Just another WordPress.com site

Oh, puke. It’s January again and that means that it’s time to pay homage to Martin Luther King, Jr. It’s his birthday, and now we all have to prostrate ourselves and pretend like we honor his legacy.

I get so sick of doing this every year. Martin Luther King is not a hero of mine. He was one of the churchy blacks and he made it very clear that the Bible–“God’s law”–was the basis of his beliefs. Furthermore, he thought it should be the basis of our laws, which is just un-American, and frankly, scary. I think it’s safe to say that MLK was one of those wild-eyed Christian fundamentalist wackjobs. He was a member of the Christian Taliban, long before anyone knew what that was.

Now, please don’t get me wrong. I think that the attempt of homosexuals to hijack MLK Day and turn it into a gay thing is commendable. We really ought to step it up. When you think about it, our struggle for equality is the same as theirs. Gay people in contemporary society are treated the same way blacks used to be. For example, I have to ride in the back of the bus. When a straight person comes, I have to give up my seat even if I’m tired and my feet hurt. Well, I don’t actually ride a bus because my husband drives me around in his Lexus. He’s a lawyer. But if I did ride the bus, I’m sure I would be forced to sit in the back. And I’m not allowed to stay in a hotel south of the Mason-Dixon line either.  And who can forget the legions of homosexuals who were sold into slavery? Sodomites today are kind of like slaves. Sure, I buy that.

Okay, so the comparison doesn’t quite fit. But the point is this–our struggle is like theirs. They were enslaved and segregated because of the color of their skin. People disapprove of me opening my asscheeks to other men to sodomize me. The similarities are eerie. They have no choice in being black, I have no choice in my who I sleep with.  And because buttfucking is equivalent to having black sin, there is a legitimate comparison to be made.

Unfortunately, MLK himself left something to be desired. It’s pretty clear from his own writings that he supported a theocracy. I refer you to his famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, in which he explained to his fellow clergy why he found it necessarily to take action against segregation.

King begins by comparing himself to the Biblical Paul who.

“…just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town.”

Anyone who would appeal to that old batshit lunatic must have a pretty weak argument. Paul was a committed homophobe whose condemnations of homosexuality now come down to us as the indisputable “word of God.” They should be recognized as what they are–the word of a first century bigot. And in case Martin Luther King needs another reason to discount Paul, he also supported slavery. As Paul wrote in Titus 2: 9-10:

Slaves are to be under control of their masters in all respects, giving them satisfaction, not talking back to them or stealing from them, but exhibiting complete good faith, so as to adorn the doctrine of God our savior in every way.”

Did you hear that, Martin? Don’t talk back to your master. That’s what Paul would tell you.

If that weren’t enough, King argues that our code of civil law must live up to “God’s law”. That’s hooey. In a secular democracy such as ours, religion has no place in the law books. Some people–like me for example–don’t believe in God and we don’t want to be ruled over in a manner described in some old dusty book of fairy tales. We cannot concern ourselves what “God” would say about the affairs of men. We are rational creatures. But not Martin Luther King. He argues in favor of theocracy in America:

“One may well ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

Oh, so he just picks and chooses which laws he wants to follow. Typical Christian. There are even some Christians who think that they shouldn’t be forced to place children in gay couples’ homes because it “violates their religion”. I’m so sick of this argument that one’s religion exempts one from obeying the law. We have one law in this country–it is civil, it is secular, and it applies to everyone.

He says that “unjust laws” must be disobeyed. We know that a law is “unjust” if it goes against “God’s law” or “moral law”. So he’s a moralist who draws his “morality” from his “God” and thinks that his definition should be the foundation of our law. If man’s law fails to live up to God’s law, man’s law must be disobeyed. He’s an advocate for theocracy and breaking whichever laws he doesn’t like.

Next he appeals to St. Thomas Aquinas, another homophobe, this time from Dark Ages. Aquinas argues that human law should be in harmony with “natural law”.

St. Thomas Aquinas. He can take that book and shove it up his ass. This Bible-thumping religious zealot is the guy MLK thinks should have the last word on our laws.

All you gay boys out there should beware anyone who makes their argument on the basis of “natural law”. That’s a code word for oppressing cock gobblers. “Natural law” was invoked to support California’ Proposition H8. Check out this article by a Los Angeles-based Catholic priest. His “natural law” argument sounds suspiciously like MLK’s. He’s a modern day St. Thomas Aquinas, and his thinking hasn’t evolved a bit since the thirteenth century!

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/is_there_a_natural_right_to_same_sex_marriage

This is "natural law". Watch out for the "natural law" bigots.

Again, King makes it clear that he thinks people can simply choose which laws they follow according to their religion. That’s ludicrous. What if a Christian said that it violated his conscience to have his child in the pro-homosexual indoctrination courses taught in public schools? What if a Christian said that it violated a “higher law” to force him to make cupcakes for a Coming Out Day? Could he just disobey those laws? Considering the fact that I know that state power is firmly on my side, I am completely in favor of using that power against my enemies to force them to do my will. I never worry that the same power can be used against me.

“Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience… It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire.”

The Christians in Rome were just troublemakers. Everywhere the early Christians went, they told people how to live their lives. They stuck their noses in other people’s business–no false idols, no sodomy, no bedding young boys, no human sacrifice, no killing unwanted infants. They pushed their arbitrary code of “morals” on everyone they could.

“If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.

Oh, more whining from the Christians. They are “suppressed”. I don’t see how Christians are oppressed in a communist country, or here for that matter. They can still worship in the manner the government prescribes. They can believe to the degree that the government allows. What they CANNOT do is establish a separate law of their own.

King goes on to explain that the church should play a role in forming the mores of society:

“There was a time when the church was very powerful–in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.

They sure did. Prior to the Christianization of the Roman World, man-on-man sex was commonplace and nobody had a problem with it. So was man-on-boy sex. And then came the judgmental Christians with their sexual hang-ups. Darkness fell over Europe. It appears that King is applauding the role of the Christians, as if to say that Christian “morality” should transform the mores of society.That’s absurd.

Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.”‘ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man.

Sounds no different than the Christofascists of today. They’re on a mission from God. They’re crazy beyond your wildest dreams. Think Michele Bachmann or George W. Bush. That kind of crazy.

It’s unfortunate that MLK also subscribes to this ruse that we’re a “Judaeo-Christian” nation. That’s the type of hogwash you usually hear out of the mouth of James Dobson. Everyone knows that the Judeo-Christian myth is historical revisionism. Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of our nation. The founding fathers were deists and atheists and they wanted to ensure that religion played no role in the government. Somebody tell that to MLK.

One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? Both were written by slave holders, dummy. In any case, the Constitution doesn’t talk about God at all. The Declaration of Independence does talk about “certain inalienable rights” being “endowed by a creator”, which is really strange because Jefferson didn’t believe in that crap. Neither do I. My rights don’t come from a fictitious man in the sky. They come from the government. The government gives them and the government can take them away.

Whatever the Jews and the Christians believe, that’s their business. They can follow their own morals all they want, but they can’t force them on me. It’s not part of our “heritage”. Whenever you hear anyone making such an argument, run the other direction as fast as you can. He’s a huckster. He wants to impose Christian Sharia here in America.

I just can’t wait until this orgy of obsequious ass-kissing is over. There’s something seriously wrong with a man who draws his inspiration from St. Paul, Thomas Aquinas, or the “Judeo-Christian heritage” of our nation. When you hear that kind of talk, you should understand that the person speaking is a nut.

If you want to live in a country like that, fine. Move to some Middle Eastern shithole. Or just join the fucking Taliban. I heard they’re looking for soldiers of God. Here in America, religion plays no role in the government. If you happen to have religious sentiments, that’s fine as long as you hide your belief and and vote the opposite when you go to the polls. That’s what the constitution says you have to do.

Sadly, people like Martin Luther King only encourage them.

I for one am glad that the Iowa Caucuses are over. The whole thing kind of reminded me of Halloween in January with all of the lunatics and crazies out. All of the back-slapping and sucking up to Ethanol farmers is over and now we can move on to other states and eventually to President Obama’s inevitable victory.

