This Whole Mess Needs To Go Crashing Down

"oh those conservative Christians butt their noses into wmns's personal private business."

Well, that's laughable.  Evidently they're not aware of it, but these females most certainly butt their personal private business into conservative Christians' noses.  All you see everywhere is shameless exhibitionist crap.  In those stupid videotapes for sale of spring break crap, in mtv, in women's magazines, in rolling stone magazine, in Time magazine, in Newsweek magazine.  It is everywhere.  They are violating their own damn privacy just fine without needing conservatives to lift a finger.

So, sorry, but no.  I have a hard time attaching any credibility to your claim that you want people to keep out of your sex life.  Not when you idiots are so freakin eager to shove your sex life into people's faces.

And another thing.  These same media magazines nn schitt keep saying
--- ""ohhhh those evil Christians keep ***judging,*** keep butting thms into women's personal private sex life,
and they keep tellig wmn when they can and csntt have sex, and they keep telling women who they can and cantt have sex with.
--- ohhh weeee don't judge women for hvig sex.
--- ohhh but not liek us.  Weeee dont tell women when they can and cannt have sdx.  Noooo never
---- nooo we tell women that they should be hving sex all the time.  We actively encourage women to have sex.""

Hang on a cotton-pickin minute.  What do you liberals mean, you "encourage women to have sex?"  What do you mean you tell women, "go ahead and have sex with that dude on your first date, we won’t judge you!  As a matter of fact we will actively applaud and congratulate you for having sex!!!""
--- ""in fact, we think it's weird if a woman is nOttt having sex frequently with any man she can get her hands on!!  So as you can clearly see, we don't judge women's sex lives.""""

Who the hell are you to tell women that they "should" be having sex?  And if she is not, then who the hell are you to say she is somehow less of a woman?  Who the hell are you to "encourage" women to have sex?  How is that any of youuuir goddamn business?

These liberals keep complaining that conservatives butt their noses into women's personal private business.  Well, guess what.  In truth, liberals also butt their noses into women's personal private business.  Liberals are nothing more than perverts that have now taken over magazines.

I had also caught some crappy French movie on cable that featured a teenage girl.  There was a creepy skanky middle-aged guy in the movie that seemed to be the typical pain-in-the-azz "open-minded" liberal type.  All throughout the movie, this... creature made derogatory comments about his ex-wife because the ex-wife refused to be a slut.  I felt relieved that that poor woman had gotten the hell out of there.  At one point this creature made a comment that was disgusting slang for "that girl is old enough to hurry up and have sxxee."

Uh, excuse me?  How the hell is it any of this sick ahole's goddamn business if that girl is having sxe?  Need I remind you that that girl is only a teenager.  She doesn't need to be having serrxx.  More importantly, it is none of that perverted fluck's business if she is having sxee.  Who the hell is this sick ahole to insist that a girl, a teenager, a **child** should be having sxe?

Liberals vs. Conservatives On Personal, Private Matters

This is something I have been deliberating and turning over in my head for the past whole year.  I just have not been able to articulate it into a coherent essay until now.

This whole mess needs to go crashing down.  It should crash and crumble, but hopefully only causing absolute minimal damage.  Then it needs to be wiped and scrubbed clean away, it needs to extricate itself from people's lives so that it does not cause any more social depravity.  Then social order and decorum needs to be restored.

This is when I shook myself awake and realized, wait a minute.  I am doing the exact same thing.  I read/heard several female characters in movies and stuff, or pop culture icons that have definitely had sex.

And I thought, "Oh that’s good, they pass muster because they are definitely not virgins.  They are on par with the general rhetoric of modern day."  I was watching a Charlie Rose interview of a playwright author. She wrote a play called "Dirty Blonde" centering around Mae West's life, one of those actresses from the early days of hollywood.  At one point in the interview she remarked that mae west "had been with a lot of men. A lot of men. Which I think is a good thing."  I remember being inexplicably cheered by that.

They always complain and moan and groan about how the religious right-wing conservatives, “How dare the conservatives pass judgment on wmn that have had sex!”  They squawk and spew, “How dare those evil judgmental conservatives judge women for having sex!!!  They're so evil!!!!”

These irritating, self-proclaimed liberals complain because religious conservatives assert that a woman's only worth is based in her sexuality.

They might have a semi-solid congealed argument -- if they didn't do the exact same thing.  For all their hemming and hawing about how the conservative religious zealots judge women based on sex, liberals do the exact same thing.  Only the liberals approach it from a slightly different angle.

The liberals also fervently believe that a woman's only worth is surrounding her sexuality.  There is abundant overwhelming evidence toward this fact.  They are every bit as culpable.

These liberals keep saying that conservatives butt into women's personal private business.  Oh, but <they> sure as hell don't seem to have any problem worming their way into women's personal, private business.

Liberals are always spewing preachy, didactic crap about how a woman is NOT worthy of attention if she IS a virgin.  They judge women for NOT having sex.

