. Now I will grant you that those roles are changing and society has to change too-but it seems to me that this goes a bit too far.

First of all, its rather discriminatory towards those men (and women) who are not a part of a dual service couple. (Which is a whole another bad trend that is going on-the service has incentives that encourage Sailors to marry Sailors, but we will set that aside for this discussion). A lot of people cannot afford to lose one year’s earnings (or two) especially if there is a stay at home spouse-or young children to raise. They would probably like a year off too-but they can’t afford one.

Second, the logic here is completely faulty.  Especially this idea that you have to have women to mentor women. I thought the services were supposed to be gender neutral. So isn’t that what you have a chain of command for? Isn’t that what you have standards of professional conduct for? Is that not why the Navy is firing so many men?

As it is, there is far too much of this “women networking with other women“ going on with results that are predictably geared to undermine the chain of command. I’ve written about it before-and we have seen far too many Navy Times headlines that have been predicated by mentors “encouraging” actions that have resulted in disaster.

Furthermore the hand of time stops for no one-and the DOPMA wall is still out there, and you can’t tell me that there are not some tradeoffs that get made in the advancement world when you elect this course. For one thing you are changing year groups-and the dynamics of who you are competing with may change dramatically and not for the better.

The Navy is not, and cannot be, a “family friendly” employer. That does not mean, however, that men and women cannot find a balance and raise a family. But it does involve choices and these choices are sometimes hard ones. I hate to remind folks this-but having to make those choices is not the Navy’s fault. When one chooses to enter a Navy career, you are making a statement as either a man or a woman: You want to do something hard and career worthy. That women are the only ones who can have children is a biological fact-not a hindrance the Navy created. If later on downstream a woman decides that she would rather get out and have a family, that’s a choice for her to make. Literally millions of women make it every year. But please, spare me the flack about the idea that the Navy somehow needs to make “accommodations” for the increasing numbers of women in its ranks. It belies the original reason the women said they wanted to serve-to have the same opportunities as men. Well making choices about family and career is an opportunity.

But it’s unfair, men with a stay at home wife don’t have to make that choice!” BS.  I would remind you that there are choices that are being made by the other family-not the least of which is getting by on a lot less money than the dual service couple. “You make choices and you live with them”.

Well, there is nothing wrong with a sabbatical.” No, there probably isn’t-except when you frame it as a way to “retain women”-and allow them to not have to make hard choices, then you are laying bare the hypocrisy behind the idea –and providing an clear inkling of the double standard that will be enforced in its execution. Why not fix the root problem, which is the Navy’s trying to shove 100lbs into a 50lb career bag, and revise DOPMA, to slow down promotion flow points, and allow officers to serve longer . Maybe give every officer a good 2 year break when he or she attends a civilian university to get a Masters Degree. (It could also have the added benefit of exposing these folks to parts of America that don’t normally see military folks). Bring back some of the “good deal" tours as well.

To pay Phibian a compliment for a change, he’s right when he says, “Again, this isn't harmless. In the zero sum game that is selection, support, promotion, and award – special treatment based on [Gender] is discrimination. It also puts in a perverse incentive to lie, cheat, steal, and to tolerate those among you who do.” In essence you are getting to the heart of what all us nay-sayers said many years ago when we began the great experiment, you will fundamentally change the institution in ways that will ultimately destroy the things that made it worth serving in. The PAO hoopla about these sabbaticals and the idea that somehow the Navy has to get to a 50-50 gender split is just crazy. This is not a corporation-it’s a fighting force. You don't always get everything you want-and you cannot have it all. "You make choices and you live with them." We would do well to remember that.

I used to give dual service couples advice, that I thought at the time made sense and I still do. The powers that be did not like it very much and told me not to pass it on. I ignored them. Basically for a dual service couple-you have to decide who will be CNO and who won't be. In other words you have to decide whose career will come first-and then stick to that strategy. If you both want to be successful you will be childless and or lonely. It does not matter if its the man or the woman-but you have to choose. I still think its a useful thing to ponder-and I've met many dual service couples who follow exactly that course. It works-but evidently CDR Steinem doesn't want to hear it.

2 responses so far

Dec 13 2013

In trying to do good, they just do more harm.

As promised, I am taking this opportunity to offer my thoughts on some provisions of the 2014 Defense Bill that should make anyone with any military experience at all, just a little bit nervous. ( If not downright upset.)

First the good parts ( I guess). The bill revamps the Sodomy section of the UCMJ. Repeal of DADT made this pretty much mandatory for obvious reasons. Consensual Sodomy is now just fine and is not punishable under the UCMJ.  Non consensual sodomy however is still a violation.  So be careful out there, if you go "knocking at the back door" and your GF does not like it, you could be heading to mast. ;-(

In my opinion they should have just done away the Sodomy article all together, along with the one on adultery.  When you have created the convoluted mess that we have,  where you have Sailors dating Sailors and all other craziness-its just unreasonable to have a UCMJ that has a completely unworkable and unenforceable morals provision. These were normally "pile on charges anyway"-and so they should be done away with. So should the one about prostitution IMHO, but I know the do-gooders will never allow that to happen.