The results were disheartening but not surprising. It appears the God’s Own Party (the GOP, get it?) is as flagrantly anti-gay as ever. On top, we had Mitt Romney of the magic underwear cult who tried to block gay people’s happy day when he was governor of the Gay State. He’s such a judegmental, judging hatemonger bigot just like all Mormons. For more on that particular church see my anti-Mormon hate site on the right, “Stop the Mormons”. Then there was Michele “Pray Away the Gay” Bachmann who finished dismally, thank goodness. Her husband’s obviously a repressed homosexual; did you know that? Toward the bottom of the heap was Rick “I’m Not Ashamed to be a Christian” Perry. If he’s going to be a Christian, can’t he at least have the decency to be ashamed? Rick “Man-Dog Sex” Santorum was the surprise of the night, proving that you can still be a contender in the Republican Party and hold Roman Catholic beliefs, something that I think our Constitution prohibits.

I was really supporting the Texan Ron Paul until I found out that he doesn’t think that government should be in the marriage business. That really upset me. If I can’t get the government to recognize my marriage, that means I can’t force others to recognize it under penalty of law. I like to tell people that I just want the government out of my life, out of my bedroom, and out of my relationships. But that’s just another one of those lies that keeps dribbling out of my mouth like Michael’s spooge on a Saturday night. If that’s all I wanted,  I already had that before marriage equality came to my state. In fact, homos can have that in every state, even Mississippi. Nope, we want the government more involved in our personal lives, not less.  We want our relationships to be formalized and contractual. So when we say that we just want the government out of our lives, we actually mean exactly the opposite.

With Ron Paul, we wouldn’t be able to do that. No one would be forced to recognize my marriage, which defeats the purpose.

You can imagine how disappointed I was to learn that Ron Paul is in fact no different than the others. He likes to tell people that he’s a “defender of the Constitution” but then he turns around and denies the separation of church and state. Everyone knows that those words in the Constitution–right there in the first amendement. Well, I can’t find them, but I’m sure they’re there. If you don’t believe that, you’re probably a member of the Christian Taliban. Here’s what Paul actually said about the separation of church and state:

“In case after case, the supreme Court has used the infamous ‘separation of church and state’ metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. “

That’s the PURPOSE of the first amendment, you dolt! It isn’t to defend people of faith from the government. It’s to defend me from people of faith. They’re scary and the government needs to restrain them. The Constitution guarantees my right to never see or hear anything that might involve God, and it mandates the religious loons check their values outside the voting booth or else forfeit their right to vote.

Yeah, next thing we know he’s going to want to stone people for adultery. He continues:

“This ‘separation’ doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802.”

Jefferson was a deist. That’s what I heard anyway. And even though he wasn’t involved in the drafting of the Constitution because he was the ambassador to France at the time, I’ll look to his words, taken out of context, for guidance. Only because he said what I want to hear. After all, he’s the expert. Jefferson’s words trump the actual text of the Constitution.

Paul doesn’t have such a great track record with teh gheys. He even opposed Lawrence v. Texas on the grounds that the Constitution doesn’t actually guarantee a right to sodomy! Can you believe that? I did a quick google search and determined that the word “sodomy” appears nowhere in the Constitution, much less a right thereto. But in 2003, a bunch of justices said that it did. And I agree with them because I like sodomy. I’m sure it’s emanating somewhere in the penumbras.

Batty ol’ Ron Paul disagrees. As he wrote in an essay found at Lewrockwell.com :

“Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

I get it. He wants the federal government out of our bedrooms. But the fifty state governments are still okay.

Ron Paul: He's a rock star to the youth voters. To me, he's just another Republican BIGOT.

It’s almost as if he’s saying that there are no sexual rights in the Constitution, and thus the issues are for the states to decide. But I’d like it much better if there were sexual rights in the Constitution. And because I want them there, that means that I support any judge who imagines them to be there and rules accordingly. It’s so much easier to just have a judge strike down all of the laws I don’t like than it would be to do the hard work of changing minds and laws in all fifty states. Less messy, too.

It doesn’t matter at all to me whether there’s a “right to privacy” in the Constitution. Those words aren’t there, but neither are “right to sodomy” or “separation of church and state”. If we were to go down that road of only accepting words contained in the Constitution as legitimately constitutional, we’d be in a world of trouble. I prefer a living, breathing document–it says what I want it to say.

Ron Paul even advocates the bizarre theory that homosexuals get AIDS from their sexual behaviors. That’s not true. We get AIDS from Ronald Reagan and the Catholic Church. Everyone knows that. As he wrote in his January 1990 newsletter:

‘The ACT-UP slogan on stickers plastered all over Manhattan is ‘Silence=Death.’ But shouldn’t it be Sodomy = Death’?

That is just ABSURD! He’s  insinuating that the best way to avoid getting AIDS is to stop taking it up the ass! That’s just irresponsible, especially coming from a medical doctor. He’s blaming the victim. It’s like telling someone that the best way to avoid lung cancer is to quit smoking, or the best way to avoid obesity is to watch their diet. Actions do not have consequences and I loathe people who tell me that they do. Science is very clear on this: there is no known connection between butt sex and AIDS. They are two completely unrelated concepts. He needs to go back to med school.

His newsletters are a treasure trove of homophobic delusions. Oh, here’s another one from September 1994. Watch out for malicious gays!

“those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.”

Hey, I do know a few malicious gays who do stuff like that, but only to other willing partners. Fully knowledeable that they are HIV positive, they head on down to the bathhouse and engage in group sex with lots of other guys. Bu those other guys being infected already fall under the first category: those who commit sodomy. Not that sodomy has anything to do with AIDS.

The supposedly libertarian congressman also wants to keeps us queers from eating in restaurants. Well, not queers, but AIDS patients. He bases this on the “fact” that “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”. That’s a lie. AIDS cannot be transmitted by saliva. Or sodomy, for that matter. AIDS is transmitted by lack of federal funding for research and by homophobia.

Oh, what a disappointment he turned out to be. I thought he was the face of a new, sodomy-friendly GOP. And it turns out that he’s the worst of the bunch! If it were between him and Santorum, and I absolutely had to choose one or the other, I think I might have to choose ol’ Man-Dog sex. At least he looks handsome in a sweater vest. (Okay, so I fantasize about him, just like Dan Savage does). Ron Paul just looks like a wrinkled old prune.

I took this picture of Ron Paul two winters ago while he was chopping ice. I was trying to catch a glimpse of his cock, but it was kind of shriveled in the cold water.

So I was down at the LGBTQXYZ health clinic the other day, getting some of the special LGBTQXYZ medications I take for special LGBTQXYZ diseases that I’ve contracted from bathhouse sex over the years, when I stumbled upon a great article in Positively Aware Magazine.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the publication, Positively Aware is a free ‘zine available at health clinics that focuses on AIDS awareness. Oddly enough, the magazine has an unmistakeably gay bent, which is really inappropriate and downright ignorant. If I’ve learned anything from AIDS educators it’s that AIDS is definitely NOT a gay disease. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, it has to do with lack of federal funding for research. Butt sex isn’t the cause of AIDS, Ronald Ray-gun is. Thankfully, the magazine skips over references to butt pirates by referring to them as MSM–men who have sex with men. That’s a totally different category from cock smugglers.

PA Magazine, November/December 2011

While I was waiting patiently for the doctor to fill my ‘scrip for antibiotics (I have the clap, y’know) I found a wonderful article by Dr. Gary Bucher, MD, an  anal dysplasia and anal cancer prevention specialist from Chicago. It was called “Getting to the Bottom of It: Be Proactive About Anal Health”. What an eye opener!

http://positivelyaware.com/2011/11_07/analHealth.shtml

The title of the article was, in itself, enough to tickle my funny bone. Get to the bottom of “it”? Get to the bottom of what, exactly? And then I saw the picture and it all became crystal clear to me. He’s talking about my asshole! Silly goose.  Why didn’t he just say so?

The cup in the picture above is a symbolic stand-in for arseholes. I suppose the publisher thought that a picture of a dixie cup with a spoon in it was enough to get the point across without actually printing a picture of someone’s sphincter. But the message came through loud and clear for me. That’s about how wide my asshole is, and yes, sometimes I shove a spoon up there just cause it feels good. I’m kind of loosey-goosey in my anal region, due to years of using my asshole as the vagina I never had. Sometimes when I walk, it kind of wiggles and jiggles like one of those old Jell-O commercials with Bill Cosby. You get the picture, right?