Actually, they do even worse than that.  They actually go a couple rungs lower.  They go so far as to say that unless a woman is a slut, that she is not worthy of their brand of "respect."  (Guffaw.)  They are every bit as judgmental as the conservatives.  Only in their skewed, warped sense of morality, they judge a woman as being somehow less of a woman if she has NOT had multiple sex partners.

They complain that religious conservatives do not approve of a woman if she has sex.  But shockingly, liberals do not approve of a woman if she has <not> had sex.

They don't even necessarily bring up the topic of virgins specifically.  According to them, if a woman is not a full-fledged slt, then she is automatically deemed a prude.  Unworthy of acknowledgment, not worth recognition as a whole human being.

In the grand scheme of things, sex before marriage per se is not really that big of a deal.  I get that.  There are much more pressing concerns to deal with in life.  Many people have had sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend before they actually walk down the aisle.

However, it is not just a matter of females or males having sex.  That is not "good enough" for the perpetrators of those aggravating women's mags.  They concern themselves with sheer numbers.  And they insist, absolutely insist, that staggering numbers alone is what determines the degree of strength/independence/etc. of a woman in today's modern world.

Read one of those stupid women's magazines.  They accuse women of being a prude if she simply possesses some self-respect, and would rather prefer not sleep with anything on two legs.  (Or three or four, whatever.)  look at TV -- Will and Grace, Friends, Sex and the City.

It sure as hell ain't just the women's magazines.  It is teeming, festering the airwaves all over creation.
that if they do not drown themselves in the pool of filth__
__that if they do not suffocate themselves in prnnn and striging and prostituion, and if they do not shout from the mountaintops that it is empowering.
if they do not abjectly smother themselves into the__

They lob accusations at her that she is not being "free" with her body.  They hurl [[[__putative ]] that she does not have this silly, notorious, ubiquitous, and incorrectly-defined (I'm pretty sure) "body confidence" that has been popping up all over the airwaves like weeds.

They accuse her of not being a strong capable woman in charge of her own life.  They accuse her of being ashamed of her body.  They claim that she is somehow unable to navigate this modern world as a strong, capable, independent being that is able to take care of herself in this day and age.  (By the way, do they sound like broken records to anyone else?  They keep using that asinine phrase "strong capable woman in charge of her own life" so much that it has lost any meaning whatsoever.)

The liberals wring their hands and concern themselves with whether or not women have had sex -- just as obsessively as they accuse conservatives of doing.  They have made it their personal duty_____
And if a woman has not, then she does not earn the liberals' approval.

Never mind the fact that sex is an extremely personal, private issue.  These liberals, simply by dint of being liberals, think that they have the -[[[[[unridled, unabashed___no no.... they should be un___ like when govt. can go in and just infringe on people's inalienable rights.]]]]] right to___

The Edict to Think for Oneself

Liberals keep parroting their favorite phrase, "think for yourself."  Other permutations are, "don't let others tell you what to think;" "don't let others order you around."  But they don't really mean it.  Any time a liberal encounters someone with a differing/dissenting [ opinion from the garden variety [[typical stereotypical]]]] liberal [[opinions, ideals, ideology]]], they vehemently spew stuff like, "oh that is so judgmental, that is so closed minded."

They are every bit as formulaic and predictable as they say conservative boring types are.

Their indie movies are the same.  All creative artistic types are the same.  Any given one spews the exact same quote phrases as any other one.  All the "think for yourself, individualistic; original; dance to the beat of your own drum" stock responses that they parrot -- are all virtually identical.

When you see one, you know it.  You can always identify one of them.  They think they are all unique and special and original.  But if you just look at them, you see that they all actually look quite like each other.  Weird spiky hair in neon colors, ugly mismatched clashing clothes, lots of piercings all over the place.

They probably think they are all open-minded and whatnot, but from what I've seen, they are every bit as closed-minded and judgmental, with attitudes of holier-than-thou, as the conservatives that they lambast for being judgmental.

Liberals being OFFENDED, JUDGMENTAL AND PREACHY

liberals always complain that christian religious people are too easily offended.  But
--perh have one abt hwow theya are offended.
About how liberals impose their viewpoints on others.  They are every bit as adamant about shoving their views down everyone's throat as extremist religious conservatives are.

conservative chrsi UUSEDD to be the ones that were persnickety nitpicjy.  They used to compla abt all osrrt of trvial onosense.
""plss report any unfairness to the gvot authoties or simpl the authreot.
**cose4v chr uSED to be very easily offended by all sorts of trivial____.  such as seddx violen on tv,, such as kids being marketed to joe camel,

but now it turns out that liberals are every bit as easily offended.  they are offended by the suggestion thta perh blks should take charge of their own dsestinies.  And should takn resposiblit for theor own lives.

--recall taht chri ae offended by --the idai of promiscuit or sexx in ngenral.  --or interracial dating?  --and the metnion of gays.
--well, libse are offfended by --discussionm of <marriage.>  --they are offende by thewn notion that maybe judt__ maybe a semi comitment is noit the same thing as actual marriage,____.  --they are ofended whe n anyone nmentions godd in vonvcerstion.