Now here is the list of bad things, and it is long ( the ones I vehemently disagree with are highlighted in yellow).:

Sexual Assault and Prevention

  • Extends specified crime victims’ rights to victims of UCMJ offenses.
  • Amends Article 60, UCMJ, to limit the authority of court-martial convening authorities to modify the findings and sentence of courts-martial.
  • Requires that victims be afforded an opportunity to submit matters for consideration by a convening authority before the convening authority takes action on the findings and sentence of a court-martial and limits convening authority consideration to matters considered at trial.
  • Amends Article 32, UCMJ, to change Article 32 proceedings from an investigation to a preliminary hearing normally conducted by a judge advocate to determine whether there is probable cause to prosecute a case.
  • Eliminates the five-year statute of limitations on prosecutions for certain sex-related offenses under the UCMJ.
  • Requires interviews of victims of sex-related offenses to be conducted in the presence of trial counsel, victim’s counsel, or a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate if requested by the victim.
  • Limits jurisdiction over specified sex-related offenses to trial by general court-martial and requires a minimum sentence of Dishonorable Discharge or Dismissal for conviction of these offenses.
  • Repeals the offense of consensual sodomy under the UCMJ.
  • Removes the character and military service of an accused from factors a commander should consider in deciding how to dispose of any offense.
  • Prohibits retaliation against service members for reporting a criminal offense.
  • Prohibits enlisting or commissioning in the military of individuals convicted of certain felony sex-related offenses.
  • Requires the Coast Guard to issue regulations requiring timely action on requests for transfer or reassignment by sexual assault victims.
  • Provides for temporary administrative reassignment or removal of service members accused of committing specified sex offenses.
  • Enhances protections for military whistleblowers.
  • Requires DOD IG investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions for reporting certain sexual offenses.
  • Requires a Special Victims’ Counsel program in each service to provide legal counsel to victims of sexual assault.
  • Requires service secretaries to track compliance of commanding officers in conducting command climate assessments.
  • Requires DOD to retain for 50 years certain forms filed in connection with reports of sexual assault involving service members.
  • Requires timely access to Sexual Assault Response Coordinators by members of the National Guard and Reserves who are victims of sexual assault.
  • Requires the Secretary of Defense to report on the adequacy of training, qualifications, and experience of individuals with sexual assault prevention and response duties.
  • Requires assignment of at least one full-time sexual assault nurse examiner to military medical treatment facilities that have a 24-hour emergency room.
  • Assigns additional responsibilities to the DOD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.
  • Assigns additional tasks to the Response Systems Panel and to the Judicial Review Panel established to review matters involving sexual assaults in the military.
  • Requires the Response Systems Panel to submit its report no later one year after its first meeting on its review of systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate sexual assault crimes.
  • Requires review of practices of military criminal investigative organizations, including the determination of whether an offense is founded.
  • Requires Secretary of Defense to identify common core elements that must be included in sexual assault prevention and response training.
  • Requires Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the progress made in developing and implementing a comprehensive policy on the retention of and access to evidence and records relating to sexual assaults involving service members.
  • Requires Secretary of Defense to review the role of the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity in sexual harassment cases.
  • Requires enhanced protections for prospective service members and new service members during entry level processing and training.
  • Requires commanding officers to immediately refer reports of sexual offenses involving service members in their command to the appropriate military criminal investigation organization for investigation.
  • Requires a written report be provided to senior officers within eight days of an unrestricted report of sexual assault to ensure necessary care and support for the victim and timely investigation of the offense.
  • Requires review by the service secretary of a convening authority’s decision not to prosecute certain charges of sexual offenses when the staff judge advocate recommends prosecution, and review by a superior general court-martial convening authority when the staff judge advocate recommends against prosecution.
  • Requires that court-martial convictions, non-judicial punishment, or administrative action for sex-related offenses be noted in the service member’s personnel records and requires that commanders review the history of substantiated sexual offenses of service members assigned to their commands.
  • Requires military service academies to provide training and education on prevention of sexual assault within 14 days of arrival of new cadets and midshipmen and annually thereafter.
  • Requires that service members be notified that they can answer no to the question about consulting with a mental health professional on the Questionnaire for National Security Positions (Standard Form 86) if the consultation relates to the service member being a victim of a sexual assault.
  • Expresses the sense of Congress that commanders are responsible for establishing a healthy command climate where victims can report criminal activity, including sexual assault, without fear of retaliation, and that failure to maintain such a climate is an appropriate basis for relief from command.
  • Expresses the sense of Congress that charges of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or attempts to commit these offenses, should be prosecuted by court-martial rather than non-judicial punishment or administrative action.
  • Expresses the sense of Congress that discharges in lieu of court-martial should be used very sparingly for service members who are charged with rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or attempts to commit these offenses, and that victims should be consulted about the discharge of the service member whenever possible

- See more at: http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/sasc-leaders-reach-agreement-with-house-counterparts-on-defense-authorization#sthash.dRN9gYPf.dpuf

Just about all of this is bad-really bad. By undermining the Convening Authoritiy's ability to exercise his responsibility under the UCMJ, you are going to make sure a lot of innocent folks get railroaded.

Most military sexual assault cases are not clear cut. Its not some guy just grabbing a girl, throwing her down and raping her in the closet. Rather they are primarily "buyer's remorse"  types of cases where both parties have probably made some bad decisions, under the influence of love, lust, and / or alcohol-and the issue of consent is most often times not clear cut.

What these changes do is make sure that every case, EVERY case of alleged sexual harassment, will be tried at the highest possible level. Even when the facts of the case don't warrant it. Furthermore, it also raises the possibility that someone who does something clearly wrong will get away with it scot free. Court Martials are Courts. Rules of evidence and cross examination apply-and trust me, defense attorneys will do their best to drag the victim through the mud and make her look like a bigger tramp than Delilah. That is their job. These cases are difficult, and it comes as a surprise to no one who understands the nature of the crime that sometimes getting to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt simply cannot be done. To remove this authority from the chain of command lets commanders off the hook and decreases options for securing justice for victims. I am not a lawyer-but it seems a commander has more authority under a murder charge than on a sexual assault one. In what universe does that make sense?

