Really: your words say I have touched the core of you, in which case, I suppose I have penetrated you, Ronson. And in your vission of the universe, that can only be bad. If you were more like me, it could be soooo good. But since you have been penetrated, try to enjoy it, Ronson. You anonymity is just like the parks you haunt, a john, a traveling salesman... a wisp of smoke. Ronson you are an illusion.
As it so happens, I choose to be associated with Mitch, I choose to be defined by what I want to experience in this life and not by those things zealots and idiots push on me. Since I have to worry about my safety though, and for those I love, I can not associate myself with Mitch... He is far braver, more noble than I would dare to be. Thank you Mitch, for simply showing that we can be free, fully self actualized and a positive person that experiences happiness, despite all the little RONSONS.
Cross dressing: A man dressing in the clothes of a woman or vis-versa. I don't have any clothing that belongs to a the opposite sex. I have clothing that I wear to express who I am, what I feel and how I want to be seen. I doubt anything I have ever worn can be seen as looking anything like a the opposite sex. I don't see how this is of any value at all, or how one can extract moral superiority over how one person weaves or stitches textiles and paints patterns on them. What a bull shit way to define your values: I am a Star Bellied Sneech! You don't have a Star! Don't you understand how stupid this is. If not I have to stand by my original assertion that Ronson, you are an idiot.
As for who I am and what I do and do not do: not that it is you business, I do not feel that anyone shows them selves to be anything more than property if they try to manipulate others based on exclusive sexual interactions. It is not anyone's right to expect they own another person's body, actions or choices. That people enter into contractual relationships (i.e. marriage) determines to what degree they can act, not wether or not they participate in sexual relations with multiple partners if they have no such agreements. To expect anyone to behave as if their body were the posssession of another is to distort the ideas of self-actualization. I choose to have multiple or a singular sexual partner based on my own choice, not on the pressure of a zealous unquestioning idiot like RONSON. Furthermore, To apply the consideration of singular partner sexual relations to men is to miss what the Bible says. This expectation is placed on women. Polygyny is the model put forward by the Bible. Meaning a woman makes this vow as property, not the man. She shows herself to be the willing property of a man. What marriage means today is a protection of property rights against the state and property rights over bodies.
Again,RONSON, you say these things like they are bad things. I do not see these things as bad things. Let's see, promiscuous sex: loose sexual morals, let's try to understand what that means: let's go to an authority of the subject: The Bible: did you RONSON have sexual intercourse before marriage? Did you ever do anything besides missionary position? Did you ever look at your neighbor's wife? Ever sleep with someone else's wife? And if so, did you at least pay them for damaging their property? (You really ought to read up on Leviticus) Drugs? Well what can we say excep tthat I would definitely consider using oopium if the only reality available was the bitter and uninspiring one you conjure. As for dressing in women's clothing, am I am a man? am I a woman? Are there more considerations than that limited view? Is the world so dichotomous, or is this a model we place upon it becasue some people are too cretonous to make it more complicated? I have already said you are an idiot, so I suppose, for you, we will maintain the world is as simple as opposing dichotomies, good and bad, light and dark, angel devil, etc...So I suppose no matter what is actually true for me, I am only your target, you, the aggressor, creating a victim. Except, I refuse to be your victim. Camille Paglea wrote a great essay about victims of gay bashing have an option, and given its absence, it seems she has a point, if we want the bashings to stop, we have only to carry and use guns, in self-defense, as is our second amendment right. Can you imagine a queer with a gun?
You say "reveling in “nudity, promiscuous sex, drug use and cross dressing” like they were bad things...
So what? You're just so embarassed by your own inadequacies that you launch into him. you sound like a troll. Grow up, do what Capleton did, since you seem to be idolizing him so much: smoke a bowl, put on a sarong.
1. Did any one else notice that disclosure of any donations to Joe Bonino were blatantly absent?
All Comments »
In Print This Week:
Dec 5, 2013
vol XXIV issue 49
The North Coast Journal Weekly
Website powered by Foundation