Dr. Bucher explains that there are pro-active steps that a person can take to catch anal health problems before they get out of hand. Prevention is the key.

I also ask the patient if they have performed an anal self-exam by using their finger to feel around for any lumps or bumps inside their anus.

Well no, that’s not something I usually do. But if the doctor wants to do it for me, that would be great.

The good doctor also recommends yearly anal pap smears for “high risk groups”. I think I might be one of the high risk groups considering the fact that my sexual proclivities tend to make me high risk for just about everything. But how can I be sure?

Individuals at increased risk for developing anal cancer include HIV-positive men and women; HIV-negative men who have sex with men (MSM); women with a history of cervical, vaginal, or vulvar cancer or cervical dysplasia; chronically immunosuppressed organ transplant patients; men and women with a history of anal warts; and people who smoke tobacco.

Oh! Well, I don’t have AIDS. At least I don’t think I do. Maybe I should wait for the test results. But I’ve had anal warts before. I think there was a mean case of that stuff circulating in the West Village when I was there in the late 80s. I am also an “MSM”. So that means that I fall into two high risk groups.

I don’t smoke however; at least not tobacco. I prefer pole. Because tobacco is just gross. Smokers should be shunned and forced to pay eight dollars a pack just in taxes on their fifty cent box of coffin nails. Smoking is so unhealthy, and as we have seen, it obviously leads to cancer in all parts of the body, including the asshole. People shouldn’t smoke because it’s unhealthy.

Sodomy, on the other hand, is completely safe. And if any doctor ever told me that it wasn’t, I would storm off in a snit and contact the state to see if I couldn’t get his license pulled.

Okay, so I have a story to share about medical malpractice. It happened to me in the bad old days, about 1982, when fear and ignorance were the normative climate that surrounded all things HIV. I went to the doctor to get tested because half of my ex-boyfriends were coming down with it. He gave me a full exam and then sat me down for a little doctor/patient chat. He informed me that I had the gay “triple crown”–gonorrhea, anal warts, and protozoal infections– but thankfully not HIV. Back in those days, they referred the bundled package of STD’s infecting the poop chute region as “gay bowel  syndrome”, which is such an obscene term. Thankfully, doctors don’t talk like that anymore because the term itself makes me want to kill myself. He told me that the best thing to do for my anal health was to quit sticking things up my anus.

I broke down and cried right there in the office. He wasn’t even supportive. In fact, he told me to quit being a sniveling bitch. He didn’t understand that I really enjoy sticking things up my asshole–particularly other men’s penises. And I have no choice at all whether I will continue to do it. I couldn’t stop even if I wanted to because homosexuality is NOT A CHOICE.

Then I asked him if he thought, in his expert opinion, that the bruising and bleeding around my asshole was a result of my favorite pastime, sodomy. He told me that it was pretty obvious that blunt trauma was to blame and that if I ever wanted my pooper to recover, I should quit violently abusing it for pleasure.

That’s how bad it was in those days. Seriously. Doctors actually recommended that gay men stop doing the things that put them at elevated risk of contracting every disease known to man. It would almost be like telling a smoker that if he wants to avoid lung cancer he should quit smoking. Or telling a boozer that if he wants to avoid cirrhosis of the liver he should give up drinking.It’s just backwards, ignorant thinking.

Wait, it’s not like that at all. Because no one–NO ONE–has the right to make me feel bad about my sex life. I do what I want and everyone has to affirm me, even my doctor.

I sure am glad that Dr. Bucher isn’t such a neanderthal. Nowhere in the article does he recommend discontinuing sodomy as a means of preventing anal cancer. I think that’s because the good doctor is himself a homosexual. He takes it in the ass just like me. So his expert advice tends to be pretty straightforward.

Just keep engaging in high risk behavior and then get checked, m’kay?

Thank goodness he’s not so backwards as to assert that people shouldn’t use their assholes as a two way street if they don’t want to get icky diseases and stuff. He wants you to be serious about anal health, but NOT TOO SERIOUS!

“Take charge of your anal health. Ask for your DARE exam and your anal Pap smear!

Yup. And by all means, continue to take it up the ass, if that’s what floats your boat. Just make sure you make an appointment with Dr. Bucher once a year so he can stick his finger up there and probe around for pre-cancerous lesions.

Dr. Gary Bucher. He

Dr. Bucher’s website (http://www.analdysplasiaclinic.com/) breaks down the cold, hard facts on the subject. here they are:

135 out of every 100,000 HIV+ MSM will develop anal cancer

The risk in the general population is 0.9 per 100,000

Ah ha! So the risk of anal cancer among HIV+ MSM is one hundred and seventy-two times higher than the rate for the general population. And the general population includes other HIV+ MSM, other MSM, and women who also take it in the poopchute. It kind of makes me wonder what the risk is in comparison to people who don’t use their assholes for sexual pleasure. Probably pretty high.

But, please–by all means, keep on keeping on! Don’t let a little thing like anal health get in the way of your anal health. I mean, don’t let it get in the way of your pleasure.

If you missed this week’s press conference at the White House, you probably haven’t heard about the ridiculous question World Nut Daily reporter  Lester Kinsolving posed to press secretary Jay Carney. He actually asked what the president’s position is on bestiality! Oh for crying out loud, what a doofus. I can’t believe World Nut Daily reporters even get press credentials at the White House.

But alas, they do. Kinsolving was referring to the recent vote in the US Senate to abolish Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The article prohibits sodomy in the military, as well as sexual relations with animals. Presumably, repealing the whole article would have the effect of legalizing both behaviors in the US military.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

To Carney’s credit, he refused to entertain the ridiculous question, preferring to dismiss it off the cuff. Of course the commander-in-chief opposes bestiality in the armed forces. That’s why he plans on signing the bill just as soon as it hits his desk.

Okay, okay–so the Senate just voted 93-7 to abolish the article. But that doesn’t mean it would be legal to boff your poodle. That would still be punishable under other articles. Presumably, however, my favorite activity–sodomy–will not continue to be punishable under other articles. By abolishing the article that specifically prohibits sodomy in the armed forces, we are legalizing butt sex in the barracks. But by abolishing the article that specifically prohibits barnyard play, we are not legalizing it. Not sure why, we just aren’t.

Ho hum. Okay, so that explanation doesn’t work. How about this? I’m sure that the Congress will fix it at a later date. This whole thing is a mistake that will be straightened out eventually. Kind of like how two persons who are closely related by blood can get married in my state, just as long as the marriage is homosexual. Seven years after gay marriage came to the Bay State and brother/brother marriage remains legal. They’re still getting around to fixing it. State legislators are very busy people, you know.

Every time I watch this video, I imagine that horrible bigot Rick Santorum sitting at home, rubbing his hands together in glee. I bet he thinks he was right about the whole “man-dog” thing, which is just silly. As he famously remarked in 2003:

“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. “

Can you believe that? It’s one of those ridiculous slippery slope arguments. If we redefine marriage, there will no end to it. Next thing you know, we’ll have man-on-dog sex in the barracks! Ha! So stupid. Well, I mean it would be stupid if it weren’t for the fact that the US Senate just voted to legalize it. But I’m sure it won’t pass the House, and if it does, I’m sure the president will veto it. Even so, Santorum was technically wrong–sex with animals will now be permitted, but the full benefits of marriage are still an elusive dream from soldiers who love their house pets. I guess that’s tomorrow’s civil rights battle.

Yeah, I bet he smuggles cock on the side. They're all repressed homos. It would help though if the vandal would learn how to spell simple five letter words, such as "needs".

I remember the infamous Santorum “man/dog” interview. I was so offended that he would compare loving sodomy with my husband Michael (and a few score other casual partners) to something as repulsive as bestiality. There’s a HUGE difference between the two. In the case of homosexuality, the sex is consensual. It’s just two consenting adults gettin’ it on in the privacy of their home. But an animal can’t consent, and so it’s actually a form of rape.

Wait a second, did I just say that homosexuality involves consent? I slipped up there. There’s nothing consensual about two men sodomizing each other, because if there were, that would mean that there’s a choice involved. And as we all know, homosexuality is NOT a choice. If it were a choice, who would choose it? Nobody. So let’s just abandon the silly notion that we choose our sexual practices and partners. I know that I sure don’t.