And I'll be blunt. Not everyone of these "he said, she said" cases needs to go to court martial. In many cases-where it is not a full blown rape or even felony sexual assault, the commander may in fact need to punish both parties. These laws make one sex out to be a preferred class. Guess which one? I'll give you a hint, its not the one with a penis.

Which of course, is what the Congress people want. They want to ensure that folks walk around afraid and on eggshells-while they do nothing about the underlying causes, which set people up for failure to begin with. This why I continue to bridle at these calls that the "military needs to change its culture". Um no. You need to understand the problem you create by putting men and women together in large quantities to begin with. The military culture is just fine.

These trouble makers just want to show they "are doing something". Oh you are doing something all right-something really stupid.

This is a bad business. If you claim to say you want to hold commanders accountable, then you HAVE to provide them the tools they need to do their jobs properly. These provisions do not do that.

 

One response so far

Dec 10 2013

Marriage re-booted

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, has a post up on his blog that postulates something I have believed for a long time. Marriage is no longer a relevant institution and needs to be re-vamped or done away with. He does not come out specifically state what I believe-namely that our ideas about monogamy are silly and have been for a long time; nonetheless he gets to the heart of the matter:

If you look at marriage the way an economist might, it is an exchange of services. Every marriage is different, but at its core you have two people who are choosing to provide one basket of services in return for a different basket. Historically, that meant the man provided protection and financial stability while the woman provided children, childcare, and household management. In modern times, the picture is more smeared, but in all cases the parties are getting something while providing something, including the emotional benefits.

Marriage made sense when the world was inefficient. You married a person nearby who could provide most of your important needs while hoping your lesser needs could also somehow be met. It made perfect sense in the pre-Internet age.

But today you can arrange for any of your individual needs via Internet. You can find lovers who don't want a commitment. You can find people willing to trade sex for travel experiences. You can find surrogates to have your baby, or you can adopt from another country. Then you can find a nanny who is willing to work primarily for room and board. You can find an intellectual partner, a business partner, a tennis partner, you name it. The Internet provides all.

For the first time in history it is feasible to create a virtual spouse comprised of a dozen separate relationships. And each would be optimized. Instead of dragging your spouse to the opera or a baseball game, you go with someone who loves your hobbies as much as you do.
 

From a transactional standpoint-marriage is a loser. Certainly the idea that there is one special person out there who somehow "completes" you. Do some women make better companions than others? Certainly. But even the best of friends need a break from one another.

When the exchange of services becomes a one way exchange ( e.g.. the S.O. doing all the taking and doing none of the giving-it can be less than fun.)

One of his commenters goes on to more explicitly point out what all of us who have been through the divorce wringer know already, that the system perpetuates marriage despite is now obvious flaws because women want it so.

Enter the legal system. Laws are designed to help society as a whole. Is the man better off because he's now legally bound to stay and help? Certainly not. He's looking for quantity, and sticking around to help is hurting his numbers.

But Marriage 1.0 wasn't invented to help him – it was invented to help her – and society as a whole. This is why religion pushes it. This is why governments push it. The good of the many over the good of the few, or the one. (Thanks Spock.)

But how does Marriage 1.0 do this? It uses TWO STICKS called Alimony and Child Support. Leave a marriage – and get hit with the Alimony stick. Have kids? Get hit with Child Support stick.

Sensible right?

BUT #1: Marriage 1.0 shouldn't worry about keeping a couple together that has no children. The concept of Alimony has no legal purpose for childless couples. Sorry house-moms and dads! Society just doesn't think you add value by being married.

BUT #2: A man who has sex, whether through Marriage 1.0 -OR- "Wild night of sex", will get hit with Child Support.

Waaaait a minute:
If we abolish Alimony, and Child Support happens even without marriage, then what good is marriage?

(crickets…)

Exactly. There's nothing left. Since children will be protected in either scenario, there is no longer a need to have it.
 

Quo es demonstratum

I'm very much on board with Adams idea that you can have several companions. Maybe one who makes a good roommate ( as the S.O. does)-and a couple of others who solve the passion needs. ( Which I need desperately). "One person was never meant to be your everything. That's why you have friends for playing sports, friends from work, friends for going to the theater, whatever. Expecting one person only to fulfill all your needs is a romantic notion (I blame Harlequin romances) that leads to much unhappiness."

The economics ( and the sexual needs of literally millions of disappointed men) demand it.


 

2 responses so far

Jul 15 2013

Harassment Hysteria

Published by under Freelancers,Military,Sex

I'd like to put in another plug for ROK Drop if I may. It is probably the only military blog trying to drag some sense into the discussion about the supposed "problems with the military culture" ( which was just fine until feminists came along and decided to fuck it up for their own twisted purposes). 

Bottom Line up front: The military does not have a "sexual assault" problem. It has a "buyer's remorse" problem that is fueled by the ease with which one can field a false accusation. This so called problem is being aggravated by politicians and professional feminists who wish to capitalize on the issue to promote their own agendas. The military has a better record on "sexual harassment" and "sexual assault" than a similar sized and aged civilian cohort.

GI Korea has done a real good job of documenting this. You should put it in your read list-if you want a clearer view of the real picture.

