RANGER AGAINST WAR: Bugger All <

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Bugger All

--Eddie Long, heady with power

I've run a twisted mile

I'm a stranger in the eyes of the Maker
--The Maker, Daniel Lanois

Women are for children, boys are for pleasure
--Afghan saying

Christianity might be a good thing
if anyone ever tried it
--George Bernard Shaw

The only way I can lose this election is
if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy
--Edwin Edwards

... After a few seconds' pause to give muscles, intestines,
anus, rectum, due time to assume their orthodox positions
once again, there invaded him that intimate rejoicing
at a duty fulfilled and a goal attained,
that same feeling of spiritual cleanliness
that had once upon a time possessed him as a schoolboy
at La Recoleta, after he had confessed his sins
and done the penance assigned him by the father confessor
--In Praise of the Stepmother,
Mario Vargas Llosa

And Jesus, when he had found a young ass,
sat thereon
--KJV, John 12:14
__________________

Sunday Meditation: Buggery.

What is it with all the buggery in the media?
Though this topic seems sexual in nature, it is actually about power, violence and violation, personal behaviors which parallel war in the macro sense.

We have long read of the offenses in the Catholic church (buggery-cum-pedophilia), and recently a civil suit was brought against the minister of Atlanta mega-church Baptist New Birth, Eddie Long, for sexual offenses against several young men in his LongFellows (stop the chortling) Youth Academy, a story which will probably disappear into a hefty out-of-court settlement.

Aside from his breach of trust, it galls that those who would condemn homosexuality are often among its more avid participants: "In 2004, Long led a march to Martin Luther King Jr.'s grave site in support of a Georgia constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage" (
Eddie Long Isn't Practicing What he Preaches).

Cultural critic Susie Bright says, "One thing that's interesting to me is that even when that hypocrisy is exposed, it doesn't seem to do much to change the minds of their followers." Long likens himself to the Biblical David fighting Goliath. Please! Why when people are outed do they take recourse to cries of persecution? Just because the jig is up doesn't mean you've been persecuted.

When one lives in contradiction, the two paths are feign to join at some point. But for the New Birthers, there will always be a new birth. The lord loves a sinner. It is a win-win. Is there ever a comeuppance?


Long will artfully and remorsefully spin the young men as envious and power-hungry, and himself as an unwitting participant, lured in by youthful artifice. He will wail and throw himself upon the mercy of the congregation, and they, practicing their Christian mercy, will welcome him back, fallen and even stronger. He will wear a black veil for a time, wringing all the drama the situation can bear.


And what of the young men? Their faith and identities shaken by a very powerful, older spiritual adviser? What reward for them? Some paltry monetary recompense, out of court, never to speak of the shameful incident again. And that is how it goes in this great land, with such a magnanimous God and such overflowing plates.


But for men (and women) who have been used in such ways, there is no easy forgiveness, no return to unsullied time. Their abridged faith will always be worn as a rent in their soul --
for how do you undo betrayal
?

And then there are the young
dancing boys kept by many Afghani men for their hinder pleasures:

"For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, as lovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means boy player. The men like to boast about it" (Afghanistan's Dirty Little Secret).

So American and NATO soldiers are fighting and dying to protect tens of thousands of pedophilic sodomists engaging in what a State Department report called a "widespread, culturally sanctioned form of male rape." And thousands of boys will grow up damaged in the process, with no redress at all.

But like so many Western males on the down low, these Afghan men don't consider themselves homosexual as they claim they do not love the boys. But it is hard to presume they do love their wives.


Why do men bugger other boys and men in secrecy, and yet have women as their societal mates? Surely there is a disconnect here, unless we are willing to say that a man cannot be satisfied with a female mate, in which case the whole argument for biological perpetuation of the species falls flat and man becomes some sort of genetic mutation maladapted for survival.


And William Saletan joyfully reports in Slate that a recent sex study shows more women than ever are engaging in anal sex. He calls it a triumph for variety's sake, and quotes the stat that 40% of women between ages 30 and 40 have tried it.
He seems to want to convince us that, um, women really love it. It's not just for paid porno stars, anymore.

But the stat is misleading as it does not equate to continuing experimentation, and only 3-4% of women participate in the practice in any given month. (Saletan later backtracks in his enthusiasm and reports the dangers involved.)


Why the gleeful reportage? This is a factoid, like any other; statistics gleaned from a self-survey, and neither good nor bad. Could it be a back-door way of saying there is nothing too aberrant about buggery, ergo, nothing's wrong about homosexuality? A "look, everyone's doing it" sort of thing?
Given Saletan's celebratory presentation, it would be easy to see it that way. Or it's a thumb's up for pornographers everywhere (*wink*wink.)