And while I acknowledge that animals don’t consent to sex with humans, it’s also true that they don’t consent to being killed and stuck on our dinner plates either.  They probably don’t consent to having sex with each other, considering the fact that most non-human forms of life don’t possess the faculties to make rational decisions. They act on instinct.

The truth is that we consistently treat animals as lower forms of life. Humans do what we please with them, even without their “consent”. That’s why we find it acceptable to kill animals for food or sport, to do grotesque experiments on them for the advancement of medical research, to skin them and use their hides to make wallets and belts, as well as to place wagers on them and watch them race around tracks. We employ them to serve as guides for the blind, and to entertain us at the circus and SeaWorld. We do all of these things to animals without their consent, and we don’t give a shit. Because they’re friggin’ animals, that’s why.  No one cares about the consent of animals.

Except we don’t usually have sex with them. Because that’s gross.

Even so, just being “gross” isn’t reason enough to ban a person’s behavior. Some people think that it’s gross when I open my asscheeks to other men. Some might say it’s gross when all of that ‘Santorum” comes dripping out after the fact. For those of you not “in the know”, Santorum is a mix of fecal matter, lube, and jizz that sometimes seeps from a person’s asshole after anal sex. Kind of a little bit gross, I suppose.

The dilemma I face here is that I have to think of a reason why bestiality is wrong on a rational basis. I can’t just say that it’s wrong because it’s disgusting, immoral, unnatural, or against some religious doctrine of mine. Because then I wouldn’t be able to dismiss those arguments against me as mere prejudice. I need to think of a reason why my objection to man/dog sex is based in reason, while the homophobes’ objection is simply overbearing religiosity. What we came up with is the old “animals can’t consent” canard, which really isn’t all that believable.

The more I think about it, the more I see that this prohibition against bestiality has got to go. With a few simple questions, I can determine whether or not bestiality enthusiasts “choose” their lifestyle or not. I’m leaning towards no.

First of all, if bestiality were a choice, who in their right mind would choose it, knowing that society would shun and hate them? Does someone reach a certain age and just decide ‘Hey, I want to be known as the neighborhood animal fucker?’ Who would choose it knowing that their old, religious, intolerant mother would cry herself to sleep every night knowing that her child is a perv? Who would choose to be at the bottom of the social stratum, denied equal protection under the law? Any takers? I thought not. So it can’t be a choice.

Second, if sexual attraction to another species is a choice, it naturally follows that sexual attraction to the same species is a choice. I ask myself, when did I choose to be attracted to homo sapiens? Hmmm? Well, I didn’t. It’s just part of my DNA code, the same way sodomy is part of the code. (I’ll find the gene later, m’kay?) So zoophilia (attraction to animals) is obviously not a choice, since androphilia (attraction to human beings) isn’t either. It’s science! There’s no way you can argue with that.

Third, I must say that I would fail Dan Savage’s “choicer” challenge. The pushy, annoying fag coined the term “choicer” in an obvious allusion to “birther” and “truther”. Because if you think that homosexuality is a choice, that means you’re as crazy as the people who think Obama was born in Kenya or that the Moussad pulled off 9/11.

You’re. that. fucking. crazy.

If you think I "choose" to open my asscheeks to other men, you're as crazy as this guy. For reals. There is no choice involved in my consensual behavior.

Dan Savage was a little perturbed when Canadian MP John Cummins mentioned on the radio that homosexuality is a “choice”. Enraged as always, Dan devised the ultimate test that would determine whether or not guzzling cum is a choice.  He threw the gauntlet down at Cummins’ feet.

But what if the choicers are right? What if being gay is something people consciously choose? Gee, if only there were a way for choicers to prove that they’re right and everyone else is wrong… actually, there is a way for choicers to prove that they’re right! I hereby publicly invite—I publicly challenge—John Cummins to prove that being gay is a choice by choosing it himself.

Suck my dick, John.

I’m completely serious about this, John. You’re not my type—you’re about as far from my type as a human being without a vagina gets—but I have just as much interest as you do in seeing this gay-is-a-choice argument resolved once and for all. You name the time and the place, John, and I’ll show up with my dick and a camera crew. Then you can show the world how it’s done. You can demonstrate how this “conscious choice” is made. You can flip the switch, John, make the choice, then sink to your bony old knees and suck my dick. And after you’ve swallowed my load, John, we’ll upload the video to the internet and you’ll be a hero to other choicers everywhere. It’s time to put your mouth where your mouth is, John. If being gay is a choice, choose it. Show us how it’s done. Suck my dick.

Ha! Ha! Savage sure showed him. Of course, the cowardly Cummins chose not to take him up on the offer, thus proving that sucking Dan’s dick never really was a choice. See how that works? If you choose not to engage in a behavior, you inadvertently prove that the behavior is not a choice.

Savage later offered the same choicer challenge to Herman Cain. Cain too declined to suck Savage’s cock, thus failing the choicer challenge. Bitch.

The legendary Dan Savage. He's a genius. I love his choicer challenge.

Now, let’s say a bestiality enthusiast devised a similar “choicer” challenge. You know, he could bring in his prized thoroughbred horse and part-time lover, then offer me the opportunity to get down on my knees and suck it. If I failed to go through with it, that would be proof enough that sucking horsecock isn’t really a choice at all. If it were, I could choose it.

I can say with 99% certainty that I would fail a bestiality “choicer” challenge. I say “99%” because there’s always that lingering doubt in the back of my head that I might be able to get hip to it. But I probably wouldn’t, because sex with animals is not really a choice at all.

The more I think about it, the more I see that zoophiles are kind of like gay people. And gay people are, as we’ve already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, kind of like black people, left-handed people, and redheads. Yeah. Makes sense to me!

So let’s not let the H8ers write the laws in this country. I’m glad Article 125 is being abolished, most of all because I am a sodomy enthusiast, but also because I can see that it unfairly targeted animal lovers. They have civil rights too, you know.

I’d bet that silly World Nut Daily reporter even harbors a secret love for the animal kingdom. He and all the other uptight anti-bestiality people are all a bunch of closet cases. The ones who scream the loudest always end up getting caught later on sneaking around with an Irish setter. Seriously, who spend their time worrying about this stuff other than a repressed animal lover?

Sad news swept the lavender side of the blogosphere this week after Bawney Fwank–America’s only left-handed, gay, Jewish congressman–announced that he will not seek reelection. After sixteen terms, the affable representative from Newton is calling it quits, citing drastic geographical changes to his district as the reason.

Bawney playing grab ass on the campaign trail. Hot!

Fwank was one of the nation’s first openly gay congressmen, and as such he spent most of his career under siege by the forces of intolerance.  I chronicled some of his “scandals” in a previous post, so I’ll just briefly summarize them here. Let’s just say that his boyfriends keep getting him in trouble.

http://twogaybullies.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/this-day-in-lgbtqxyz-history-july-20th/

1.  Rep. Fwank sought out male prostitute Steven Gobie in the pages of DC’s most famous gay newspaper, The Washington Blade. He paid the male prostitute eighty dollars for sex, then had Gobie move in with him because he felt a lot of sympathy for the troubled gigolo, and certainly not because he wanted a younger man with a “hot bottom” to service him after long days on Capitol Hill.  As it turns out, Gobie continued to run his prostitution ring out of Bawney’s apartment, completely unbeknownst to Mr. Fwank! He was blindsided when he learned that his apartment was being used as a homosexual brothel. The lying, ungrateful Steven Gobie insists that Bawney knew everything, which is just silly.

“He knew exactly what I was doing.  It was pretty obvious.  If he had to come home early [from work], he would call home to be sure the coast was clear . . . . He was living vicariously through me. He said it was kind of a thrill, and if he had been 20 years younger he might be doing the same thing.”

2. Congressman Fwank later wrote letters on Gobie’s behalf to the help him get out of a slew of parking tickets. He used his official letterhead to testify to Gobie’s good character. He also wrote to the Virginia probation authorities, asking them to take it easy on his boyfriend. Gobie had been found guilty of possession of cocaine, oral sodomy in public, and production of obscene material involving a minor. Big whoop. So he snorts coke, sucks cock in public places, and makes kiddie porn as a hobby. That describes half the gay men I know.