The Stars & Stripes pretty much has no creditability on this issue since they continue to peddle special interest propaganda. Notice how they throw in the 26,000 number right after discussing violent rape that could confuse readers into thinking that the 26,000 number was all violent rape incidents. I have already pointed out all the problems with the 26,000 numbeand anyone that describes the number as sexual assaults as the Stars and Stripes did is lying. That number did not represent sexual assaults, it represented an expanded definition of sexual assaults that the survey defined as “unwanted sexual contact” (USC) that could range from someone putting their arm around you without your permission to violent rape. In fact if one looks at the survey results there was in fact very little rape at all. In fact the majority of the 26,000 USC number was reported by males with unwanted touching the top complaint which is something most in the media will not mention. - 

In an earlier post he has a very detailed rundown that proves conclusively that the numbers are exaggerated from a statistical standpoint-and also ignores the ideas of trends, namely that the trend is not upward-its going down.

And he clearly takes on the key issue-buyer's remorse, which is a problem:

This is all the Pentagon says about false accusations out of all the pages in their report. This is 17% of the people investigated for sexual assault being found to be falsely accused and is on a 4% rise since FY09.  This is a fact that is very significant and should be looked into.  It would be interesting to know how many of these 363 people were prosecuted for lodging false reports? I doubt very few of them were.  This number is actually higher because of the cases that went to court martial 307 more were dropped for lack of evidence. How many of these cases were false allegations as well?  Also there was 244 servicemembers who were not convicted of sexual assault during their court martial, but were convicted of other crimes.  Though what they were convicted of was not specified, usually adultery is what they are convicted of.  However, how many of these servicemembers were falsely accused as well?  This is all adds up to a huge number that no one other than the Washington Times is willing to talk about.  This creates concern for many in the military who do not want to be falsely accused of a sexual assault because they fear the system is stacked against them and politicians want to make it even more stacked.  As the US Court of Appeals overturning of rape convictions has shown servicemembers have every reason to fear the system is stacked against them.  Additionally lawyers are coming out and saying the current environment created by the politicians is in fact unlawful as well.

Over many very good postings-GI Korea has taken on this flawed idea that the military has a "rape culture" and thoroughly debunked it."Witch hunts to advance political agendas is not what the US military legal system should be used for.  Unfortunately that is what some people are trying to do and in the process are causing the American public to think the military is filled with a bunch of rapists that uncaring commanders are largely letting these criminals go unpunished.  I hope this posting at least starts a conversation to counter these claims because as I have shown the problem is much more nuanced than what the special interests claim.  This means the solution to the problem needs to be more nuanced than what the special interests are recommending as well."

I've said it before and I will keep saying it-there is no crisis of sexual assault in the military. This is the world you said you wanted in 1992-well, welcome to it.

Fortunately-GI Korea is on the case, pointing out the facts against the lies.

2 responses so far

Jun 28 2013

Some thoughts on the DOMA ruling……

Published by under Sex

Well it is finally done-the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. I am not sure how I feel about that.

I’m an old guy-I am not really comfortable with the idea of gay marriage. Then again, I am not exactly a fan of heterosexual marriage either. The idea that one person is the be all end all of one’s existence is one I really don’t accept any more. And if there is such a person, its me-and I don’t need to marry myself.

I suppose it was inevitable, and it is a reflection of how American mores are changing. 20 years ago-this ruling would not have happened. 50 years ago, no one would have dared take the idea to court, nor would California have thought to put Prop 8 on the ballot.  That young people don’t really care as much as older folks like me about who is gay is a reflection of how American society is changing.

Or is it? I am not so sure America is ready for the second and third order effects of gays being married. Yes its going to happen-and yes I have no really impassioned arguments to make against it- but I still wonder.

Consider the change of command ceremony in the near future, where, the Navy trumpeting the advent of the first openly gay commanding officer-watches as the guy doing the saluting singles out his love for his gay partner during the speech.

Or consider this idea:  a guy goes with another guy and shares a hotel room on liberty.  They both are married to other men. Meanwhile-a heterosexual man tries to do the same thing with a female. Any bets on who gets to mast first? I mean after all-they both are practicing the buddy system.

Eventually there will be a norm that will be unofficially established of what will and what will not be accepted. Until we get there though-there are going to be some spectacular headlines on the pages of your Navy times.

And you are kidding yourself if you think the activism is over-this was never about gays being free to be “who they really are”. This is about cold hard cash-and receiving military benefits for partners and partners of partners. Nothing in the change in the law creates that-and until gay marriage becomes universally accepted, there are hard times to come.

And that is something that really bothers me. A guy goes out and gets laid with a woman-or a “sales professional” and he will be nailed to a cross and left to hang . In contrast, I cannot envision the  Navy seriously going after “gay adultery”. Just-not-going-to-happen. Double standard number 1.

I also envision the strong desire to attain a critical mass of homosexuals in all units. How you quantify this, I have no idea, but someone in BUPERS is hard at work trying to figure it out. And lets not even go into the realm of heterosexuals “marrying” their roommate and splitting the BAH shall we? Its going to happen. Duffleblog already has predicted it.

But, as I said, there really was no legal leg to stand on-and there hasn’t been since 1994 when the Combat Exclusion laws were repealed. Once that barrier went down-the rest was just a fait accompli.

Deep down, I think the Supreme Court made the right decision. But it only happened because American society has changed-and the older ideas were no longer found to have merit. But its still going to be about 30 years before we reach a “norm” of what is acceptable and what is not.