I don't know how or if this would play into the satisfaction of the men who are coveting their fellow's bottoms. It is just interesting to juxtapose it with the other reality. Do some women consent because it would make them more enticing to certain men, and is that good or bad?

What if some of us really are licentious, libidinous, lascivious pansexual apes? Religion, or laws or whatever hold back the floodgates, but what if we could speak the truth? Maybe those pansexual types could couple up accordingly, rather being "un-gayed" in the Christian camps, ultimately leaving trails of human flotsam in their wake. What if we could admit the truth: That this behavior is not as aberrant as we would like to think.


Homosexuality is a biological dead-end (unless you're into parthenogenesis), so why does it persist? If it were due to only occasional genetic mutations, it would not continue in such numbers. It is because men like Bishop Long here has four kids, in addition to his tangential matings.


For the conservatives, a great way to find out if homosexuality is by choice versus nature would be to sanction same-sex marriage. If no one coupled heterosexually out of family or church obligation, and no offspring ensue, one would presume eventually a reduction in homosexuality's incidence in the population. It is as good a theory as any: If homosexuality is biologically determined, then some gay genes are being propagated through enforced heterosexuality.


A conundrum for the Family Values crowd.

Labels: , , ,

9 Comments:

Blogger FDChief said...

"Lechery, lechery, wars and lechery; nothing else holds fashion."

As for the fondness for the servants' entrance, when I was in Egypt one of the locals (discussing central Asian sexual habits) claimed that they used women for offspring, boys for diversion (when the women weren't around), but melons for pleasure.

Let's face it - there is no limit to the permutations of pole and hole imaginable by the human cerebrum. If it can be done, it probably has been.

Monday, October 25, 2010 at 1:09:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

"Sex and violins, sex and violins..."

I love the "melons for pleasure" comment! (Ow ... now that would hurt ... :))

Human's are such a sneaky, snaky selfish breed. I love the ads for one of the ED drugs Levitra (ahem), I think, and the guy who keeps throwing the football through the tire swing. C'mon ... it's worse than a Bergman film.

Monday, October 25, 2010 at 8:03:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Brooklyn Red Leg said...

Point of order, please.

Pedophilia = attraction to pre-pubescent (child)
Ephebophilia/Hebephilia = attraction to post-pubescent small/young adult (teenager)

Our modern 'make everything under the Sun illegal' society has so badly twisted the definition of pedophile that it has become almost meaningless. The invented crime of Statutory Rape (which didn't exist until 1886) was one of a myriad of steps taken by population control proponents (many of which were Negative Eugenicists) to control the underclasses (which included the Irish, Italians, blacks, Eastern Europeans etc). The idea was, supposedly, that the 'stupid and/or unfit' among America were breeding out of control (a vile sentiment that has refused to die for over 130 years now).

As to the main question about homosexuality, I am of the 'live & let live' camp (being a true Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist) and think The State should be totally divested of the usurped power to regulate marriages (which was originally done to prevent miscegenation).

Monday, October 25, 2010 at 10:22:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

BRL:

pedophilia, hebephilia
pedohebephilic disorder -- whatever you call it, penetration of a young boy or girl by an adult is wrong. Because humans would like to do some things that violate the rights of others, there must be laws to deter such behavior.

As for statutory rape, that is an effort to protect a younger person's bodily rights against an older aggressor. It was specifically targeted to protect young woman from being impregnated outside of marriage, women who might be left destitute as a result. I don't know where you get the idea of "negative eugenics" from these statutes.

What is an "Anarcho-Capitalist"? (Seems to be an oxymoron.)

Monday, October 25, 2010 at 1:09:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Way back around 1972 I heard Arab/Afghan sexual preferences as... "A woman for children, a boy for pleasure, a duck for delight."

I could go along with our govt not interfering in any sexual practices as long as a family member who kills the adult man (or woman) who interferes with a child or teen-ager are exempt from prosecution.

That might work as well as our entanglement of laws and might have the added benefit of speeding along our determined march to third world status and chaos.

Jay in N.C.

Monday, October 25, 2010 at 8:05:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Brooklyn Red Leg said...

penetration of a young boy or girl by an adult is wrong.

That is an Appeal to Emotion Fallacy. Boy/Girl = Prepubescent (child). A person who has undergone Puberty is an Adult. This is a biological fact. If you want to refute that, I suggest you take it up with Evolution as that is how we are as a species. Furthermore, I nowhere suggested it was okay for an Adult (someone who has undergone puberty) to penetrate a Child (someone who is prepubescent).

Because humans would like to do some things that violate the rights of others, there must be laws to deter such behavior.

