Caste Crass

In: Mish-mash, Red Said

A week ago, my adult-aged daughter told me about a new series on Showtime that has me hooked. Masters of Sex. Set in the 50’s right smack in the “good old days”, the settings are reminiscent of Happy Days with sweet Mrs. Cunningham, Lucy, the perfect, albeit nutty wife of Ricky, and of course, the Beave’s mom, when ladies never go out without their lipstick, hat, and gloves. And if you recall, husbands and wives slept in separate beds. (Note: the Flintstones were the first TV couple to share a bed.)

Masters is the name of the OBGyn who, along with his female assistant, set out to scientifically quantify the orgasm experience for women- a feat not so easily done when sex for pleasure was basically verboten and women were knocked out during childbirth after being “put away” once they’d begun to “show”. It is a fascinating subject considering it was only 60 years ago and women have had the ability to climax since the dawn of man. Freud is referenced in one episode when a clip of him is shown where he claims that a clitoral orgasm is a result of an undeveloped mind. Ha! If that were the case, we’d all want to be stupid, I can assure you!

The significance for me is the timing as well as the obvious titillating subject matter that can quite honestly suffice to get things warm as I have been working on a book which I will title, “Why Be Equal When You Can Be Better?” I loathe feminists who claim they want equality, expending countless hours on breaking the glass ceiling while over 70% of their sisters in India use moon cups courtesy of MIT or torn rags to tend to their menstruation hygiene.  As is indicated in the storyline of the show, a female must start with basic ownership over her own vagina in order to be a woman. So for you so-called feminists out there, send the ladies some tampons, pads, and a vibrator.

Ironically, there is a commercial airing in India that has caused quite a stir. See for yourself how the opportunity to not be regarded as used goods, according to a jeweler trying to widen the net of potential customers, has the whole country talking…or well, maybe the 12% who have access to hygiene products anyway. The rest of the women still can’t even mention their vagina since it is a profane word. And yes it is barbaric…but only one generation behind the United States. At least it isn’t as bad as Sudan where women are “circumcised” (they’re clitoris is removed) so they do not succumb to the natural urge to be a whore.

http://

Let’s All Be Gay!

In: Mish-mash, Red Said

Shocked, horrified, appalled, disgusted, dismayed, amused. So goes the cycle of my emotional responses to the cat-and-mouse game played between politicians and the citizenry whom they supposedly serve. And the latest point of contention is not whether the politicians ought to continue spending the taxpayers money for the interest on money borrowed from the Federal Reserve, nor is it regarding the half dozen wars going on in the name of the taxpayer, nor is it the fact that the trade controls implemented by the federal government has undermined the free-market principles upon which this grand experiment was predicated but rather whether, or not, consenting adults of the same sex can enter into a marriage union and receive all of the “benefits” granted to that special class of people who have chosen to unite themselves as a couple to the state. Don’t kid yourself…that is exactly what a civil ceremony does.

Prior to interracial marriage, the sacred union was a religious ceremony that united the couple, their families, and their properties. But once those colored people wanted to marry the uncolored people, well that required a whole set of guidelines, rules, and restrictions that only the government could establish, implement, and enforce. Imagine Andrew Jackson being told that he was not actually married to Rachel because he was “married” to someone else, or George Washington being told that he and Martha were living out of wedlock because he simply “took her home”? Were they any less married because they lacked a certificate granting them permission by the US government? Of course not! Oh wait! There wasn’t a United States government when George and Martha were married…but then again, he wasn’t the first president of the citizenry either, but that is another story.

So what is it that all of these gay and lesbian people want that has the politicians spending your money debating over? Before I address that question, let me back up and ask what it means to be “gay”. Does it mean that you have sex with people of the same gender? Is that the clarifying distinction? And if so, does the opposite hold true that a “straight” is someone who is having sex with people of the opposite gender? And if that is the case, does that make me “graight” because I am having sex with neither, or would I have to be having sex with both in which case maybe I am a “stray” for being sexless? Okay, so maybe this argument isn’t about where you put your fingers and phalluses after all…Maybe, it is a distraction enveloped in opportunity for the lobbyists/special interest groups, politicians, and media.free to love

I hear gays decrying the government for not “allowing” them to love whom they want and yet nobody can stop you from having an emotion or acting on it. I hear straights lambasting gays for trying to destroy the institution of marriage as if the 50% divorce rate (of straight couples, mind you) wasn’t already sufficiently doing that. If John and Steve are a couple, how does them having a certificate that says it is “legal” for them to be together make their union any more meaningful or the marriage of Dan and Delores any less so? It doesn’t but the lobbyists/special interest groups, politicians, and media would have you think it does.

I do not believe the solution is to have the federal government or any state, county, city, or township create or enforce a law that grants marriage contracts. What I do believe is the solution is to remove government from marriage altogether. For one thing, I do not believe in polygamy…and yes, when you enter into a state-sanctioned marriage, you, as a couple, are joining together with the state as a third party. (Keep in mind that it becomes the final arbiter of the status of the relationship as well as the legal owner of all property, including children born into the union. Why else would the state be able to “grant” you custody? Hmm…)

If couples are already acknowledged as couples by their family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and merchants with whom they trade, what is the problem? The problem is entirely centered around the discrimination that the very same government, who is claiming authority over one’s marital status, has created: married couples get tax breaks, unmarried couples do not (Solution: eradicate taxes.); married couples have rights to will property to spouses, unmarried couples do not (Solution: eradicate government ownership of property.). Case closed, problems solved.

20 years ago, a gay man could not visit his lover dying of AIDS in a hospital; public outcry and the market changed those restrictions, not government intervention. Let that be a template for future change. And let the fact that the government will not “allow” public outcry and the market to determine change to serve as a warning to you that the government has overstepped its bounds and needs to be restrained, so that you and everyone you know can live according to their values and principles that guide them as individuals, so long as they do not use force or aggression against you. And last I checked, no amount of hanging with dykes and fags has turned me into one but my good taste, fashion sense, and appreciation for all things pretty has made me a certifiable Flame Dame who is a “graight stray”.