Tag Archives: Sex

Institutions of Higher learning… About SEX!

If you’re like most parents you want what’s best for your kids.  You want them to get the kind of education that will help them get have a great life and a good, steady job where they love what they do and have a chance to advance.

And like most parents, other than that initial trip to visit college campuses with your kids, you didn’t really check out all the little “extras” that they will learn while away at school!

One expects that institutions of higher learning (you know, our wonderful university and colleges throughout the country) that, in many cases, are subsidized by our tax dollars, would focus on teaching the foundations required for our children to excel in their chose field of study.

When they enter the universities as young adults, we hope the knowledge they gain will help prepare them for the real world and teach them to be an adult, show up on time, be engaged and involved in school, in classes, and so on. Right?

Unfortunately, a majority of the colleges in our fine education system are run by some very left-leaning, progressive, socialist Americans. Follow me here.

I expect colleges to hand out information at the beginning of the school year about “Dealing with the anxiety of attending college”, “How to manage your time”, and “How to study”. But if you plan on attending the College of Charleston, one of the first introductions you will receive is “Find your Erotic self”… in comic book form! This comic book is a memoir about a woman coming to terms with her sexual identity and her closeted gay father who had a relationship with an underage male babysitter.

This is “reality”? This helps prepare our young adults for the “real world”? What does that have to do with entering college and excelling in a career? Shouldn’t I find “myself” before I find my “erotic self”? How about I find my dorm room first and then the bookstore? A grocery store would be nice and even the nearest clinic or dry cleaner. Somewhere, about 400 items down on the list, might be what’s in the comic book that explores gender and sexuality issues.

Apparently, the college thinks this is one of the first things that every incoming freshmen needs. Do you suppose they shared that “welcome packet” with the parents when they came for that school site visit, before they signed on the dotted line for all that tuition? Doubtful. One of the directors at the school said, “This book will open important conversations about identity, diversity, sexuality and finding one’s place in the world.” Newsflash… this is a professor who could be teaching your son or daughter!

What they are really trying to impart is that no matter what the young person was taught at home, no matter what their moral compass or religious belief is, they need to check out their erotic side, sleep with members of the same sex, pretend you’re a man when you have female parts, you get the gist. The college believes you need to explore this “real world knowledge” to be successful in life. In what universe?!

Isn’t it more important to teach these kids how to cope with being away from home for the first time? That they need to push themselves to do well and excel in life? That they need to choose their friends wisely? Why is it that the “educated left” thinks anyone with moral values or a religious belief is backwards?

The board at the University of Connecticut recently unanimously voted to forbid “amorous, intimate, or sexual contact” between school faculty and students. Wait! This wasn’t already a rule? And if not, why wouldn’t it be? Forget about the sexual issues, how about the moral issues? Does the student get a better mark depending on how many dates there are? Or how the student kisses? Or even how they perform sexually? And what happens if/when there is a breakup? Isn’t it just common sense to keep things professional?

Not in the world of higher learning. It took finding out a teacher had had sexual relations with many students over his many years at the college. For him, it was like shooting fish in a barrel. These campuses are supposed to be safe places where we entrust our children to be educated.

Colleges now have courses on sex and sexual behavior, the proper sex tool and how to use it, how to have safe sex (even bestiality), and how to navigate pornography. Harvard University sanctions a “Hook Up Week” where they encourage students to blow off steam by engaging in their raw, sexual desires.

I guess “Do your homework day”, “Return your books to the library day”, “Help out another student week”, and “volunteer at the local food bank month” are out of the question. Why do we have to pollute the college experience with immorality and encourage unbridled sexual behavior?

Having a mindset of “free love and free sex” and exploring any and every sexual thought is dangerous. Having a healthy fear of and respect for God and a solid moral compass is healthy. Check out the stats. It proves me right.

‘Dickileaks’

In a debate on one of the FOX News Channel shows, Left-of-Center radio show host Leslie Marshall responded to her debate partner’s call for honesty in politics by saying, “Please! We’re talking about politicians.” And there you have it in a nutshell. The American people have moved beyond the concept of apathy where the idea of honesty in politics is concerned, and have arrived at full-blown political sadomasochism. Having completely given up on demanding that those who serve them do so with fidelity to public service, the majority of Americans have simply accepted – as the new normal – that politicians of all stripes offer nothing but false promises, untruths and opportunistic spin for narcissistic gain, i.e. power and wealth. And while this is today’s status quo, it doesn’t have to be this way. Nevertheless, it seems as though we live in an all-encompassing state of political Stockholm Syndrome, unwilling to affect fundamental change, which we, as a people, have the power to do.