Conservatives chrs at mentionn of abrtn.  but it turns out libse are just ad easiloy violently offenfed ,, at mnt of life, nn that maybe abrt is not the best of things.

**move rebled essya tobit later like 2004 ???
** perh move my ""major rebels essay""" to very late 2003 or even to v early 2004.
bc all those little bits and pieces need to go before then; all those that identify slowly more and more of the grand scheme piece by piece,,,,,
along wi the rallying railing against tearing-down creativity that is disgusting, depraved.

---
I realize now that liberals are every bit as (((didactic))) JUDGMENTAL AND PREACHY as the conservatives that they claim to be better than.
-They love saying that conservative Christians inflict and force their viewpoints onto other people. ((Complaints about conservatives... Closed minded)))) holier than thou, up on their soapbox, up on a high horse....
-They love repeating their stock ___ insistence that they are open-minded, magnanimous.  They are like the hackneyed broken record.

-Well guess what.  Liberals __ also___
have as one of their apparent job descriptions, inflict onto innocent bystanders...,,,
((((((What about their insistence that all people be rewarded equally-- even though they did NOT do equal work.  They constantly preach this doctrine to public grade schools and to places of employment.  "Oh, make sure you praise the -effort- that an employee
Well, is that not forcing an unwelcome ideal on people?
***oh but they let the fires of hell rain down on anyone who judges drug addicts/alcoholics,
HOW DARE YOU JUDGE SOMEONE FOR HAVING A BABY OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE??!!
How dare you think yourself as better than someone that is self-destructive???!!!!
Little ole timid me is thinking, excuse but I should be able to think whatever I want.  I should be able to formulate opinions however I want.

***oh, how teachers are not allowed to put a grade of 0 on a kid's homework assignment or test.  Bc that would make the kid feel bad.
Or, teachers are not allowed to use a red-ink pen to mark a kid's assignment, bc that would make the kid feel bad.

--"racist," "sexist," "homophobic."  Erm, those all sound like judgments to me.

Making Mistakes to Work Out, Still Moving On

As long as they do eventually get married it is fine.  It would probably work out okay.  They took care of their responsibility eventually.

Well, at least they got married eventually!  Yeah, I know that is not ideal the way they did it.  But the fact of the matter is, they made it work, and ultimately it worked out okay.

They got pregnant first, then decided to get married.  At least they made the commitment eventually.  And it seems as though they kind of knew they would be together permanently.  So it's like they figured, "ehh what the heck we might as well make a baby now.  After all what difference does it make?  We are going to be together with each other anyway."

Back in high school whenever I heard of a plight of a downtrodden girl who made bad decisions, I usually had a "serves you right" attitude towards it.  Well, you should have known better than to have sex and get pregnant.

But now as I look over this a little more deeply, I realize that that attitude is cruel.  Somehow I doubt they were thinking about poverty and food stamps and living in the projects when they made the baby.  It is not only cruel, but cruel to the extent that it is even anti-feminist.

Maybe a better approach is to be compassionate and empathetic.  Isn't that what the changing meanings of some things is all about?  Be more open-minded and understanding.

Look, what's done is done.  It serves no realistic purpose to look at hindsight with 20/20 vision and give a condescending sniff and say "miff."  This helps no one.  It does not affect the observer doing the sniffing.  But it does harm the girl that finds herself in a dire situation.

However, lending a compassionate hand does help the girl in the dire situation obviously helps the girl.  It obviously helps the baby.  And it does help the observer ultimately, for the reason that it uplifts the observer's spirits and makes this person a better human being.  For the reason that they all live in the same society.  Our actions affect those around us.

I gradually slowly came to this opinion.  ((widows, divrced women whoe ex-husbands are deadbeat dads.)))

For the longest time, I am deeply embarrassed to admit, I had very little sympathy for a grieving widow who could not make ends meet.  A woman who was not able to provide for her family, because she did not have the resources nor credentials to get a well-paying job, and therefore could not feed her kids.

For the reason that she had dedicated her entire life to being a stay-at-home mom and homemaker, someone who keeps watch over the hearth and home.

My thought process was, Well, you should have planned out your life better.  Rather than relying on a man to provide for you, and then assuming that a man will always be there to provide for you, you should have taken care of yourself first.  You cannot assume a man will always be your safety net, always be something solid and stalwart for you to fall back on.  You unfortunately allowed yourself to be lured into a state of false security and comfort.

Now I have finally come to my senses.  Or more accurately, I have come to my humanity.

How can I call myself a feminist if I have such a cruel, harsh, inhuman attitude towards women?

>> and single mothers are women who made this same thought process[[___ same mistake???
and simply did not get married beforehand.  should they be so severely punished by society, by financial policy in this country, just because they did not [[[[put, find some nice way to state that they did not ___

get it in weirting,, get a contract made, have a piece of paper declaring their commitment, love, and trust to eo??

Yes, I am still deeply judgmental of unwed single mothers.  I sit in harsh judgment, for they made some life-altering, severely damaging mistakes.

But to force myself to refrain from helping them is simply abusive.  It is abusive, cruel, malicious.  Society has already dealt, and life in general has already dealt them a horrible harsh blow.