3. And besides all of that, Fwank oversaw the Fannie and Freddie crisis, which was all George Bush’s fault. And Tom DeLay’s. Besides the fact that he had appointed his boyfriend, Herb Moses, to oversee the corporation and then blocked any effort to investigate the clusterfuck of epic proportions, Fwank got to write the financial reform bill that fixed the situation. Everything’s fixed now, m’kay? You can thank him later.

By my count, there have been twelve openly gay members of Congress. Some of them only became open about it when they were caught piddling the pages or whatever, but hey I’m just glad that they’re out. I know what it’s like to live a lie. No one should have to do it. Let’s take a look at some prominent cock-smugglers on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Robert Bauman (R-Maryland)

Robert Bauman

Bob Bauman was a conservative Republican who was caught soliciting sex from a sixteen year old male prostitute in 1980. Shame on him! Not for soliciting sex from a sixteen year old male prostitute, of course. Who hasn’t done that? Shame on him for being a conservative Republican. He’s a HYPOCRITE and that’s the worst thing you can possibly be.  There is nothing wrong with soliciting sex from sixteen year old male prostitutes. There’s something wrong with speaking out against “immorality”.

He later copped to being an alcoholic and went to court-ordered treatment for his addiction. So apparently he  checked into rehab just to get out of trouble, which everybody seems to be doing these days. After he completed his course on alcoholism, he was let go without any punishment but unfortunately lost the 1980 election. Oddly enough, the homophobic voters of his district didn’t like a peter puffer representing them in congress, or at least not a peter puffer who paid children for sex.

Robert Bauman letter wrote a non-fiction book, “The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a Gay Conservative”.

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho)

Larry Craig

Craig denies to this day that he’s a cum guzzler but no one in their right mind believes him. As you may remember, Craig was arrested in men’s bathroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport by an undercover vice detective, Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who had no idea at the time that the guy who fell into his trap was a US Senator. The spot was well known for cruising–that is, homosexual men knew that this was the place to go for some anonymous sex in the stall. The detective had only been sitting in the stall for thirteen minutes when along came Craig who, according to Karsnia, started creeping around, attempting to gaze into the crack of the door. He then chose the stall to the detective’s left. The detective’s police report describes the incident:

“At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. … The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area. Craig then proceeded to swipe his left hand under the stall divider several times, with the palm of his hand facing upward.”

Ha! He knows all the signals. Sounds like he’s done this before. I know a few spots on the Cape where Mr. Craig would have a ball.

So then the cop flashed his badge under the stall. He ordered Craig out of the men’s room and had him arrested. Craig initially declined to cooperate, asking again to see the detective’s badge. After his arrest, Craig presented the detective with a business card identifying himself as a US Senator as some kind of get out of jail free card. Craig said that he was worried about missing his flight.

Of course, Senator Craig has vehemently denied that he’s gay or that he cruises for sexual trysts in the bathrooms of airports. He’s not into that, supposedly. Unfortunately for the senator, other men keep coming forward and confessing to sexual encounters with him. One man recalls giving Craig a hummer in a bathroom stall at Washington’s Union Station. Another man claims that Craig tried the old waving-the-hand-under-the-stall trick with him at the Denver airport.

Eight gay men later came forward and claimed to have had sex with Craig or been propositioned by Craig. One of them, Mike Jones, was a male prostitute–the same male prostitute who got Ted Haggard in so much trouble. Mr. Jones claims that Senator Craig paid him for his services. Another was a College Republican at a gathering of Republicans in Coeur D’Alene when he met Craig in 1981. He says that Craig propositioned him.

Oddly enough, Senator Craig was also a congressman when the Congressional page scandal broke in 1982. Although no one had accused Craig of any monkey business with the pages, his office issued a denial. Kind of like a guilty conscience.

It wasn’t me! I didn’t do it!

Rep. Mark Foley (R-Florida)

Mark Foley

We first learned of Foley’s sexual orientation after it was discovered that he was writing illicit emails and instant messages to congressional pages. Oddly enough, he resigned over the whole scandal, then came out of the closet.

I must say, I was perplexed about the whole thing for days. My own congressman, Rep. Gerry Studds was caught plying the male pages with booze and then buttfucking them and he didn’t step down. Hell no. He stuck it out for another six terms! The people of our district resoundingly voted for him time and time again. So why would a congressman resign over such a small peccadillo as dirty IM’s to sixteen year old boys?

And then it came to me–he’s a Republican! I was immediately up in arms over the whole thing. This Foley character is a sick-o! Now, granted Foley wasn’t the most conservative of all Republicans. He was pro-choice, he voted against an amendment that would have narrowly defined marriage as between one man and one woman, he voted for gay adoptions in Washington, DC, and he was endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans. But he still had an “R” after his name.

In one message, Foley asked the page how long his penis was. When he said it was seven and a half inches, Foley responded:

“Get a ruler and measure it for me.”

After resigning, he returned to Florida, divorced his wife, and took a male lover. Again, I’m perplexed. This guy can’t really be gay because he’s a pedophile and pedophiles are definitely not gay. But then I realized that he only sent dirty IM’s to children while he was in the District of Columbia, and the age of consent in DC is sixteen, which makes the pages fair game for anal sex and propositions thereto. In Florida, he never touches the boys because the age of consent in Florida is eighteen, not sixteen. He never even feels attracted to sixteen year old boys when he’s in Florida, only when he’s in DC. So he’s a gay man there too. Heaven knows that gay men never sink their schlongs into anything under the legal age. If they did, they’re automatically kicked out of the gay club.

Rep. Jon Hinson (R-Mississippi)

Jon Hinson

Jon Hinson was first arrested before he was a congressman at Arlington National Cemetery for committing an obscene act. The whole thing was much ado about nothing. All he did was flash an undercover cop at the Iwo Jima Memorial.  He’s a dickwaiver, so what? Obviously, he was just being himself. I bet he was just born that way. After all, if being a dickwaver was a choice, who in their right mind would choose it? No one. Exactly. So it’s not a choice. When he pulled out his dick at a sacred memorial and waved it at an undercover police officer he was being true to himself. He later blamed it on alcoholism, which seems to be the catch-all excuse for all sorts of perversions. Good for him.

Hinson managed to keep his arrest a secret while running for office in Mississippi, which as we all know, is a very backwards state so steeped in Christian intolerance that it would never elect a sexual deviant to Congress.  Being a dickwaiver is perilous enough, but being a homosexual dickwaiver is even worse. It must be hard living in such a restrictive environment.

Congressman Hinson’s political career came crashing down in 1981 when he was caught in the men’s room with a male librarian from the Library of Congress. Yeah, he was gargling balls. Well, I can’t say for sure who was gargling whose balls, but it sounds like a lot of fun. Hook-ups in the men’s bathrooms are pretty common in the gay subculture. Just take a ride around Provincetown and drop by the public men’s washrooms. I guarantee you’ll find glory holes in half the stalls! I should know, I drilled a good number of them. Seriously though, visit any gay website and you’ll find message boards that post details of when and where to go if you’d like some anonymous bathroom stall blowjobs. Hinson just happened to very knowledgeable  about the bathroom stall scene on capitol hill.

Hinson later became a gay rights warrior, fighting for homos in the military. We know how much he respects and honors the military. That’s why he chose a veterans’ memorial to expose himself. I’m glad Hinson was on our side because he’s exactly the type of guy we need in the movement–a dick-waiving former congressman who resigned after hooking up with another dude in a Capitol Hill men’s room.

Oh yeah, and he died of AIDS. I wonder how he contracted that?

Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Arizona)

Jim Kolbe

Kolbe’s only crime is copious concern for the youngsters on the House floor. Yes, Congressman Kolby adores congressional pages, the male ones in particular. And for that, he was shamed into retirement.

The Arizona congressman is known to have taken a personal interest in the pages, mentoring them, and even throwing parties for them at his Washington home. Supervisors of the page program described Rep. Kolbe as a “problem member” because he spent an inordinate amount of time with pages, taking them to dinner and sporting events during their off time. Another “problem member” was Kolbe’s friend, Mark Foley. Kolbe also extended to some of the pages a standing invitation to stay overnight in his home if they were ever in the Washington area. He really cares about kids, okay?

