The party of proud boylovers
Speaking of "opening up", the post "It’s kinda shaped like a steak" at PunkAssBlog not only tries to calm down the fears of his fellow travellers about the coming demise of socialism in Cuba, but also reveals a far more nefarious intention behind the attempts to liberate Cuba:
Seriously, don’t dismiss the smoldering wingnut desire for a secret little sex shack right out back behind Florida. The Rethugs like to make a stink about cleaning up America, but they also want a place where they can go to unwind with a stoagie after a nice orgy with girls who kinda look 18 if you squint just right. I suspect they hope that if we can score us a playground in Cuba, we can keep the extra dirty stuff out of America and down there with the brown people where it belongs (but is still only a short hop in a lobbyist’s jet away).
Man, I love
it when the sophisticated American leftists act so totally ignorant
about the rest of the world, and imagine that their age of consent of
18 is somehow a universal law of nature. It isn't, as you can see on
the Wikipedia page "Age of consent".
And you don't even have to travel very far from America to see dramatic
drops in the age of consent, and I am not even talking about the Third
World here! If those dastardly Republicans with their top hats and
cigars really were so intent to bang hot teenagers, they could have
just travelled here up north in Canada, where the age of consent was 14
for both straight and gay sex, until the killjoy Conservative
government of Stephen Harper recently raised the age of consent to 16,
with a five year window so that a 14-year-old can still legally have
straight or gay sex with anybody up to 19 years of age.
Since he
obviously opposes the idea of adult men having sex with teenagers, I
don't know how horrified PunkAss Marc and his fellow femo-socialists in
America would be to hear that Canadian gay rights organizations are currently demanding
that the age of consent should be lowered back to 14, and also the age
of consent for anal sex (which is currently 18) should also be lowered
to 14 so that adult gay men could legally have anal sex with teenagers.
Or would he get an uncomfortable bulge in his overalls for the very
thought, like the Canadian gays seem to have? It can be so very hard to
tell sometimes when it comes to leftists. If some Republican fatcat
bigwig demanded that he should be legally allowed to have anal sex with
consenting 14-year-old girls, I am pretty sure I could guess how
leftists would react to it. But what if it is their beloved gays who
are making the exact same demand? (Don't tell me, I know: "But...
but... gays are practically angels on Earth, and everything they do is
automatically good and wonderful! Even if they say they want to have
anal sex with 14-year-old boys! You, you are nothing but a filthy and
bigoted homopthobe!")
Here in the real world, as opposed to the parallel reality that socialists seem to inhabit, conservatives everywhere generally want to raise the age of consent, whereas leftists and gays are the ones who want to lower
it. Thanks to the fact that I am an European, I was perfectly aware of
this simple fact of life, so I had a hunch that the Canadian gays might
be demanding the age of consent to be lowered even before I had
actually read anything about it. And lo and behold, my hunch turned out
to be exactly right.
(This is, by the way, why it is important
to have a wide array of sophisticated background knowledge, instead of
being provincial and narrow-minded like the American leftists, as it
helps you to predict where interesting things will be found, and lets
you reason about how the world works in general. But if leftists
understood this, they wouldn't be losers who just randomly bounce
around the bumpers in the pinball game of life, thoroughly unable to
control even their own meager lives, let alone the whole society.)
Furthermore, as especially Americans should be perfectly aware of, it is generally leftists who try to oppose
measures that would decrease teenage sexual activity and sex between
teenagers and adults. Especially when it comes to gay sex, which is a
really fabulous experience
for teens and should not be hindered in any way. For these reasons, I
am utterly confused about the fact that the American leftists seem to
be so damn puritanical when
it comes to the question of the age of consent, going as far to call a
man "Humbert Humbert" for observing that practically all women are far
more attractive when they are seventeen compared to when they are forty.
But we certainly can't blame PunkAss Marc and other American homosexuals if they honestly didn't even know
that their Canadian counterparts are currently engaging in such
demands. Hey, it's not like the mainstream media has allocated much
time and column inches for informing the rest of the society what the
gays have been up to. I am also not holding my breath that The Daily
Show would send one of its reporters to interview the representatives
of Canadian gay rights groups about their desire to have anal sex with
succulent teenage boys. I know I would enjoy seeing Ed Helms or Jason
Jones nudge-nudge-wink-winking some Allen Ginsberg clone who says that
the teenage boys have a basic human right to have anal sex with him,
for some "love" and "hands-on mentoring". Heck, even Jon's quips about
NAMBLA would for once be dead-on.
The rules on a vs an have to do with pronunciation more than they do with spelling.
So, it should be a Europeon and not an Europeon.
History is another that trips many people up, unless they truly do think it is pronounced in a French fashion.
Ahhh, well, peons everywhere, n'est pas?
Posted by non Scatalogical | 2:20 PM
Jeez, Mrs. K., can't you tell a ridiculous, over-the-top statement when you see one? The whole post is absurd -- there are Fredo and Simon Cowell references in it, for criminy's sake. I can't believe you would get so bent out of shape.
Nice to know you're a regular reader, though. ;)
Posted by punkass marc | 2:29 PM
Ah yes, the age-old "But I was only joking" defense.
By the way, punkass marc, can you tell me if we will soon get to see the femo-socialists condemn Egale and other Canadian gay rights organizations with the same sputtering outrage that you used to condemn John "Humbert Humbert" Derbyshire with, even though The Derb didn't go even close to demanding that he should be allowed to legally bang 14-year-old girls in the ass? Or to boldly claim that these girls often seek him for this experience which is educational for them?