Plus, sitting here and wallowing in the past is, simply put, useless.  It does not thing but waste my own precious time, energy, and effort to sit on my derriere, fuming and resentful of them, grumbling about their past transgressions of irresponsibility.  Really, what good could it possibly do to dwell and languor on the fact that they got pregnant out of wedlock?  Yes, we already know it is morally reprehensible.  It happened, it was in the past, get over it, move on.

But now there is a child, a human being, to take care of.  We are as a conglomerate, interconnected, complex society.  As such, we all have a duty to pitch in.  We all have a sworn duty, incumbent upon us as human beings, to make sure the child grows up into a good, decent kind human being who actively participates and contributes to society.

It takes a village to raise a child.  We are not simply "members" of this village.  Monikering us "members" makes it sound as though the "village" is a disconnected entity entirely separate from ourselves.  We human beings ARE the foundation, heart, and spirit, of the village.  We are the village.

As people of the human race, we are a society that is connected to each other.

Another one-- they were wild, they had piercings nn crap back then.  But they want to improve and mend their lives now.  they have seen [[the error of their ways]]]

I have offered criticism of the recent remake movie Charlie's angels and the accompanying Beyonce song.  Perhaps I was too critical of specifics and I should have focused more on the positive cultural affects.  I feel I should atone for my harshness therein.

Drew Barrymore.  I remember back in the 90s she was an absolute mess, with more entries on her social and personal rap sheet than a career criminal has of violence.  But she has now evolved into a lovely human being, and dare I say, a notable colleague in feminism and praiseworthy professional.

I remember the first instance of when I saw a spark of humanity and decency from her.  There was a PSA of sorts on TV, a very creative one.  She was encouraging young women to vote.  As a way of getting people's attention, obviously she didn't just do that spur-of-the-moment in real time as they were filming the commercial, she burned a bra in closing the commercial. The writers, producers, etc. had the really cool idea to hearken back to the greats, the founding mothers of this country.  Chances are, Drew Barrymore herself was one of the producers of the commercial, seeing as to the fact that she was one of the producers of the recent Charlie's Angels.

Actually, no.  The first time I saw drew Barrymore and was very pleasantly surprised that she had turned over a new leaf-- was the "Never Been Kissed" movie.  It was adorable and cute and moral and hilarious and fun.  She was innocent but intelligent, a nuance that is lost on far too many people regarding situations in real life.

So it is very possible for someone to turn their life around and make sure that right here, right now, from this moment on forward, they will make the right decisions and make a healthy life for themselves.

So instead of worrying about what they did in their past lives, how they conducted themselves in the past, let us focus on planning for the future.

Let us focus our energies on the future tense.

The Myth Of The Noble Poor Person

We have all heard the common wisdom.  “It is often the poorest man that leaves his children the greatest inheritance.”  The person was not blessed with riches, everything was not handed to them on a silver platter.  They had to work hard to get everything they have, common sense therefore dictates that they must be more appreciative of everything they have.  They earned everything with their bare hands.

No one, however, warned us of the hateful bitterness, the resentment, the seething jealousy and vitriol that they spew and with which they regard middle-class and upper-class people.

“Why shouldn’t I get a piece of the pie however I want?  Those rich people have so much, they have everything, I have nothing, but more importantly, I was given nothing in the first place.”  This is closer to the common forthhurlings that we hear from poor people in the stead of any gentle wisdom.

Not to mention the gold-digger tendencies.
---
They actually see drugs and prostitution as viable career options.  You think these people are somehow noble??

Someone who had a hardscrabble life, from grinding poverty and possibly grew up in a violent home -- you think they're going to have normal, healthy judgment and outlook on life?  No way.  That hard life, having to scratch and claw, it's really going to skew their perceptions of everything. It will twist their perceptions of circumstances, of other people, of other people who have more than them.

No, they're going to be bitter resentful, seething with vitriol and hate at the people who had a comfy cushy life and apparently had everything handed to them on a silver platter.  This is from their pov, not mine.

***
There was a magazine blurb about a person whose family did not have much money growing up, and now that the person married into money, the person was lavishly spending, throwing money around right and left.

What the hell...??  This is something I had honestly never foreseen.  You mean to tell me that poor people actually become irresponsible with money...??  I’m talking about irresponsibility if they suddenly receive a lot of money after having grown up poor, that is.  You are telling me that they don’t know how to handle a sudden avalanche.  They think they are overjoyed to suddenly be receiving all this, when in truth they are overwhelmed and ill-equipped to handle it.  Sudden onslaught of cash -- they simply do not know how to handle it.  They do not have the emotional maturity.  They have no self-discipline, no self-restraint.

Rich people, as this vein of thought goes, are used to having money.  Therefore they can handle it both mentally and logistically -- they are used to managing and controlling large sums.  They probably run big successful businesses and stuff.  They keep it cool.  They are much more mature and level-headed about it.