A quote often attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, reads, “Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite,” or “Every country has the government it deserves.” This philosophical observation certainly applies to the United States, even if in the most ironic way. Given the fact that our nation allows for the free election of a representative form of government based on a checked-and-balanced (via the Electoral College) democratic system of election, We the People – literally – have the power to shape the personality and morality of the government that we created to serve us. Yet, astoundingly, we have been led to believe that no one vote – no one voter – can affect the outcome of any given election. Again, I refer to Leslie Marshall, “Please! We’re talking about politicians.”

But surrender to this “new political normal” is an exercise in “political sadomasochism”; an embracing of several weaknesses, including acquiescence to a special interest ideological class, apathy toward being engaged enough to search out the facts, and cowardice to confront the more manipulative among us. This political sadomasochism produces – via our own hands – government, at every level, which we all love to hate, blame, demean and complain about; government that places politics and the well-being of politicians and political parties above good government and serving the people.

No better example exists than in the State of New York, where disgraced former US Congressman Anthony Weiner and disgraced former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer are literally leading in the polls for New York City Mayor and New York City Comptroller, respectively.

Everyone – unless they have been sequestered for the last several years, knows the stories that delivered these two men away from public service.

Anthony Weiner, an incredible narcissist and über-abrasive, über-Progressive political operative, has a problem with Tweeting pictures of his penis to young women who aren’t his wife. Recent revelations have proved that he continues to do this even though his wife, Huma Abedin (close buddy-buddy of Hillary Clinton’s), stands by her man, exclaiming that since his resignation from the US House – a resignation executed because he couldn’t keep his cyber-penis in his cyber-pants – he’s been a “model husband and Father.” One has to wonder if “Señora Danger” (Weiner used the moniker Carlos Danger to interact with his cyber-sexual conquests) has changed her mind or if she just likes her men a little bit arrogant and abusive.

Elliot Spitzer, on the other hand, had to resign because he had a penchant for employing high-paid hookers. To her credit, Mrs. Spitzer was recognizably mortified when she stood by her man, as he proclaimed to the world that fidelity to his marriage just wasn’t enough for his sexual appetite.

In both of these examples, we have men who worked their entire lives to attain political power; positioning, campaigning, working up the political ladder and achieving elected office. In both of their careers they achieved some good things. But there is a troubling and undeniable fact that precludes the both of them from every being elected to office again, or at least should preclude them from attaining seats of power every again. They lied to, they willingly deceived, and they manipulated and humiliated the people that trusted them the most, their wives; their life-partners; their soul mates. They both took advantage of the people that are supposed to be the most important people in their lives. And then they asked them to publicly humiliate themselves so they could get the butts out of the media fire.

Truth be told, if a person cannot even be faithful to their spouse; if a person cannot have fidelity to the most important relationship in his or her life, how is anyone supposed to believe that they will have fidelity to any relationship: personal, professional or political?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Lie to me once as an elected representative in government and you should resign, take stock of your life and realize that your time in political life has come to an end by your own hand. But should you lie, cheat and steal and then apologize, huge crocodile tears in your eyes, promising never to do it again while your humiliated spouse stands in your disingenuous shadow, and convince me to vote for you again…well, then, as de Tocqueville espoused, you get the government you deserve.

It is stunning to me that the people of New York are allowing these two liars, these two cheats, to exist but a minute from again taking governmental office. This may sound a bit harsh, but after the outpouring of affection the rest of the nation afforded the people of New York City after September 11, 2001, I expected more than just a “thank you, now back to our regularly scheduled cesspool of politically partisan deviance.” I expected that when given a second chance, they would have done the right thing, corrected wrongs and strived to better themselves as an exercise in appreciation for support, compassion and friendship. I don’t know about you, but New Yorkers’ embrace of Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer is tantamount to a slap in the face. But then that’s just me…

The overriding point to all of this is that it doesn’t have to be this way. We can have better government; government over politics. We all just need to have the courage and dedication to demand that our elected officials respect the people and the office – respect the opportunity – enough to actually serve the electorate, instead of lying to them while lining their pockets and setting up lucrative careers for a post-elected life. We need to support honest people when they want to run for government and reject the notion that the parties are just too big, too powerful to challenge. Because We the People, by virtue of the United States Constitution, literally created the American system of government, We the People have the power to set the standards by which we are served. The fact that we do not is a testimony to our cultivated political sadomasochism.