A former page who spoke on condition of anonymity complained to the House ethics committee that he was “uncomfortable with a particular social encounter” that happened while they were alone and involved physical contact. Kolbe denied wrongdoing.

Kolbe may best be remembered for his camping trips he took with his staff and pages. On one such trip down the Grand Canyon in 1996, Kolbe appeared to be showering one seventeen year old former page with attention. One participant said he was “creeped out by it” [Foley's attention to the former page]. He also said that there was  “fawning, petting and touching” on the teenager’s arms, shoulders and back by Kolbe.

But don’t worry! The lucky kid in question–the object of the congressman’s petting–said that he had “a blast” on the trip. I would have had a blast too! I can only imagine how exciting it must be for a young man to spend a whole week in the wilderness with an older gay man who keeps touching him. I bet Kolbe even visited the boy in his tent. Just innocent fun, of course. The page in question didn’t elaborate much on that.

“I don’t want to get into the details. I just don’t want to get into this… because I might possibly be considered for a job in the administration.”

I know Kolbe didn’t do anything inappropriate while he was on a camping trip because Kolbe is gay. But if this guy Kolbe was piddling a seventeen year old on a camping trip in Arizona, that would be child molesting because Arizonans are a bunch of prudes and they set their age of consent at eighteen. Considering the fact that Kolbe is gay, and certainly not a child molester, it would be a physical impossibility for him to get off on boning a seventeen year old. At least in Arizona.

Kolbe was later accused of knowing all about his good friend Mark Foley’s indecent instant messaging as far back as 2000. Kolbe claims that he reported the messages and then left it alone, satisfied that it had been resolved. And I believe him. Sadly, he resigned at the same time as Foley.

Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Massachusetts)

Gerry Studds

I am pleased to say that this gentleman was my congressman for many years. I voted for him every time I saw his name on the ballot and I displayed his campaign sign on my lawn proudly. I think I may have had a hook-up with him in the sand dunes down by the beach, although it may have been a guy who just happened to look a lot like Studds. I look back fondly on that memory, hoping against hope that it really was Studds.

Gerry Studds is best known for being a gay rights warrior. But besides that, he’s best known for bringing male congressional pages back to his home, getting them drunk on vodka and cranberry juice, and then buttfucking them until his heart’s content. But don’t worry–it was all totally consensual. You see, the age of consent in DC–as well as in Massachusetts–is sixteen. The pages he was bending over were all at least sixteen, so everything’s okay. The fact that he was an authority figure in their lives has no relevance, nor does the fact that he purposely clouded their judgement with alcohol. The boys all said they had a great time with Uncle Gerry and everything was consensual.

As I always say–what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their business. Or, you know, a consenting adult and a minor who happens to be over sixteen and also happens to be drunk in the presence of an adult authority figure. It’s all cool.

Studds never faced any penalty for his activities with the pages, other than censure by the House of Representatives. At the time that his censure was being read aloud in the house chamber, Studds turned his back on the proceedings in a symbolic gesture. The message was clear–this whole thing is a kangaroo court.

And it was! All he did was have sex with some of the male pages. Big deal. And then these right-wing Christianofascist homophobes had to go make a federal case about it. Geez. Can the man have some privacy or what?

Studds ended up coming out of this whole thing smelling like a rose. Not only did he refuse to resign, he continued his career in politics. Studds was reelected six times after the revelation that he was a child predator! That’s right, we don’t care about stuff like that here in P-Town. Feel free to boff the pages if you want, just as long as you vote for marriage equality and gays in the military and stuff like that.

There is now a marine sanctuary named after Gerry Studds off the coast of Massachusetts. I sometimes look out at that stretch of water and think nostalgically about ol’ Gerry and his fondness for boys. I think about my missed opportunity to be a page on his staff. Oh what fun it would have been! We miss you, Gerry.

As you can see, Bawney Fwank really paved the way for homos in congress. And there’s so much to be proud of too-dick-waiving, sex acts in public restrooms, underage sex, gay prostitution. It’s all there! We owe you a debt of gratitude, Mr. Fwank.

A transwoman in Philadelphia was recently victimized by the city’s prison system by being transferred to a men’s prison after it was discovered that she is actually a he, biologically speaking. Four whiny female inmates are suing the prison for housing a female prisoner (who happens t have a cock and balls) in their same facility, thus exposing them to unwanted sexual advances.

It’s all very confusing, I know. Whenever you wade into the waters of transgenderism, things get murky pretty fast.

Transgender rights are human rights. Chicks with dicks are people too, m'kay?

The prisoner in question, Jovanie Saldana, is a transwoman. If you don’t know what that means, I’ll do my best to explain. A transwoman is a man. Well, no. A transwoman is a woman, who happens to be biologically male. A biologically male woman. Make sense?

No? Well, I think that’s because you’re a bigot. You see, biology has very little to do with what sex you are. A biologically male person can be a woman and a biologically female person can be a man, if that person believes that he/she really is. And because that person believes himself/herself to be something else, then the rest of society should be forced to play along with the silly charade.

It’s called celebrating diversity. Diversity of skin color, diversity of sexual behaviors, diversity of delusional identity issues. Don’t tell me that you don’t honor diversity? We might have to find out where you work and get you fired from your job.

Transgendered people should have the same rights as anyone else. And when I say the “same” rights, I mean the right to choose which prison they will be housed in. Doesn’t everyone have a choice? I know that if I were sent to prison, I would want to be in there with the boys. I hear they get all sweaty when they work out and there’s a great sex scene after lights out. But if a transwoman wants to be in with the chicks, that’s her decision.

Jovanie Saldana, who was born with a dick and still has a dick, is actually a woman because Jovanie Saldana says so. It’s her “gender identity” that matters.

Let’s examine her story. Saldana has been living and dressing as a woman since she was twelve years old. She is now twenty-three. In 2010, she was accused of pimping and armed robbery and was sent to Riverside Correctional Facility, Philadelphia’s only women’s prison because–duh!–she’s a woman. That’s how she identifies and therefore that’s what she is. I bet some of you narrow-minded people out there think that she’s a man who suffers from mental illness, but that’s because you’re full of H8 and probably a Christofascist loser. She doesn’t have a mental illness, you do! The prison failed to conduct the mandatory strip search and cavity check, which would have revealed her to have a big black cock. Not sure why they didn’t check, but they didn’t.

Jovanie Saldana, transwoman who was housed with women until she was so unjustly removed and sent to live with a bunch of dudes.

While at Riverside, Saldana was forced to perform oral sex on a guard.  The guard assumed, like everyone else, that Saldana is a woman. Which she is, I guess. A transwoman. Ha! So the guard had no idea that the person giving him a BJ was a man. Er, I mean, a woman who happens to be biologically male.

Saldana was later overheard discussing her gender identity with her mother on the telephone. Her mother encouraged her to come clean with the prison authorities and admit that she’s a man. Which is really weird, because she’s not a man. She’s a woman because she says so. Gender is so much more complicated than outward manifestations (such as having a penis) and her transphobic mother should understand that. Her mother believes that Saldana was transferred out of Riverside because of the complaint she lodged against the prison guard rapist, and not  because she’s actually a dude.

She’s not a dude, by the way.

Other prisoners suspected that Saldana might have a secret in her drawers. They claim that she hid herself while using the toilet and showered with underwear on. Apparently, no one saw the bulge in her underwear. They felt uncomfortable around her. Jabreena Barnett, cellmate at Riverside:

“There was definitely something off – she had big calves, broad shoulders, no butt – but she had a lot of feminine ways.”

Not that big calves and broad shoulders have anything to do with gender. Nor does genitalia. It’s all about what you believe in your mind.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer,

“Barnett accused Saldana of grabbing her breasts to express admiration for them, a claim her attorney said demonstrates sexual harassment and unwanted touching.

Oh, quit yer bitchin’! It’s almost as if she’s suggesting that putting a man into a women’s prison exposed the female inmates to the risk of sexual assault. That’s just the transphobia talking. We shouldn’t care at all about the safety of the other women in prison with Saldana. They’re not important. What’s important is Saldana and her well-being. When I say I care about her well-being, I mean that it’s important that no one break it to her that people with penises are not women, they’re men. That type of emotional abuse would really crush her spirits, so let’s play along with her little game no matter how many female inmates are put in danger by her presence in a women’s facility.