This is truly something I had not predicted.  Growing up I was taught that poor people are thankful for everything they have and for what little they have been given, and therefore they would not splurge and waste money on useless crap.  And they would instead give a sizeable percentage of their gains to charity.  That is the school of thought with which I had grown up.
---
Which is not to say that I am entirely against socialism.  Nor entirely against capitalism, mind you.

The results are in.  If the noble poor person exists, it is a dwindling species.

Why People Commit Crime

Why Poor Starved Poverty-Stricken People Commit Crime
[[they have nothing to lose]]

Why Rich People Commit Crime
[[[they won't lose anything]]

Why Middle Class People Cannot Commit Crime

They have too much to lose.  But at the same time they cannot afford top-of-the-line lawyers -- therefore they will lose it all.  So they are stuck in an opportunity limbo.

I think that a lot of middle class people, and I myself am guilty of this, tend to think they have it harder than either lower class or upper class. We have the typical middle class gripes. We are in a middle income “crunch,” especially when it comes to paying for higher education. Not rich enough to afford all the material possessions I want or *necessities* like education, not poor enough to receive government financial aid. I think, though, that there are ways around this problem -- a person could apply for scholarships.

As for having to work hard to get them -- well, that’s life. You have to work hard to receive help, and once you are in college, you have to work hard then anyway. It is obvious, though, that poor people have it much worse off than rich people, who can afford everything they need as well as everything they want. Health insurance, legal cooperation, fancy cars, you name it. I think tax cuts for the rich is ridiculous. And I think it is rather stuck up to say that the blues is less high class than opera. Both are cultured forms of music. Both take time and hard work and precision to create distinct tunes, melodies, lyrics, the actual sound, the feel of the type of music.

I can sort of see where the “disgruntledness” of middle class people stems from, though. It is not entirely far-fetched. When I was working at Harris Teeter for two years, I saw many, many people who were on food stamps. Many of these people were buying things that would be considered “luxury” foods, such as crab legs and prime cut steaks, as well as things that are not necessities, like potato chips and cake mix. Why in the world would people who are supposedly struggling to get by need crab legs and potato chips?

What was most surprising was that some of the people who were on food stamps seemed to be affluent professionals who had just gotten off work in the evening.  They were well-dressed decent employed folks that still had their ID tags, like the kind you see bank tellers wearing, pinned to their lapels. Why in the world would they need to be on food stamps? And how did they qualify for food stamps? Obviously, they cheated and somehow lied on their tax forms or food stamp applications just to get free money.

I want everyone to realize, though, that in many cases, this weird stereotype (I think that’s what it is) is not true. The majority of people on food stamps whom I saw at HT looked lower class and poor -- their clothes were old rags and their kids looked like they hadn’t been showered in days. Although these people did sometimes take advantage of their food stamp “connection” and bought foods that are not necessities. And when people lie about needing help, they deprive the people who really are poverty-stricken from getting help. Many of these poverty dwellers don’t realize how they can get help -- not just with food, but also with education and mental health.

Social classes in high-income countries of the world are much better off than the social classes in low-income countries of the world. In many third world countries, the rich are able to afford servants, but they do not have indoor heating or air conditioning. Washing machines in third world countries are very scarce. Sure the servants do the clothes washing, but do you realize how much strain this puts on everybody? Many places do not have state or city-regulated garbage disposal systems. So people just throw their garbage right out on to the street in front of their homes. Most of the upper class rich do not do this, but the uneducated poor far outnumber them, and they do toss garbage wherever they get a chance.

The town I live in is quite an affluent town, generally speaking, though it does have its share of lower-class neighborhoods. I’m not sure where my town manages to get its funding from the state. I attended one of the two high schools and took AP classes -- as did about 60 or 70 students in my class. We did not have to pay for our end-of-year exams -- although they had cost $75 per exam per subject per student. We were able to take them absolutely for free. How could School District Three afford this expense? Actually, I’m glad they did -- I took four exams myself, and I did well on all of them.

There are some serious social problems that are there no matter what social class it is. For example, domestic violence is a problem that occurs in all social classes -- rich, middle class, and poor, and also in all races and countries. This is nothing less than depressing, angering, and outrageous. Nobody should have this problem, no matter what their social class or race, because it is violence against women, and as such, is a crime against humanity. We tend to assume that only people of lower-class status have problems. I’m not saying they don’t! They do have more than enough problems – not being able to afford food or pay any of their regular bills; they don’t have health insurance and if they get seriously sick, they’re screwed. But in addition to all that, domestic violence doesn’t help anybody’s situation.

I was surprised to learn of this myself, because you know how people think that being refined and upper class which must mean they are educated, they certainly wouldn’t have a problem like this. But no -- it’s there. And this is a problem that few people are comfortable talking about, not just because it goes against the majority of people’s comfort zone and morals. But also in order to make themselves feel better, feel less guilty about not doing more to stop and prevent it, people tend to blame the victim. As in, why doesn’t she just leave her husband or boyfriend or whomever? I agree that she should, but also the person committing the crime should be punished. I don’t believe any insanity pleas like, oh, the man didn’t know what he was doing, or worse, that the woman was asking for it. These are ridiculous excuses.

