This is growing just a bit too suspitious. Before the candidate campaing, when Republicans and Democrats were scouting for votes to win the House elections, dirty Republican senators and lawmakers popped up by the dozen. Add to it, all of them were related to gay sex. Mark Foley, accused of seducing underage pages at the Hill, Richard Curtis accused of paying a male escort for sex (other versions say he just paid some regular bloke to have sex, or others that he simply seduced the man), and Larry Craig, who was detained by the police for requesting sex in a public bathroom from other men (the thing about rubbing the separation between the stals).
(In order: Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Richard Curtis.) All these came to light when the Democrats needed to win. And in each case, they did. Well, what does this tell you? That it is a proven and effective weapon to make your opponent fall. So why would you go into reasoning, trying to win the people with smart and duable proposals, and philosophy, political vision, when unveiling sex scandals is far more funny, easy and it doesn't compromise you? It would have been just a coincidence (for most people. Even as they went for Mr. Foley, I smelled a scheme, but with Mr. Craig it was crystal clear.), but when they slam down on Ms. Clinton's right hand man, Governor Elit Spitzer, it is too much. Well, at least we can narrow down now where the "Mastermind" of this winning formula might be. Search among Mr. Obama's people. It does come to my attention how they have not picked a gay man this time to satanize the party, but rather just some poor fellow seeking for the services of a whore. Could it be because they don't wish to scat the Democrat party's image that much, or because it was just so beautiful to use a sex scandal to say: "You all say one thing and do the opposite". Either way it was low and they should really start considering what they are doing. These are today's Canuck Letters, and they are not fun. (Canuck Letter: a bogus letter sent back in the seventies, allegedly written by Sen.Edmund Muskie (Dem.) where he shows prejudice against French-Canadians. The letter was part of a White House operation, then under Republican controll.)What's the deal? Well, Gov. Spitzer was promoting a law to fight prostitution penalizing the men who sought out the prostitutes. Funny thing, as you read the articles on the case, it is a matter worked out by Feminist Groups which seek to protect women from sexual exploitation. Question: what about men? They can be exploited? What about men who seek male escorts for some paid sex? That's okay? I admit I do not know details of this law, more than what the papers have published, but so far, the prostitute is seen as a victim rather than a partner in crime, because "she has been forced into the business". Well, what about women who like it? What about women who want to do it? There are cases, plenty of them where women chose this path because it is easy money. Prostitution takes form in many ways that go from the poor person (male or female, underage or legal) who stands in a corner selling his or her body, all the way to the golddiggers who offer their body and company to people with the means to give them expensive gifts. Of course, these golddiggers call it love or their "right to seek a better life". lets come clear with this right now: sex for any kind of material gratification is prostitution! Money, jewels, cars, furs, clothes, trips, houses, a promotion, a bigger office, a job, a grade... these are all ways of paying sex, these all turn sex into prostitution. People offering or agreeing into this kind of exchage, giving sex for them are soliciting.
Are they victims? Yes, in some cases, but not in others. Assuming by default that they are victims is a mistake. Now, let's do a little fight for Equity of Gender. Perhaps this will come as a shock for the world, but men are also prostitutes. Yes. Men also sell their bodies for money. They sell it to men and women, mostly men since allegedly men are more into hiring whores than women. (It is not part of our culture.) Anyway, it would be nice for once that these humanitarian groups, particularly the feminist groups, would start showing some consideration towards men too. Why is everything always about women and women and women and no one stops five minutes to consider men and how we are not letting them be equal to us? Why do we have to absorb all they do, but we don't let them get to the things we have enjoyed, or the things we have done?
A friend of mine was complaing a little while ago about how uncivilized and unpolite we are becoming (okay mostly "they", you know the case), and told about not holding doors and pulling out chairs. Yes, indeed it is nice to be treated like that, but if we are fighting for equity, and I do mean EQUITY and not only "now it is time for women to get to boss", then why don't WE pull out chairs for our male companions and hold doors for them? Because that would make them feel weak and "feminine"? Because you only hold doors and pull out chairs for the weaker, fragile and helpless "women-creatures"? Oh yes, women are the victims of prostitution. And what about men? And what about the circumstances of men who seek prostitutes? Why do they feel compelled to pay for sex when us women can perfectly well live without ever paying for a fuck?
Truth is we are living still in a hypocritic world. Now you would hardly dare to question the equity of the sexes, or say that something is not for "women", or you'll risk something from a heavy purse repeatedly smacked againt your head to a law suit, and probably both of them. But at the same time, MEN are not considered in the least equal to women, because they HAVE to give up their chairs, get all uncomfortable, please us, serve us, play for us, and all for what? Because we have the babies. What about those of us who do not plan to have kids? It doesn't matter, we could, so we are entitled to get our share of male servitude. Well, in face of these things, I do understand that they wish to keep a few of their old prerrogatives such as do no home chores . But what do they get? Our bitching. They say: "You don't cook like my Mom", but we say "That's not how I told you to clean up? Are you mental? Can't you do it right?". Honey, poor guy needs practice, and he won't feel like doing shit if you keep telling him that all he does is wrooooong, and when he finally gets it right your compliment goes in the line of "About time! It sure took you long to get it!". Please bitches! Let the poor dude breathe!
So, we get their jobs, we FORCE a legislation where at least 40% of the "Power" (management and such) jobs and Government positions must be filled by women. And if we get 90% women? Oh that's okay. No men? Well, at least we fulfilled the 40%, right? What would happen if a law is passed where there should be at least a 60-40 of men and women? Outrage! What if that one position could be filled by a smart woman but has to be given to a man to keep the 60-40!? But it is perfectly okay if it happens the other way. If a man is caught with a female hooker he gets to jail and she gets help and social support. If a man is caught with a male whore would it be the same or we will just slam both motherfuckers into jail?
Feminism has long been corrupted when it stopped being about equal rights and equal oportunities and equal consideration and it has become about teaching men who is the Daddy now.
No comments:
Post a Comment