And now she’s been transferred to a men’s prison, which is clearly a hazardous place to house a man who happens to believe that she’s a woman. Okay, so Saldana is being housed separately from the general prison in her new men’s prison. But that’s still not where she belongs. She belongs in Riverside, with the other chicks. Because that’s what she is–a chick, who happens to have a dick. She should be showering with the other chicks, sleeping with them, perhaps getting in prison brawls with them.

Did I mention that Jovanie Saldana got into some scuffles while at Riverside? Yeah. I heard she won all of them too. It’s amazing how easy it is for a man to kick a woman’s ass when the man has big calves and broad shoulders and a secret penis. Wait, did I say a man? She’s a woman, I keep forgetting. Saldana identifies as a woman.

During her time at Riverside, Saldana had four cellmates–Yazmin Gonzales, Katiria Chamorro, Maria Cachola, and Jabrina T. Barnett. Again, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, all four cellmates reported that Saldana “touched or groped them, subjected them to daily sexual harassment, and leered at them as they bathed or used the toilet.” They are suing the prison for $150,000, citing loss of rights, mental anguish and serious risk to their mental and emotional well-being.

Get over it bitches! That’s just life in prison. I bet there’s a bull dyke in the same cell block who does all of those same things. Next thing you know they’re going to be telling prison lesbos that they can’t have their way with the women. This could be seriously detrimental to the prison sex scene. It’s almost as if the point of gender segregation is to prevent such things from occurring in the first place, but…no matter. If we were to start down the “men and women are different” slippery slope, there’s no telling where that might end.

Riverside Correctional Facility, Philly's own women's prison.

I’m a little confused, though. If Jovanie Saldana is actually biologically male, who has been transitioning since the age of twelve, why does she still like women? She obviously still has some sexual feeling for them. After all, her cellmates accuse her of grabbing their breasts and leering at them in various states of undress. So she’s biologically male, but she identifies as a woman. She’s a woman trapped in a man’s body, who happens to still have sexual attractions for members of the opposite sex. I mean, members of the same sex.

I got it! She’s a lesbian trapped in a man’s body. She’s a man who likes women who feels like a woman herself.

If you’re confused, don’t worry about it. I’m confused too. What’s important is that you always defer to the deranged mental patient and try to understand them on their own terms. If Jovanie says she’s a woman, that means she’s a woman. If Jovanie admires women’s breasts, that means she’s a woman who likes women. She’s a lesbian. Under no circumstances are we to force our archaic beliefs about the biological determination of gender onto Jovanie or any other member of the transgender community.

Some of you really backward Midwesterners out there might think that sex is biologically determined at birth, kind of like species and race. That’s hogwash. We can choose our gender. If our minds don’t match the bodies we have, that means that there’s something wrong with our bodies and we need to fix them by mutilating our genitals and stuffing our system full of hormones. Insurance companies should have to pay for it too. It’s so much better to do that than to just get some damned counseling.

That’s because it’s important to just be yourself. If there’s anything that I’ve learned from years in the gay rights movement, that’s it. Be yourself. For me, being myself means guzzling cum and hooking up with anonymous men in the bathroom stalls at the bus station. If anyone thinks that there’s something wrong with that, they obviously want me to live a lie. And I won’t live a lie.

For the transgendered community, being yourself means…being someone else? Well, yes. It means men being women and women being men. And everyone else should have to pretend right along with you, or they’re transphobic bigots.

Unfortunately, the mental health community has not yet progressed to the point of accepting transgendereds. They consider transgendered behavior to be abnormal. But we’ve learned two things from the gay rights movement–(1) thatbehavior is not really behavior it’s identity, and (2) that there’s no such thing as “normal” and therefore no such thing as “abnormal” either.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) still contends that transgendered persons suffer from a mental illness called Gender Identity Disorder (GID). Normally, I like to refer to the APA because they’re the experts and they tell people that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality. They used to tell people that men who sodomize other men are sick in the head, but then we crashed their conventions and threw temper tantrums until they changed their manual to protect our delicate feelings. We’ve basically completely co-opted the mental health community since then, and they say whatever we tell them to say.

Except when it comes to transgenderism. Their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) still lists gender identity disorder (GID) as an illness. We’re going to have to fix that because it’s clearly stigmatizing. People have a right not to feel social stigma. Except for Christians, I mean. It does irreparable harm to abnormal people when you tell them that they’re abnormal. So let’s not tell them. Let’s just change the definition of abnormal so that chicks with dicks feel better about themselves.

Luckily, trannies have put the APA’s conventions under seige until they change it. I’ll even participate just to show my solidarity.They crashed the APA’s 2009 convention in San Fransicko just like we homos did back in the 1970’s. No shit!

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1415037

So when you think about it, Jovanie Soldana is basically asking the City of Philadelphia to accommodate her mental illness. She thinks she’s a woman, and therefore the city should treat her as one. Makes sense to me. I want all of society to accommodate me in what was considered a mental illness up until the 1970’s. When you think about it, Soldana and I are both batshit crazy but it would harm us emotionally if anyone spoke those words out loud, so no one should be allowed to. Everyone should pretend that we’re just fine the way that we are.

In the meantime, let’s put the heat on the City of Philadelphia so that Jovanie Saldana can be returned to the women’s prison. That’s where she belongs. I’ve heard she really likes groping and ogling the other women and that she gets into fistfights with them. Clearly, Riverside if a home away from home for this transgendered lesbian with a penis that will soon be removed.

The world of college sports was rocked in recent weeks by the revelation that a former assistant coach for the Penn State Nittany Lions, Jerry Sandusky,  allegedly sexually abused at least ten boys. Sandusky has been arrested and a number of university officials have been fired as a result of the scandal, up to and including the legendary head coach Joe Paterno and the university president, Graham Spanier.

Jerry Sandusky getting cuffed and stuffed.

Much to everyone’s surprise, Sandusky consented to an interview with Bob Costas of NBC News. I must say, Costas’ questions were entirely inappropriate. One in particular really ticked me off.

“Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?”

Excuse me?! Pedophiles are not “attracted” to their victims. Everyone knows this. Pedophiles are rapists, and like all rapists, they commit their acts of perversion because of the sense of power and domination it gives them, not because they are sexually attracted to their victims. Atrraction has nothing to do with it.

Because if we were forced to admit that guys like Sandusky like little boys, we would be tactily admitting that he has same-sex attractions. And people with same sex attractions are…gay? Well, yeah. And then we would have to admit that all the child molesting priests are also gay and all the scoutmasters who prey on the scouts are gay too.  That simply can’t happen.

And we know that Sandusky is not gay. He’s a married man with six children, for crying out loud! So he’s not gay. Of course, I’ve had flings with married men before. We like to laugh at those guys in the LGBTQXYZ community. Yes, there are “straight” men who stray from their marital vows and somehow end up in the dunes down at the beach, waiting for someone to come by and sodomize them in a most anonymous fashion. These “heteros” are basically in deep denial, sometimes even unwilling to admit to themselves that they love the cock. And so we laugh at them. “Straight” men who sleep with other men are obviously not straight, or not exclusively so. In gay parlance, they’re “on the down low”.

But straight men who sleep with underaged boys are straight. And not at at all gay. We know this because we know that pedophiles are not really attracted to their victims.

The reason why some “straight” men who are married with children sometimes end up in the bed with other men is because they are deeply embarrassed by their sexual attractions. So they pretend that they don’t have these attractions. But there’s nothing embarrassing about being attracted to little boys, so obviously there are no straight men out there who are hiding their attractions to little boys. They’re up front about it. Wait a second, what I mean to say is that no one is attracted to little boys. They rape little boys because of the sense of power it provides, not sexual attraction.

Which kind of raises another question–if men who have sex with young boys are not really gay, does that mean that men who have sex with young girls are not really straight? Let’s say for example that we set up one of those Dateline NBC traps with the underage girl at home alone, and the men come in through the garage with their clothes off and then they get busted by Chris Hansen and try to make a run for it before being tased by the cops and shoved into the back of a cop car.  Obviously, since these men are engaging in rape, and since rape has nothing to do with attraction, you’d think that such a trap would net at least a few gay men. Except that doesn’t happen. Surprisingly, gay men aren’t lured into the trap when the bait is female. Strange.