Circular logic. In order to defend Liberty, we have to destroy Liberty. The simple fact is that there are Young Adults (teenagers) that are being kidnapped and thrown into cages where they are brutalized, raped and potentially murdered for having engaged in consensual sexual relations with another consenting young adult. If you are unfamiliar with this, might I suggest you research the case of Genarlow Wilson. If it had happened today, the young woman in The Summer of 42 (which was based on a real incident in the author's life) would have been thrown in prison for what she did.

If you can be handed an automatic weapon at the age of 17 and sent to a 3rd world shithole to get your fool head blown off, WHY is it considered a crime to get a blowjob from a fellow 17 year old? The topic may make people feel uncomfortable, but if we only allow ourselves to discuss matters that everyone finds copacetic then there is no point in having ANY discussions.

The treatment of young adults in this country has lead to all kinds of unintended consequences. This is why its said that 'The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions'. As it stands now, young adults are barred from having most jobs (which they could easily be qualified of doing) and a whole host of other things that generally makes situations worse. Prohibiting teenagers from engaging in sexual activity is, at best, a fool's errand, and at worst denying another human being their inherent Natural Right to freely associate. Prohibition isn't the answer and parent's expecting the government to take care of the problem only makes things worse.

It was specifically targeted to protect young woman from being impregnated outside of marriage, women who might be left destitute as a result.

That is called searching for a justification. Some people may have wrapped themselves in that, but the simple fact is the links between 'moral reformers' and negative eugenics groups like what later became Planned Parenthood is known. It also assumes that older men are automatically sleazeballs and that young women are pure and innocent. I thought we got past all that 'Women on a pedestal' crap long ago?

I don't know where you get the idea of "negative eugenics" from these statutes.

Who were the people these 'reformers' were worried about? Working class young women. You know, the 'unfit' who were not 'of breeding and therefore incapable of knowing better'. They tended to be the Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Blacks, Appalachian Mountain Folk, poor Southerners of all ethnic groups etc.

What is an "Anarcho-Capitalist"? (Seems to be an oxymoron.)

:sigh:

An Anarcho-Capitalist believes that ALL human interactions (social or economic) should be VOLUNTARY as long as they do not involve force and/or fraud. We believe that Government, no matter how small and/or impotent, uses force to achieve its ends (taxation, among other things). To quote JRR Tolkien (yep, the one who wrote The Lord of the Rings)

"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)"

Although Wikipedia is not exactly the best source, I offer it as a primer of sorts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Monday, October 25, 2010 at 9:52:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

BRL,

Your argumentation style is both sophomoric and hyperbolic, IMHO. And I don't like your patronizing tone. You've hit a raw nerve as I've played rhetorical games with someone for awhile, and I'm quite done with it.

I don't engage in logical fallacies. You haven't refuted my statement that sex with a child is wrong (=illegal, in our society). Genarlow Wilson's case proved a law that needed amending. I am not so much interested in consensual late-teen sex in Georgia as I am in the endemic exploitation of sex slaves, both child and adult, here and abroad.

Per your cmt., "The topic may make people feel uncomfortable, but if we only allow ourselves to discuss matters that everyone finds copacetic then there is no point in having ANY discussions" -- I'm the one who wrote this, remember? For the most part, you are not addressing my concerns, and have your own fixations.

I'll agree that is hypocritical to send a guy to battle but not let him drink.

If you think anarchy'll get you by, good luck to you.

Monday, October 25, 2010 at 10:41:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Brooklyn Red Leg said...

'Your argumentation style is both sophomoric and hyperbolic, IMHO.'

Argumentum Ad Hominem

'You haven't refuted my statement that sex with a child is wrong (=illegal, in our society)'

Once again, I have not anywhere stated that it is okay for an Adult to engage in sexual relations with a Child. A Child is a Prepubescent.

Monday, October 25, 2010 at 11:36:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

BRL and Lisa,
I'm having a Margaret Meade moment here.
We can never ameliorate or impose our standards of law or morality on other cultures without unforseen difficulties.
Law and morality.
We have Mormon sects here in the USA that violate the adult- child
argument that is being discussed.
In the ME this is rampant and we ain't gonna change it, but we don't need to be enablers either.
And in the PWOT we have done that.
After WW2 and Korea US troops used prostitutes of all ages in both ETO and Japan. The morality of a nation slips during wars. After all what's the big deal after killing them off in wholesale slaughter.
My point is that there's a slip betweeen cup and lip.Think US congressmen and young aids etc..
We are hypocritical and the ME just do what they do.
And yes BRL our evolution has always had the young choice morsals getting the responsibility of servicing the tribal leaders.
Hopefully we've come beyond survival level and can leave tribal ethics behind.
jim

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at 10:45:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home