So, we can either pretend that we do not have the power to achieve government that serves, and glean the scandals of the Weiners and the Spitzers – the scandals of “Dickileaks,” or we can do the hard work and act like Americans and settle for nothing less than the very best. If we cannot, then maybe Eric Holder, while wrong about the subject matter, was correct when he called us a “nation of cowards.”

“We the People  of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…” – The Preamble to the United States Constitution.

From Russia with Love: Did Putin’s “First Time” Campaign Inspire Obama’s?

Single-minded college age sluts were no doubt riveted by the vaguely homo-erotic account of a tatted tramp manlier than Justin Bieber regaling the world of “her first time” voting for Obama in one of the most disgusting, unpresidential campaign ads, ever. But was the video a sexually transmitted disease caught from Russia?

If you have any teenage daughters in the room, you might want to give them $50 and send them to the mall.

When Michelle Ray linked me to a Russian campaign ad from Vladimir Putin that slutted up the dictator’s 2012 re-election tour, something instantly seemed familiar. I had seen the ad before and knew the meme to be precisely (slap) identical. Being fluent in Russian, I can verify that it is the same idea.

The title of this masterpiece is “Opening women up for their first time.” The video translation of “elect” should be “candidate.” The closing of the ad says: “Putin: First Time — Only for Love.”

And just in case you thought that was a “fluke”:

This one is called “Russian Beauty Describes Her First Time.” The weird phrases “Safe as houses” translates to “solid as a rock.” But wait, the Vladdy Daddy gets even more suggestive:

The phrase in the middle is “Let’s Do It Together.” At the end: “Elections December 4th.” The English-language music is really ironic.

So what’s next for the Obama campaign? We’ve had the war on women, war on dogs, Bane capital, Mitt hates cookies, taxathon, Julia, vote your lady parts, Big Bird, binders full of women, bayonets and horses, and now, a creepy college girl’s “first time” confession. Now, that’s flexibility.

50 Shades of Conservative

With the recent popularity of the novel Fifty Shades of Grey, the world of BDSM has been thrust into the mainstream. There is a twisted sort of irony to this, since this lifestyle – perhaps more importantly, some of the portions of the information about it online – have been either under fire, or used as ammunition in assorted arguments among conservatives on Twitter. For the record, this is a distraction, like just about anything else that causes conservatives in general to fight among themselves.

Mikamatto (CC)

However, I thought it might not be a bad idea to take this opportunity to point out a few interesting facts about BDSM that were apparently either skipped entirely, or at least misrepresented in the novel. First, I’d like to start with something obvious – yes, there are conservatives out there that engage in some form of BDSM, whether it involves inflicting pain, or simply involves a dominant and submissive relationship dynamic (D/s). Come on now folks! Let’s start using those little gray cells, shall we? There are some out there that would argue that many “traditional” marriages are really just committed D/s relationships, with one being generally dominated by the other. It’s logical, if you really think about it. If both are dominant, logic says they’ll constantly battle each other for supremacy. On the other end, neither one wants to take charge, so they can easily end up being undecided about the simplest of things. Now, if one is relatively dominant, and the other relatively submissive, that lends itself to a much more harmonious existence. Add a few sex toys to the bedroom, and that’s a recipe for a kinky relationship.

And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Now, onto the little things that bothered me about that lovely little book. First of all, anyone that decides to get into a master and slave contract with someone without knowing them for quite some time beforehand is downright insane. And no, I’m not buying that a virgin would jump into that lifestyle from the beginning either. But, the biggest fallacy is that the dominant is completely in control. The author made a valiant effort to show the dynamic accurately, but missed the target by failing to stress that the submissive is actually the one in control. Assuming that it is a safe, sane and consensual relationship in the first place, the dominant cannot do anything without the prior permission of the submissive. The dominant only has power because it is given by the submissive. That message needed to be repeated, and often. It’s irresponsible not to do that in this sort of writing, since it could (and did) have a wide general appeal. I’m not even going to get into the little details that just don’t ring true.

In case you didn’t guess it yet, I’m not writing this from a theoretical point of view. This is a “been there, and done that” for me, and no, I am not answering on whether or not it’s only in my past – my personal life, my marriage, my choices, my business. But, I will say a little bit more about my past. I’ve known several politically conservative couples over the years that consider themselves members of the BDSM community. Honestly, the majority of the couples I knew with dominant men paired with submissive women were conservatives. That is my personal experience, so it is anecdotal at best. But, that doesn’t make it meaningless either. And, my personal introduction to at least part of this world was with two men (not at the same time, of course!) that were conservative.