So men who have sex with little girls do it because they like little girls. But men who have sex with little boys do it because of power relationships. Heterosexual pedophiles do it because they’re heterosexual. Homosexual pedophiles do it because…wait, there’s no such thing as a homosexual pedophile. They simply don’t exist. Because the sex between men and boys–which might seem to be homosexual to anyone with two brain cells to rub together–isn’t really homosexuality, and therefore its practitioners aren’t really homosexual pedophiles. They’re just pedophiles with no discernible sexual orientation.

Don’t take my word for it. It’s just what the experts say, m’kay? The EXPERTS! And if you don’t believe me, you’re obviously a science hater and I’m getting so sick of you right-wing science haters.

Science hater on display somewhere in middle America. I bet she even believes that Jerry Sandusky is gay.

Of course, the evidence bears me out. When Costas asked Sandusky if he was attracted to boys, Sandusky said no. And I believe him. He wouldn’t lie about this.

“Sexually attracted? You know, I enjoy young people. I love to be around them. But no, I’m not sexually attracted to young boys.”

See? The truth is always a serious impediment to you silly homophobes out there. We know that Sandusky is not attracted to young boys because he said so. Boo-yah! Sure, he showered with the boys, snapped towels at their tight little buns, and he may have allowed his genitals to accidentally come in contact with them. Sure, he touched them on their beautiful, adolescent legs. But he’s not attracted to them. And sure, he’s alleged to have given and received oral sex with young boys. He’s even accused of buttfucking them in the showers. But he’s not attracted to them. We know that because he says so.

Unfortunately, the American Psychiatric Association DSM-IV hasn’t been updated yet. They’re still filling people with the misinformation that pedophiles pop a chubby at the idea of having sex with children. Nonsense.They define pedophilia as:

“Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with a pre-pubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger)”

Sexually arousing fantasies? Sexual urges? That’s nonsense. It’s all about power. There’s no sexual attraction there. We’re going to have to educate the experts. Maybe we’ll just crash their next convention and throw a hissy fit until they change their manual to something that doesn’t make us cry.

Because if Jerry Sandusky is attracted to young boys, that would mean that he has same sex attractions. That would make him a gay pedophile, which is a subsect of the gay population. And we don’t want him. We don’t even want the word “gay” to appear in close proximity to the word pedophile. It’s imperative that we pretend that this obviously repressed homosexual is actually straight as an arrow. He’s completely hetero, it’s just that he inexplicably seeks out boys so that he can slip them the cock in the shower after football practice. It’s one of the great mysteries of the universe.

Interestingly, there was a time when the gay rights movement was confused on this point as well. If you recall my previous entry about the Revere Sex Ring ( http://twogaybullies.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/kiddie-porn-ring-busted-glad-theyll-have-good-lawyers/ ), there was quite the moral panic sweeping Boston in the late 1970’s. The district attorney, alarmed by the sordid sex dungeon uncovered in Revere that involved adult men having sex with underaged boys, set up a hotline that people could call to report pedophiles. The LGBTQXYZ community went nuts. They took the DA to court and a judge ordered the hotline be nixed.

The local gay magazine, Fag Rag, spoke out against the hotline:

“And we wanted to work to guarantee that the legal rights of the accused were observed in the midst of this panic. … It has always been the Fag Rag position that an attack on any part of the gay community (particularly one of its ‘fringes’) is an attack on all gay people.

Uh…what? Wait a second. Child molesters are now “part of the gay community”? But they aren’t gay. Odd how a gay magazine would be so concerned about the plight of child molesters.

Fag Rag: Boston's best lavender newspaper. I have stacks of this in my attic. Anyway, they came out strongly for the child molesters of Revere. So odd when you consider that they aren't gay.

The Boston/Boise Committee was formed to fight this witchhunt. When I say ‘witchhunt”, I mean a hotline that people could call to alert the police to children being raped in their neighborhood. They came out with some great material.

http://www.lib.neu.edu/archives/voices/gl_sexual2.htm

Under the heading “The Gay Community Fights Back”:

“Gay people have not been silent… The Boston/Boise Committee was formed to coordinate the attack on the witchhunt…It stopped the viscious hotline by threatening court action…It established a study group on the reform of sex laws. It sponsors the involvement of the National Jury Project to poll public opinion and assist jury selection. It fosters the discussion of the moral and legal issues involved in sexuality among gay men and adolescent boys.

Wait just a darn minute here. Gay man don’t have sex with adolescent boys. Because gay men who have sex with adolescent boys aren’t really gay at all. They’re child rapists. And child rapists have no sexual orientation.

Confusion abounds on this point. I’ve even been to some gay bookstores that carry pedophilia literature. Obviously, the owner of the bookstore is confused. Pedophilia literature doesn’t belong in a gay bookstore because pedophiles are not gay. It’s as completely unrelated to gayness as a book about architecture or the Sanskrit. Kind of weird how a gay bookstore owner, presumably gay himself, would stock his shelves with pedophilia literature. It’s as if he doesn’t know.

It doesn’t help that child molesters keep telling people that they’re gay men. The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), for example, really wants to march in our Pride parades. Thirty years ago, we used to allow them, but not any more. Churchy people used to point to the child molesting faction of our Pride parades and falsely accuse us of tolerating the perverts in our midst. They clung to the silly belief that men who have sex with boys and then march in gay pride parades are gay. It became an embarrassment and a political liabilty to keep hosting NAMBLA so we had to sever the relationship.

In fact, NAMBLA was the first American LGBTQXYZ organization to join the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA). Er, wait a second, they’re not LGBTQXYZ, they’re a bunch of child rapists. Slip of the tongue, sorry. NAMBLA was later expelled when right wing Senator Jesse Helms threatened to withhold UN dues unless ILGA expelled NAMBLA. Weird how the other clubs let them join, considering the fact that they’re not gay.

NAMBLA. Even though they say they're gay, don't believe them. Because love between a man and boy is not homosexual in nature.

NAMBLA keeps spreading the viscious lie that their fondness for butt sex with adolescent boys has something to do with homosexuality. After being scorned by the Human Rights Commission as being not genuinely gay, NAMBLA responded:

“man/boy lovers are part of the gay movement and central to gay history and culture…”

Which is basically true, although we don’t want to admit that.

This is how we rationalize it to ourselves. Men who have sex with other males who are over the age of eighteen (or sixteen, depending on your jurisdiction) are gay. But men who have sex with males under the age of eighteen (or sixteen, depending on your jurisdiction) are sick, perverted pedophiles. They are definitely not gay and we can categorically say that none of them are motivated by sexual attraction.

The act of buttfucking someone who is above the age of consent is not at all comparable to  the act of buttfucking someone below the age of consent. They are completely unrelated phenomena. It’s not apples and oranges, it’s more like apples and rocket ships. The former is kind of like having black skin. It’s comparable to things like race and eye color. You’re just born that way. It’s not related to other deviant sexual acts. But the latter is sick. It’s raping kids, and so it’s comparable to all sorts of other sick sexual acts.

It kind of makes me wonder. Let’s say I was hooking up with one of my students at the local high school. This is just a hypothetical, okay? It’s not like I’ve done it. At least not on more than half a dozen times. The age of consent here in Massachusetts is sixteen, so I can have my pick of the sophmores and above. Freshmen are off limits. So if I’m boinking one of them, I’m a gay man just like Gerry Studds and his sixteen year old boy toy. But if I take my young lover to one of my favorite gay retreats in Key West, I’m suddenly a child molester. Because the age of consent in Florida is eighteen. Obviously, if I were in Florida, I wouldn’t even be able to get it up. Because I’m a gay man and not a pedophile.

So obviously, Jerry Sandusky doesn’t feel any attraction toward his victims. He’s not gay, okay? He’s straight. One hundred percent straight, even when he’s giving a youngster a hummer in the shower. Because he doesn’t even get off on it when he does it. It’s all about power relationships. There’s nothing queer about him.

Tag Cloud

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.