And if 1v1 gay marriage is legal-why not polygamy? ( One  wife is a big enough pain in the ass-why would want two or more?)

“May you live in interesting times.”

 

5 responses so far

Mar 05 2013

Sex is Sex

Published by under Sex

Even when its bad-its still pretty good. No matter where you get it.

Well, another day less till I am paid less for working the same amount of time. I’m just f*cking thrilled about it. I am even more (un) thrilled about the stupid reactions of people who ought to know better-but are more than proud to put their inherent selfishness and stupidity on public display.
Ah,  but  c’est le vie, or ich kann nicht anders in German ( I can do nothing else). What it is in Hebrew I don’t know yet-but I am learning.
So it only seems appropriate to take a break from such depressing news and talk about something everyone can understand, sex. After all, my month old edition of Esquire magazine got here yesterday! Whoo-hoo! Because Esquire always talks about my favorite subject: sex and how to get more of it.
And true to form, this issue does not disappoint. John H. Richardson in a fine piece of writing encapsulates a sentiment I have clumsily tried for over 8 years to express here at Far East Cynic HQ. Sex is always good-no matter if it comes marital or extramarital-and it’s about damn time we stopped being such hypocrites because some guy felt the need for some strange.
Enough! Enough of the childish delight with which we destroy ourselves and each other over who we choose to have sex with. Here's a modest proposal: It's well past time we grow up, stop the carnage, and enjoy sex the way God intended……..
I want to suggest that sex, be it adulterous or premarital or deviant or polyamorous, is a good thing, not a bad thing, and that sex itself is the moment of grace. And that our sterile idea of perfection is the actual sin. To start with the subject on the table, adultery is a brave rebellion against the invisible prison we build for ourselves. When the sad little man Larry Craig widened his stance in that airport bathroom, it was probably the most honest and courageous act of his life. When Clinton got that blowjob in the White House, he wasn't indulging a weakness (and an eager intern) but enacting the hero's journey of reconciling inner and outer, risking all to break through the wall of hypocritical purity he had spent years building and projecting to the world in the effort to get elected. By risking martyrdom, in fact, he lifted himself up into an exaltation we still refuse to understand. He was the Martyred Jesus of Oral Sex with Interns and all we see is a mean little sin, as all the sexual deviates pretending to be puritans gathered around in an orgy of denunciation and scandal. In our condemnation, we focus on the supposedly broken vows and the supposed pain of his wife when in fact we know nothing of his wife's true feelings or her knowledge and tolerance of his "frisky" side (frisky being one of the endless array of demeaning expressions we use as invisible prison bars, along with dog and pig and you only want one thing). We never consider that our reaction is the punishment and the meanness is all in our eyes. Every single time we play out this ritual, we replay the Old Testament rite in which the pious transferred their sins to goats, which were then driven into the wilderness, just as we drive David Petraeus and a parade of other scapegoats out the gates of our smug little village of lies in the hope that we can put the "sin" outside the gate — when it is, of course, always inside. That's what happens when you put up gates. 
What we're afraid of is the truth. We live in a world in which men and women are buried up to their necks and stoned to death for these same impulses. We recoil at such barbarism with smug assertions of our superior level of civilization while cheerfully meting out our own version of punishment for the same supposed crime — anything to avoid looking at the deeper questions of why adultery exists and what exactly all our endless sexual prohibitions and inhibitions are supposed to do for us. Because if they are there to stabilize the family or inhibit sexually compulsive perversions or avoid the conflicts attendant in jealousy, they're failing spectacularly and they always have. 
In fact, the opposite is true. Our prohibitions against sex cause perversion, and the prison walls we put up around our marriages cause adultery. That is why adultery is merely the physical enactment of the truth men and women hide for long miserable years, a glorious terrifying truth that bursts through all our barriers if we have the vitality to rebel — if we have any vitality left after all the social and personal castration that we enact every single day of our miserable slavish self-denying lives. There's a sign on my veterinarian's wall that says, WE ALL NEED A DOG TO WORSHIP US AND A CAT TO BRING US BACK TO REALITY. Those are the mutually destructive roles our society has given to the husbands and wives who assume the prisoner/prison-guard roles in marriage. Let's be honest, we have a long and inglorious social history that essentially reduces women to marital prostitutes who buster their battered dignity with the drab consolation of fidelity. But when those wives and husbands take up the role of the cat that brings us back down to reality, when they refuse their spouse's need for worship and celebration, then, in the immortal words of Malcolm Lowry, the lighthouse invites the storm.
 
You can find the rest of the article here. Go read it.  It’s a good dissection of the peculiarly American disease: sexual hypocrisy, that prudish adherence to a flawed convention that keeps men and women from allowing themselves the greatest pleasure and experience that life offers.
As has been evident from my writings, I have now firmly –and with conviction-come down on the side of those who believe marriage is a completely flawed institution ready for the societal scrap heap. As human life expectancy expands, less and less people will be able to stay together with that one “special someone”. I long ago came to the conclusion “that fated love is a lie, and monogamous love a deception.” That doesn’t mean I am incapable of love It is just that through experience-I have learned that such love does not offer what I need. Not near often enough or with the necessary veracity. Furthermore-women continue to let you down, becoming engrossed in the mindless mundane things that make up day to day life and not opening themselves up enough to enjoy the sexuality God bestowed upon them.
Mr Richardson probably has it right-instead of berating both the cuckold and the man (or woman) who cuckold’s him-we should be celebrating their conquest (s).
The only way out of this horrifying violent loop of repression and explosion is to learn to wallow in the sperm and blood and shit of life, to smear it on the walls and call it art and laugh at the fools who say it demeans us, to encourage our husbands and wives to cheat if they need to, to embrace our gay brothers and sisters and all the other "deviants" whose suffering has protected and insulated us, to open the prison doors of civilization and finally learn how to live free.
 