There are resources and to help these victimized women and many state laws are getting more strict to help these victimized women. The situation is always worse for lower-class women. Unfortunately, many don’t realize they can get help.

Overall, there are way too many problems facing people today, no matter what the social class, but I think it is a universal and completely understandable, true consensus that poor, uneducated, lower-class people have it the worst. As members of the human race, we all have a responsibility to help any way we can.

Interesting Rich And Poor People

Why Rich People Are Fascinating

They have traveled all over the world, they have seen the world.  They have knowledge of world economy, of other cultures, they have met all sorts of different people, they have a much more well-informed world view.

They have expended their horizons.  They have enriched their lives by learning more about the whole world and all the puzzling, odd, nonplussing curios in it.  They know about different mindsets/ which are very contrasted to the American way of, "I want to get mine, shove people out of the way, step on people's toes.”

They know that for all the American blustering about competition, Americans are still very wary of actual intelligence and talent.  Americans are extremely suspicious of anyone who is naturally gifted at science and mathematics.  Americans are convinced and have managed to convince their young people, that "why do I need to learn trigonometry?  I'll never need this math stuff in real life."

Why Poor People Are Fascinating

Because they are survivors.  Trials tribulations.  They have had to face so much hardships in life.  Hopefully it has allowed them to grow.  They have grown into a stronger tougher person.  They know their strengths.

They have been tested at every facet.  They have been forced to face adversity at every turn.  Their journey is their story.  Their journey is their triumph.  Of overcoming insurmountable odds.

Science As A Path To Spirituality

Studying science is my path to God.  It is my form of spirituality; I seek truth and guidance in it.  I pursue the path of knowledge, unlocking the secrets and mysteries of the universe.  Science versus religion is a silly non-issue.  Stop already kicking up a matter that has already been settled.

Some dumass closed-minded psychologically stunted and emotionally shallow atheist will start infuriating and foaming at the mouth that it is not possible to be both a dedicated scientist and spiritual mystic.

Well, I'm sorry atheist, that that is not what YOU decide, or it is not the way YOU think..  you need to realize that not everyone thinks the way that you do.

*Of course* studying evolution and science led me to stronger belief in God.  why should it not?  I can be both an intelligent, well-informed, well-studied scientist -and- simultaneously be a strongly religious person.  I am capable of handling it.  my mind is not small or one-dimensional.

who says I can't?
oh, you say other scientists say I can't.

oh.  so what you are saying is that you don't **really respect other people’s opinions.  you are not welcomng to diverse ideas.

no, you do not.  you are not truly open-minded and free speech and freedom of thought.  ffreedom of thought means freeomd of thought for everyodyb  includuling chirisitans.

either practice what you preach and DO be truly open-minded --- or be honest and admit that you are not.

what you are basically saying is that your mind is not capable of handling two seemingly dichotomous ideas.  I am sorry that your mind is so narrow that you ar unable to reconcile thse two beliefs with each other.

I'm sorry that YYOu cannot reconcile these two sides of a merely superficial dichotomy.  in your narrow mind, these two aspects of the human endeavor shall always be forever divided.  with one never crossing paths with the other.  I pity you this barricaded mental existence that you occupy.  you are spiritually unfulfilled, malnourished as a human being.

there is a mental block in your mind.  just because you have not found it yet, does not mean no one else can.

I suppose I function on a higher plane of existence than you do.

You need to be a bit more open-minded.  Especially considering how much you harp and screech and scream that religious types should be more open-minded.

Social Experiment, Part X

Society’s rigid, inflexible roles that it has carved out for people.  No room for growth, for evolution, for acceptance.  No room for expression of individuality.  Society’s cruel strict domineering roles state, nay, they order that men not be allowed to be a bit looser, to express themselves more freely.

Written in blood and carved in stone.  Rigid unyielding ordered structures pre-determined roles

All we have for young men is violence.  That is it.  That is the only socially acceptable outlet of energy, aggression, pent-up frustration that needs to be let off like so much steam, that is available for young men.

Society has deemed it unallowable, unacceptable for young men to have natural, healthy, expressions of their emotions.  No natural acceptable, expectable expression of sexuality allowed from young men.  They have all this pent-up energy, and they need to be able to break free.

Young women have it easy -- micro skirts, hoochie jeans, stiletto heels, clear heels, bare midriffs, tube tops.  They have some sort of colored plastic bargain bracelets that apparently they wear if they do specific sexual jobs.  They have easy access to all these expressions of sexuality that they can turn to.  These free, healthy, and natural expressions of sexuality are available at any retail store.

And almost all the stores in beach towns.  Strange men walk around with video cameras and bark at young women to flash their bodies, i.e., to lift up their shirts and underclothing to show their naked bodies to said strange men with cameras.  Young women can turn to any of these avenues for guidance, to know what to do, to learn how to handle their changing and growing sexuality.