My primary point is that what people do in their bedrooms used to be at least relatively sacred, as in others respected their privacy. And any intimate matters used to be off limits. That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. Sometimes it takes the form of people wanting government to help them “save people’s souls” from sin. If anyone doesn’t know my lack of concern for those non-issues by now, they haven’t been paying attention. But what really disturbs me is what appears to be a rampant disease of trying to dig up dirt on other conservatives – out the skeletons in their closets, or otherwise ridicule them. In case you can’t guess, I have nothing but contempt for people that do that sort of thing. That’s saying something, since there was a time when I wasn’t above yanking skeletons from the closets of politicians.

So, here it is – conservatives can be kinky. There is no law against it. There is nothing to be ashamed of if one chooses to do something off the wall in the bedroom, as long as it’s “safe, sane and consensual.” And there is nothing wrong with conservative adults enjoying or creating visual or literary arts that depict those kinky activities. I understand that there are many conservatives that find this sort of thing offensive, and that’s obviously fine as well. It is not fine for conservatives to force each other to view, read about, or participate in kinky sex. That said, like it or not, this is one thing the Libertarians got right – the intimate relationships of life are not meant for public or governmental interference. That’s why we call them “intimate.”

*Special thanks to Kurt Schlichter for being his #caring self, and coming up with the title for this post!

What We Are Not Teaching Our Children

Tom Kubistant (Source: Westlaw Insider)

Tom Kubistant teaches a “human sexuality” class at Western Nevada College.  According to an article from The Blaze, Mr. Kubistant is accused of “requiring students to masturbate and publicly reveal personal sex-fantasies in order to pass” his class.

Karen Royce, a 60-year-old student who was taking the class made her objections known to Mr. Kubistant, who became “agitated” with her objections. She then took her complaints to the legal department at Western Nevada College, but was told that Mr. Kubistant had the “upmost freedom in teaching and in ‘research.’” The legal department used a waiver Ms. Royce had signed at the beginning of the class  against her. This waiver included the outline of the class, and stated that “the class may contain ‘language’ that would make students feel uncomfortable.”

Getting no help from the college, Ms. Royce filed a federal complaint  in U.S. District Court against Western Nevada College.

Ms. Royce’s attorney, Ken McKenna gave a statement to ABCNews.com, stating:

 “How the authorities for this college could allow this man to conduct his class in this fashion and in effect say that‘s OK with us is so outrageous it’s beyond belief. I think he needs to be terminated. He has crossed so many ethical, legal and moral boundaries… My mind immediately went to the question is he grooming these young 17-, 18-, 19-year-olds so he can have further contact with them outside the school environment? His behavior borders on perversion.”

Mr. Kubistant’s behavior does not “border on perversion”, it is without a doubt perversion, and criminal! For the students who are 17-years-old, this should be considered sexual abuse of a child!

Karen Royce is a hero for speaking out against this man! However, what is most troubling is the fact that she seems to be the only one to have taken a stand over this. She is 60-years-old, undoubtedly sure of herself as a woman, and unwilling to be intimidated by this pervert.

Where are all the younger students? Why has no one spoken out against this man before now? Yes, it is true that our society is inundated with sex, and a certain amount of desensitization has happened because of it, but it is very hard to believe that Karen Royce is the first person to have ever have an issue with Mr. Kubistant’s “curriculum”. Why has no one taken a stand before now? They have allowed themselves to be bullied and degraded by a pervert in a position of authority.

We as a nation have allowed the very foundation of our country to be eroded to the point that we are not teaching our children to stand up for what is right. We have allowed our children to become lemmings rather than leaders. We have not protected our children’s freedom. We have failed our children by not teaching them to “buck the system” when it is wrong.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream.

It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”
Ronald Reagan

 

Government Sponsored Extreme Sexuality Sports

I know more students that watch collegiate sports than actually play or played collegiate sports. They have been treated far more fairly than some of the athletes themselves. Therefore I propose we appeal to Jonathan Swift for a modest proposal…

I have taken mild liberty to adjust Mr. Swift’s proposal to accommodate our present day circumstances. Correspondingly, lacking Swift’s flair to the rhetorical I offer this synopsis with greater brevity.

A Modern Modest Proposal

This is a Modern Modest Proposal for preventing the students in America from being a burden on themselves, their families, and for making them beneficial to the public.

It is a melancholy object to those, who walk through our great universities. These gifted student, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, and apply themselves to their studies, are forced to employ all their time in the risks of of unprotected gaming, some to the extent of sell themselves to drunkards and reprobates.