Only then will the parade of martyrs stop.

One response so far

Nov 13 2012

You know you have hit the big time

Published by under Sex

When even the Taiwanese go after you. My friends over at NMA have decided to make a video about the Petreaus Scandal:

 

 

I still say-it's all Mrs Petreaus' fault. Either hack the program-or be gone. Funny, no one ever asks that obvious question.

5 responses so far

Sep 28 2012

But can she cook?

For 40 million British pounds-who cares?

It would seem there could be a wealthy future out there for me……if I could just make the short list.

Gigi Chao, daughter of property tycoon Cecil Chao, entered a civil partnership with her girlfriend of seven years in a ceremony in Paris five months ago.

But Mr Chao, 76, has told the South China Morning Post that reports of his daughter's civil ceremony were "false". He announced the HK$500 million dowry earlier this week.

It has sparked a deluge of offers. Speaking on Thursday Ms Chao, 33, said she had received about 200 proposals and that the number of people following her on Twitter, YouTube and Facebook had jumped by 1,500 since her father's announcement.

"People are contacting me on Facebook, by email, on Twitter. It's ridiculous. I can't sort out the serious proposals from the half-hearted ones. I can't make head or tail of it," she told The Daily Telegraph.

Ms Chao, an executive director of her father's company, Cheuk Nang, said that in addition to receiving enquiries from gentlemen who say they are looking for love and ask her out on a date, she has received some introductions that are less conventional.

I'll bet they were. So now the problem would appear to be, "how to get noticed in the noise". Of course, marriage never seemed to be a prerequisite for her father, who by all accounts: "has never married and once claimed to have had "intimate relations" with about 10,000 women."

Now that's a record to aspire to!

2 responses so far

Jun 05 2012

Ok, I guess it is time to get down to it.

WARNING NOTICE! What follows here is very much at odds with what Americans consider to be "conventional morality".  If frank discussion of relationships-with an eye toward advocating the destruction of traditional monogamy and marriage bothers you-you might want to take a pass.

 

"Pamela didn't believe in the least in Victor's morality. She thought the whole thing altogether a cramping nonsense, that kept two deserving people from giving each other pleasure."

 

That paraphrase of a line from Winds of War, one of my favorite books, probably constitutes the best short summary of the view of relationships that I have evolved into in 30 some years. It is hard to believe that as for a less than brief period of time as a young man-I actually labored under the fear of the idea that pre-marital sex was somehow "wrong", and I struggled to reconcile how  I felt physically with what a misguided part of of society told me I was supposed to believe. That sex would only be "special" with only one person. And that I was somehow "weak" for giving into what were perfectly normal physical desires.

Of course some 20 years of being around that peculiar specimen of womanhood, "Americanus bitchius"-and watching the prime years of your sexual virility go passing by , without taking the necessary ( in hindsight) steps to right that great wrong-conditions one to a better way of thinking. And while I did my best to make up for lost time during the pas dozen years or so-I cringe when I think of all the passion I could have been experiencing, while the other parts of me were more than poised to help me enjoy it.  Thankfully the physical capability remains-and even if someday it requires a chemical assistance ( God bless the makers of Cialis, Viagra and Levritra). I still think back to the marathon sessions the ex and I had when I we were first married ( and childless)-would that I can repeat them now. Of course in hindsight-it was clear the ex was simply using that sexual bribe as a way to prep me for her long term plan to avoids contributing to the working and monetary relationship, using the birth of the children as an excuse to avoid wifely responsibilities that would continue for some time to come. Thankfully those days are over? ( or are they?).

What will follow over the next couple of days are my views of relationships between men and women-and my continued inability to understand why people in general, and Americans in particular, allow themselves to be so constrained when in fact-given the advances in medicine and technology we should be witnessing the ultimate expression of happiness of people as individuals and sexual beings. What was the point of the sexual revolution if not to pave the path for that?

The prompt for this outpouring of emotional sentiment. My ongoing love/hate relationship with a book I bought-called the Happiness Project, by Gretchen Rubin. Love-because I am enthralled by the prospect of chucking it all to pursue a totally different course and hate because I don't think her prescriptions are radical enough surgery. She is, in my opinion, tinkering around the edges-while not getting to the heart of what makes people really happy. Namely the idea that they-and they alone-have the right to determine what they will do and what will make them happy.

Now Rubin acknowledges that like we all do-there are responsibilities that tie us down. I know all too well about that!

But I do like her twelve commandments:

1. Be Skippy.

2. Let it go. 

3. Act the way I want to feel.

4. Do it now. 

5. Be polite and be fair.

6. Enjoy the process.

7. Spend out.

8. Identify the problem.

9. Lighten up.

10. Do what ought to be done.

11. No calculation.

12. There is only love.

 

In a couple of days I will have a post about what I think are the "levels in relationships" and how I think every relationship plateaus. Those that survive learn to live with the plateau-many do not, and even many that appear to, are simply the choice of the lesser of equally bad alternatives. This situation is foisted on us by antiquated values, a refusal to recognize individual happiness as being more important than collective happiness and finally, our clinging to an antiquated institution, marriage, that out lived its usefulness a long time ago.