But we have no analogous free, natural, accessible, healthy expressions of their bodies for young men.  No revealing clothing.  No freeing, liberating, natural shoes that indicate what sort of attitude this young man has in regards to his own sexuality.  No convenient jewelry or charms that give some sort of hint about his attitudes towards sex, about what his limitations might be or as should be more often the case -- about how far he would be willing to go.  No indicators that would give onlookers a clue at a quick glance as to what sort of sexual tasks a given young man would be willing to do.

Like I said, the young people nowadays can take a quick glance at a young woman's cheap plastic molded bracelets and can instantly recognize it as an outward expression of her sexuality.

There is no parallel convenient, easy-to-understand marker that would enable a young man to reveal to other people who he aspires to be.  In terms of happy sexual favors.

We cannot ignore this growing need from the young men of society any longer.  That would allow this young man to have some help, to find his footing in this world.  That would give him a chance to connect with other human beings, that would give him an opportunity to make a place for himself in this world.  It would give him a subtle push in the right direction.

So many young men today are at a loss.  They do not know what to do with themselves.  They are not sure of how exactly they fit into this world.  This is a growing, ever-changing, dynamic world.  They need guidance, they need some hint as to what is real and true.

They should be able to have access to the same resources of guidance and truth and reality that young girls have.  These young men should have guidance especially in regards to their own growing and changing sexuality.

There should be strange women walking around with video cameras intoning young men to lower the front of their pants and reveal to the world their selves.  Without these forms of guidance for expression of sexuality and truth, for the bigger picture _is_ truth, young growing men are simply lost.

Young girls are learning about their bodies.  They are learning about their sexuality.  They are learning that their bodies are changing and it is only natural for them to want to express to the world that they are becoming women.  So too, it is only natural that young boys might feel lost and a little bit confused about their sexuality.

It is simply an unjust, unfair misfortune that young boys are not given sufficient sexual role models to emulate in their own lives.  It is unjust that young men are not given hints, or any guiding compass whatsoever that would allow them to know how to best to conduct their sexuality so that it is pleasing to those around them.  Oh, why don't more people think of the children?
===

And *Scene.*

Social Experiment, Part IX

The collective consensus of society...
Men must be warmly welcomed to express their sexual energy at all times, in any and all settings, in any and all situations and locales.  The boardroom, the office, social gatherings, sporting events.

In the professional arena, in the educational arena, in the social and public arena, and in the political arena.  For job interviews, for college admissions interviews, some homeowner interviews.

As we are all probably aware now, the suggestion that women dress professionally and conservatively is an oppressive, strict, domineering dogma that keeps women submissive, passive, and obedient.

It is downright criminal that we have not reached this same level of enlightenment in regards to men's sexuality.  We are effectively subjecting men to an oppressive, strict, domineering dogma.  We absolutely MUST invite all men out to the vast circle of liberation, so that men are not kept submissive, passive, and obedient.

If we do not, then we cannot call ourselves liberated, open-minded, empowered people.

Whatever the place, whenever the time.  If there are people there, if there is a crowd of any kind gathered, then it is an appropriate time for a man to engage in healthy, human expression of sexuality.

And I cannot stand that this same offer of human connection, of that yearning human need, to be with other people, to be close to other people, has not been extended towards young men.

That yearning need to connect, to be with other people.  To make a human connection, a

And what is the one thing that unites, harmonizes, and equalizes all people?  Sexuality.  I believe that it is positively criminal that women are allowed this natural, healthy expression in plain society of such a basic drive for human existence -- and that men are not.

Is society trying to subliminally say that men are not human?  If we do not embrace the thought of men expressing their sexuality at all times, then unfortunately that is exactly what we are saying.

So join me in this effort to challenge society's pre-held assumptions and prejudices.  Join me in this effort to regard men as fully-formed, whole humans.

By encouraging them to be pole strippers out in public in broad daylight.

Let’s change what society dictates in its narrow-minded definitions of what constitutes "proper" and "correct."  Encourage men to express their innate sexuality at every conceivable opportunity.  like Green Day said so many years ago, "are you locked up in a world that's been planned out for you."

Social Experiment, Part VIII

So it is okay for women to have this self-confidence, but it is not okay for men to have this same sort of self-confidence?  Surely not.

We are hearing all over pop culture and modern society that pornography should be celebrated as a completely uninhibited expression of a woman's sexuality.

If that is the case then we also need to realize that men too should be able to use this vehicle of pornography as a completely unbridled, unabashed expression of a man's sexuality.  It can be and it is the ultimate expression of a very private, very personal act from a person.  Therefore it is the most honest, the most real part of a person, that they can express and acknowledge out in public.  If women can do it, then so can men.  If that is truly the case, which it undoubtedly is, then we as concerned, involved members of society should also be nurturing and encouraging men to express themselves in pornography.

This duty to help and cajole men to feel more free and relaxed in pursuing pornography as well as striptease as a regular sideline of life, equal to any other hobby or interest, is a responsibility incumbent upon every single one of us.  If we are to truly name ourselves equally caring members of the human race, then this is a noble calling we all must heed.

And more importantly, men should never feel ashamed to admit this to their peers.  They should feel welcomed and comfortable.  They should feel that they are expressing a healthy, normal aspect of their selves.