Thus, it is only reasonable that a solicitous proposal, submitted by fluke, should be more seriously evaluated and applied universally throughout our universities.

Specifically, I draw my attention to the desperate circumstances of collegiate athletes. I momentarily attend to the specific sport of “football”. Upon gaining entrance to a prestigious university these active sportsmen are outfitted with rigorous protective gear equal to the cost of satisfactory annual contraceptive. I.e. football protection for one year is nearly equivalent in cost to a full year of “protection” for a highly active sexual athlete at the same university.

It is true that the university pays for the extent of protective gear issued to its footballers. In the most recent decade many universities have bent to offer heterosexual sporting in some prominent sports programs. The boys on grid iron appear to be advantaged over the less funded sport of “Extreme Sexuality”. The question naturally is raised as to whether or not such disparity in funding common sports programs is truly equitable. Given that Extreme Sexuality is a far more popular sport among collegiate student (and perhaps the professorships as well) the only reasonable initial response would be that inequity surely does exist.

Serious consequences, in most cases, on the football field are protected against. Injuries and “sidelining” of players is far less frequent than would be expected with such aggressive encounters. The main reason being that protective gear is provided to athletes. The same cannot be said for the more popular sport of Extreme Sexuality, which incidentally the university offers no protective measures. This again, for emphasis, appears categorically unjust. Given the choice of participating in either football, a sport of repetitively attempting to push a ball forward, or Extremely Sexuality I will leave to the reader’s imagination as to which a preponderance of students and faculty would choose.

Why then is such a sport, and the protection of the participants therein, thrown recklessly aside while football is funded so heavily. This is Another seeming dilemma of inequity. Something ought to be done. Just by fluke, an informed student of Georgetown testified before the prestigious although highly political House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. The essence of her testimony was rather simple, and appeared to answer the terrible inequity of protection provided in university sports programs. Her answer was void of malice and subject to rational discourse, rather than the tawdry commentary of liberal talk shows. She concluded that the government should fund Extreme Sexuality sporting events by providing subsidized protection.

My initial reaction was to wonder “why”, but upon closer examination I discovered the disparities which exist (as noted above). Ultimately I came to this alternate Modern Modest Proposal.

Athletes in collegiate sports programs, like football, reach that level of capability through years of training and practice. They hone both their bodies and mental stamina to prepare themselves for the extreme challenges of repeatedly being nailed flat on their backs usually on the semi-hard surface of the cold ground. Secondly, when functioning as a well oiled machine these sportsmen draw vast numbers of spectators. The Spectators pay good money to watch these sporting events. They cheer wildly when someone scores. Other sports where athletes are nailed by a well oiled machine could be treated equitably. You can see where my Modern Modest Proposal is headed I presume.

Perhaps universities would or should entertain (pun intended) the idea of publicizing Extreme Sexuality programs as an offset cost for these programs. This would allow for proper protection for the athletes involved in the sports. By publicizing and establishing quality observation arenas universities could charge high prices for a ready and willing supply of spectators. Seats directly at ringside could draw in excess of $250 per event. With the less exhausting effort (even appealing aspect) involved in the actual Extreme Sexuality competition a player could reasonably participate in three spectator events weekly without seriously effecting their ability to apply good study habits. Iron man events would require a higher level and frequency of commitment, but risk of injury would be offset by the protective gear provided by the University. National championships in Extreme Sexuality competitions would draw millions of dollars annually to participating universities.

The challenge for universities would not be achieving that funding requisite for the protective gear but finding the best competitors from the high school ranks. This would require years of training. Parents would presumably prepare their promising offspring beginning as early as age nine. Further, the investment by parents of promising young folks would also be minimal. In fact, in some communities, there would be a ready supply of adults willing to be perverted away from their business activities to “pay to play” in the raising-up of such future athletes.

Photo: AP

For less wealthy families, with skilled children trained at their father’s tender hands, the income from Casual Sexuality through the advanced techniques of Extreme Sexuality could easily augment family revenue in excess of five digit figures annually.

The social value of such a Modern Modest Proposal cannot be measured. The House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee would no longer need to address this serious flaw in our culture. Why? Because there would no longer be a need, even among the poorest of students, for federal assistance with sexual activities. Unfortunately, former House member Anthony Wiener is no longer in office to model and champion such a progressive policy.

This proposal obviously will meet with the usual opposition from those forces asserting moral values for society. I suspect that their first argument will be that The Modern Modest Proposal, may possibly not be so modest afterall.