You probably won't agree with many of the points of view I write. But it makes me feel quite liberated to set these long repressed thoughts down. And so I shall-regardless of what the more prudish elements of our world will tend to think.

No responses yet

Apr 16 2012

So let me get this straight…..

The Secretary of State wants to unwind a bit swigging some beer in a Columbian hot spot. And that's OK.

 

But a hard working member of the military or a Secret Service Agent wants to drink  a few beers and slice off a nice guilt free piece of Columbian tuna-and THAT's somehow a big deal.

Hillary only wishes she had tits and a bubble butt like this!

 

RIIIGHTTTTTTT!

 

Double f*cking standard if you ask me.

Moral of the story:

1) Chicks always get away with more than men.

2) ALWAYS pay the girl!

3) Don't go on liberty with the other guys.

4) Curfews suck!

5) The whole morality thing has gotten out of hand.

9 responses so far

Feb 15 2012

I am going to beat this horse some more…

Published by under Assholes,Sex

Because the more I read the stupidity of most so called "conservative" commenters on the subject of having insurance companies do their job-the angrier I get. If you want yet another example of why America is failing-and stupidity is rampant-go here.  If you want yet another reason why I am down on American politics, and remain fundamentally disappointed in the land of my birth's inability to rise to it's potential-this stupid and ignorant argument about contraception is it.

Let's go over the basics again, shall we?

This is not a new rule. It was in effect during the entire Bush administration-actually about 12 years now. And most Catholic hospitals have been complying.  In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn’t provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees Employers that don’t offer prescription coverage or don’t offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC’s interpretation of the law, you can’t offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

Instead of re-evaluating its attempt to turn contraception into a wedge issue—after all, Fox News (yes that Fox News) published a poll that found 61% of Americans approve of “requiring employer health plans to cover birth control for women.” —the GOP, led by Missouri Senator Roy Blunt (R-Crazytown) has decided to double-down on the War on Women. Blunt has introduced an amendment to the PPACA which would allow employers to deny any preventive health services (including breast cancer screening, depression screening, and diabetes screening), under the guise of religious freedom and respecting the right of conscience of insurers, plan sponsors and healthcare providers, among others. Apparently, that’s the new meme: Insurance companies are now having their religious freedom infringed. Somebody save them!

And I am the one who gets accused of being a misogynist. 

The point here is simple. While birth control costs more than nothing, it costs less than an abortion and much less than having a baby. From a social point of view, unless we're not going to subsidize consumption of health care services at all (which would be a really drastic change from the status quo) then it makes a ton of sense to heavily subsidize contraceptives. Now of course sometimes the economically rational course of action (kill everyone in Alberta and steal their oil) is immoral (killing is wrong) and therefore we don't do it. But just on the dollars and cents subsidizing birth control is a no-brainer. The unfortunate thing is that under the American setup the subsidies tend to be passed through the employer, which has set the stage for this controversy.

Another point worth making is that this is one of these issues where the actual incidence of the costs of a policy and the legislative incidence are going to be quite different. Politicians often like making "employers" pay for things as an alternative to taxing people. But in practice, employers are making a tradeoff between health care spending and wages. If your employer shifts from not subsidizing contraceptives to subsidizing them, what happens is that the workers who don't use contraceptives are providing cross-subsidy to those who do. It's in effect the same as financing a free birth control policy through a tiny increase in the payroll tax, which seems to me like a totally reasonable course of action, but like it or not employers are only bearing the cost in a very formalistic sense.

However the GOP has seized on this issue as one of "religious freedom"-when it is anything but. No one's religious freedom is being impinged upon. No one is forcing anyone to get birth control-much less use it.

But Catholics are being forced to subsidized conduct they consider immoral!

No, they are not. They are being asked to behave like a responsible employer and pay their fair share of the cost of their employee's health insurance-a service through which these same folks have a reasonable expectation of being able to receive preventative services. Contraception is just another preventative service-especially since an ill timed pregnancy is something that really fucks up your life.

Don't kid yourself, this is just the opening act in a war that is designed to, at one and the same time, pervert the meaning of the First Amendment-and at the same time empower insurance companies to go right back to fucking people over. The insurance companies motive will still be the same as it was before-profits over people. Only this time our smug holier than thou betters-will be able to console themselves with the idea that their money will not go towards acts they don't approve of.

Except most Americans don't agree with them-and want this service paid for, along with a lot of others. Sixty-five percent of registered voters said that they supported the Obama administration’s birth control mandate, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.

Now of course, to the truly deranged converted, this is portrayed as an attempt to impose a religious belief. And of course its also portrayed as a new way to sanction abortion. The effectiveness of conservative talking heads is truly amazing-when you consider that these folks almost always use the same term. abortifacients. The term itself is essentially meaningless-its a perverted way to say " Plan B" also known as the morning after pill-which helps to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex if taken with in 48 hours. Its not abortion by any reasonable use of the word. But still they try.

Let me state it again-this argument about "my money paying for things I object to" is just plain stupid. We all pay taxes and not everything the government or companies do is something I agree with. After all 5000+ Americans have been killed in a stupid war for stupid Arabs, which I find more than a little morally objectionable-but I still paid my taxes.

If you support the Bishops you are condoning hypocrisy of the highest order.  I don't support them and will continue to speak out against them. THEY ARE 100 PERCENT WRONG.

P.S. A lot fo the people whining about this are covered by TRICARE. TRICARE covers birth control-so to add to my point, your money is paying for something you don't believe in. Are you ready to tell female Sailors they can't have birth control because of your antiquated morality?