Is there some particular reason why your side seems so determined to avoid this question? Does the fantasy of getting to have anal sex with teenage boys perhaps hit too close to home for many men on your side of the fence? After all, like I wrote, gay rights organizations have always stood in the forefront of lowering the age of consent pretty much everywhere in the world, while the puritanical conservatives have been trying to stop them from having their fun and freedom.
Posted by Ilkka Kokkarinen | 2:55 PM
Forget it, I had a post up, but you're not worth the time. Own your bigotry, Ilkka. "Gay person" != "pedophile", and there are plenty of those pedophiles on both sides of the aisle, left and right.
Posted by JackGoff | 5:03 PM
Jack Goff, or anybody else who thinks that I wrong here, could you point out to me some examples of straight conservatives and their organizations who currently demand that the age of consent should be lowered so that they could legally have anal sex with 14-year-old girls? I can't think of any, but this may be just my ignorance.
But if there really were such outfits, I am sure that the leftists voices that I follow would have already been all over it. So it should be pretty clear what part of the political spectrum the voices calling to lower the age of consent are coming from.
If most gay men abhor the idea of adult men having anal sex with teenage boys, which I hope is the case, very well then, consider this a wakeup call for this silent majority of gay men to rise up and put an end to the demands that Egale and others are putting out in their name.
Posted by Ilkka Kokkarinen | 5:57 PM
>>>Own your bigotry, Ilkka. "Gay
>>>person" != "pedophile", and there
>>>are plenty of those pedophiles on
>>>both sides of the aisle, left and
>>>right.
"Plenty of" doesn't imply P(pedophile|straight) ~ P(pedophile|gay). Your argument is a classic example of prenumeric thought.
Perhaps gay groups can safely demand lowering the age of consent because of the general leftist sympathy towards them (talk about social construction). I don't know.
Ilkka's point still holds: a person who condemns e.g. Derbyshire's pedolicious writings should not think well about analogous ideas proposed by gay groups (*), unless ze explains why exactly gays have more freedom in this aspect.
Everything else is by logic double standards and/or intellectual inhonesty/dissonance.
*) Not equal to "must condemn", a problem that rids Panu's texts.
Posted by Anonymous | 6:28 PM
I'm glad that all those underage prostitutes in Havana are banging only good European socialists rather than bad American Republicans. Hail Fidel!
Posted by Disgruntled | 6:33 PM
JackGoff's profile photo could get him/her in an "It's Pat" remake. He/she's got that chubby, indeterminate lesbian thing going.
Posted by Udolpho | 7:31 PM
This post has been removed by the author.
Posted by JackGoff | 9:55 PM
JackGoff's profile photo could get him/her in an "It's Pat" remake. He/she's got that chubby, indeterminate lesbian thing going.
Yep, you're right. I'm a lesbian. I should have fucking known it when I started dating women.
"Plenty of" doesn't imply P(pedophile|straight) ~ P(pedophile|gay). Your argument is a classic example of prenumeric thought.
So your basic point is being gay is bad. You are a bigot.
I condemn anyone who thinks statutory rape is good. Do I need to condemn anything more than that? Please tell me. 18 is a perfectly reasonable age for AoC, in my opinion, and anyone who argues against that had better have some good reasons.
Posted by JackGoff | 9:57 PM
theres more to socialism than being just leftists.. good thing i was able to learn that from people in webdate*com so right now atl east i was able to chane my perspective in the matter..
Posted by steller | 11:44 PM
I condemn anyone who thinks statutory rape is good. Do I need to condemn anything more than that? Please tell me. 18 is a perfectly reasonable age for AoC, in my opinion, and anyone who argues against that had better have some good reasons.
Well, recent research has shown that intergenerational sex is not all that different than intragenerational sex. This can be defined as sex between persons between, say 16-19 years old. But you could change those numbers slightly one way or the other. Obviously, results vary dependent upon individual variation.
The idea that 18 is some magic age has no bearing in any study I'm aware of. Indeed, the threshold for pedophilia - the harmful affects of which upon children is indisputable - is 14. The Canadian law was in fact based on a study conducted in the 1980's which found no need for protection of minors beyond the age of fourteen. By the way, at that time the Government was controlled by Conservatives.
In much of the United States, the age of consent is 16, not 18. But that may change as political extremists on all sides engage in fear mongering and smear campaigns and people in the middle give in to their worst impulses. It's a kind of mob mentality, really. Who can denounce the pedophiles most loudly.
But as with all the current hysteria over terrorism, this business is being blown completely out of proportion. Sure, pedophiles engage in behavior which is both repulsive and destructive. But the stampede to conflate individuals and groups with even the appearance of similarity to international terrorists is inaccurate and foolish. Governments should not conflate Arab Nationalism with radical Islam, nor should they confuse pedophilia with teen-adult sex.
It is totally unreasonable to expect 17 year old girls to refrain from sex with 25 year old men, especially when such persons are physically attractive. You may as well expect to hold back the tide or stop the sun from setting.
There are of course exceptional cases. It has been found that where a relationship of authority exists between an adult and a young person (14-17 years old) that sex under these conditions tends to lead to exploition and abuse. The old Canadian law addresses this issue by prohibiting such relationaships. It is of course difficult to say exactly what constitutes such a relationship. I would say that anything that would be considered unethical behavior or sexual harrasment between adults would rise to the level of criminal behavior when a young person is involved. I would imagine you would prove the latter just as you would the former, only in a criminal court instead of a civil court.
Derbygate has provided the perfect opportunity for the American left and right to demonstrate their puritanical cluelessness and generally embarrass themselves. A a nation, the US still has a long way to go where sex is involved. That wingnuts and leftists both accuse each other of harboring deviant fantasies is very telling. But consensual sex with a 16 year old isn't deviant. It isn't even harmful except in the most extreme cases.
Posted by sex drugs and rock and roll | 1:33 AM