TRICARE covers the following forms of birth control when prescribed by a TRICARE-authorized provider:

  • Contraceptive diaphragm, including measurement, purchase and replacement;
  • Intrauterine devices, including surgical insertion, removal and replacement;
  • Prescription contraceptives, including the Preven Emergency Contraceptive Kit containing special doses of regular birth control pills and a self-administered pregnancy test;
  • Surgical sterilization, male and female.

TRICARE does not cover:

  • Condoms;
  • Nonprescription spermicidal foams, jellies or sprays.

 

One response so far

Feb 14 2012

The Bishops are wrong

Published by under Assholes,Sex

And its really sad-because I admire the Catholic Church on so many things. But I won't go with them on this.  Especially since the church's teachings on sex are totally screwed up.

 

The President offered up a rhetorical solution in response to their rhetorical freak-out over language in a new health insurance rule and the fiction that their objection was about religious freedom was exposed as bullshit. They could walk away, but instead they are pumping up the volume to keep the issue alive. It is a political play that has more to do with Republican politics than almost anything else.

The Bishops are demanding an end to any rule that requires any insurance company to cover any contraception or family planning as basic health issues for women. This is just the latest iteration of a centuries old objection to women having control of their bodies, their lives, their happiness and their liberty by the conservative power-focused elites running the Roman Catholic Church. This objection manifests itself in screeds against anything that treats sex as an activity separate from breeding and/or free from the dictates of Church Law.

And yet, I don’t think this latest play is about sex or even the Church trying to control the lives of women—I think it is about power and that sex, women, gay marriage and a host of other culture warrior issues are the pathway that they see as the golden road.

For anybody who has looked at the history of the Catholic Church (and any organized religion for that matter) a key part of their activities over time becomes how to maintain power, privilege and influence—and all the goodies that come with it. Eventually that is all that matters for the institution. The greatest success in this effort always comes when political leaders bow to the dictates of the Holy Roman Church and agree to make State Law subservient to Church Law. Back in the days of Kings and Queens you only had a handful of elites you had to work with and the mutual pursuit of power inspired many of them to treat Church Law as State Law. It worked for a long while and then came the Reformation, Protestantism, King Henry, the Enlightenment, Democracy and eventually a desire by more and more people to make their laws free of religion and the dictates of any Church.

The United States of America was founded on the belief that Church and State are separate and that the Laws of this Nation trump the laws of any religion—including the Roman Catholic Church. As you can imagine, this has made the conservative wing of the Catholic Church quite sad. For over a century they have been on the losing end of many political fights—especially when it comes to women in America. The Church opposed suffrage for women and any effort over the years that might free women from the Church sanctioned role of breeder. The Church has fought every form of contraception and lost most battles. They also have lost the battle of finding any American politician who was willing to embrace the idea that US Law should be subservient to Church Law—until now.

Living here in Europe where they have national health insurance-and thus what is covered or not is none of the church's business-the issue seems even more ludicrous. If the US had a national health insurance program this would be a non-issue. But don't kid yourself, this is just the beginning, the moral lunatics will extend the rules to other venues, end of life care being the one that most readily comes to mind. Fuck that.

 

I don’t watch Meet the Republicans, This Week with the GOP or any of the other Sunday shows, but reliable sources report that Jack Lew went on Face the Conservatives and State of the Right Wing with Candy Crowley yesterday and told the bishops that clowntime is over:

 

Mr. Lew said the president put out a solid plan, and when asked whether there is more room for compromising said, “No. This is our plan.”

 

In an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Mr. Lew said, “We’re going to go ahead and implement it.” He said the White House has “broad consensus – not universal consensus – that this is an approach that’s right.”

 

Rick Santorum was on next, and his face got red as he cried, bunched up his little fists and pounded the table saying that in his ideal world women would be constantly pregnant, but until he can raise up his new caliphate, he’ll accept that sluts can take their shame to a pharmacy and get the pill, but those roundheels should have to pay for it. Or words to that effect.

And is it just me, or do any of you detect a bit of a post-coital flush coloring Mitch McConnell’s pronouncement on Bob Scheiffer’s Old Man Show that not only Catholics, but any employer, should be able to decide not to pay for contraception as long as they dispense Viagra like a holy sacrament? My guess is that Mitch just renewed his Rx for the little blue pill for free on his Congressional health plan.

 

Insurance companies are supposed to be bill payers-nothing more. When you empower them to make value judgments on peoples lives-you are doing nothing but giving them yet another excuse to fuck people over. The religious conservatives are advocating a  fantastically broad standard – including the "toll on others" who have nothing to do with the Catholic organizations at all but who might just infer that contraception is OK – essentially ending any idea of the law as a neutral means for citizens with radically different moral views to choose for themselves what is good or bad. The law must reflect morality and that morality must be based on Catholic "natural law" . The stupidity and basic immorality of that position should be plainly evident to anyone with a brain.

Of course by that standard-just about all tea party supporters are not included. Since they lost the ability to think cognitively a long time ago-as evidenced by their support for Santorum and this stupid position.

3 responses so far

Feb 09 2012

By request.

Commenter Cupajoe wanted a rant against marriage. By amazing coincidence-I'm feeling right down on that subject tonight. Ask,  and ye shall receive:

 

Lovingly stolen from Expat at Large!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

6 responses so far

Next »

  • Categories

  • Previous Posts

  • ISSUES?

  • Want to subscribe to my feed?

    Add to Google
  • Follow me on Facebook!

    Just look for Skippy San. ( No dash).
  • Topics

  • Meta