But, you might say, if a man is walking around half-naked that most likely means he is trawling for tail.

And, what?  You think that if a woman is walking around half-naked, she is not doing the same thing?  We have got to stop with this exasperating double standard.  If society is encouraging and accepting and condoning of women expressing their sexuality in all settings, situations, then we must be equally accepting and welcoming of men so that they may feel welcome to express their sexuality out in public society.

More importantly, what is wrong with a man walking around buck-naked and feeling free and comfortable in his own skin?

I do not condone double standards in any shape or form.  Allowing and encouraging women to express their sexuality while at the same time NOT allowing and encouraging men to express their sexuality -- that is a double standard.

And double standards are never a positive tenet of societies.  Double standards are ALWAYS a negative manifestation of people's secretly-harbored prejudices.  They are always a result of the lesser-informed members of society's pent-up, deep-seated superstitions and fears.

More Middle-Class Employment Rejects

Another job that mids cl wh people will never ever accept.
Do you know what nursing assistants do?  They clean shttt off of old people's asses.  That is what they have to do.

Well, okay to be totally fair to mcwss that sniff, turn their noses up.
they care of the infirm.
----
Back in sixth grade-- nose turned up was akin to a mountain peak.

""they have their noses turned so far up away from the riffraff,"" from manual labor, actual work, that there is a layer of snow [[tiiping, brushing, encircling, dusting, sparklign., frsiting, icing ]]] the peak like cake frosting

--- so start off with the ::  math and science,, white kids avoid because these fields are incredibly dorky
===>>  but then also--- they ALSO think they are too good to study vocational and technical fields. -- like learning a skilled trade.  Skilled labor type work.
-they are too haughty and stuck-up and conceited.
->so gradually move into this slow revealing, like pouring molasses in January.
--- This honestly was not **as** apparent to me at first.  But then it gradually dawned on me.  For goodness sake, they don't even make eye contact with service workers like grocery store cashiers, mail people at the post office.
^No assembly line worker for them.

Social Experiment, Part VII

There exist no "Boys gone wild" mass market videotapes available for sale.  There are no stripper cardio fitness classes marketed at young men.  There are no pole-dancing fitness classes targeted for young men.

Why not?  I simply do not understand this odd double standard.  If young women are gifted the opportunity to get in physical shape and at the same time be encouraged to express their sexuality, then we can afford the same privileges to young men.

Boys are taught to keep their sexuality under wraps at all times.  This sort of general collective attitude is not healthy.  This fosters a culture of shame, of being coaxed into thinking that having any pride in one's own flesh is sinful.  This unfortunately inhabits a distaste and disapproval against the male body in its full glorious natural naked form.

We should be celebrating the naked male form in all its manifestations.  That means with billboards bearing the naked male form, as well as with people walking around and getting on with their everyday lives.

And besides, if a young man is getting into shape, then he is healthy and attractive, and he has worked hard to achieve that physique.  That is all the more reason to warmly welcome and encourage any expression of sexuality that he has.

Here are more self-esteem building articles for men.

Socialism vs. Capitalism- a Brief Overview

Something very important needs to be clarified about these two diametrically opposite approaches to handling a nation’s economy.  Socialism assumes poor people are honest, and capitalism assumes rich people are honest.  Neither notion is entirely true.  That’s right, I said it.  Poor people are not entirely honest.

Capitalism assumes that rich people will donate money to worthy causes out of the kindness of their hearts and of their own volition.  And that they do not need to be prompted, let alone forced, to do so.  It assumes that they will voluntarily take some time out of their busy schedules, and some money out of their busy Swiss bank accounts, to bless the little people.  Assumes rich embezzle, tax fraud ____

Socialism assumes that poor people would never ever lie about whether or not they are at least trying.  Socialism founded government programs that help out poor people a little now and then.  This is by giving them money as long as they are working full-time, but it has to be at a low-paying job which is fine because that shows that the person _is_ doing work, and it’s not his/her fault that their employer gives crappy pay.  As long as the poor person is actively seeking work and preferably has found a job.

Socialism assumes that a poor person would be honestly working and would not just take the easy way out by merely _claiming_ they are working.  "How dare you, how dare you accuse me of not actually working, I would _never_ pretend to work by writing down on a piece of paper for government cheques that I worked, when in fact I was busying myself with eating Cheetos and watching Jerry Springer when I woke up at three o’clock in the afternoon."

Social Experiment, Part VI

All throughout human history, men's sexuality has been kept under wraps.  They have been oppressed by society, by societies that deemed it inappropriate for men to express their sexuality freely and publicly.  They have been oppressed by themselves, also drummed home to them by societies that dictated this directive.  By societies that forced these sort of oppressive social regimes.

Men have been taught to be ashamed of their bodies.  They have been shamed into thinking that they should be fully clothed, in all places, at all times.

By monk friar and religious orders.
By polite proprietary society.
By academic societies such as Oxford University, University of Paris, other such established traditional institutions of higher education.

And they witnessed these messages, and took these messages to heart, and unfortunately they ingested and internalized them, to their own detriment.  And the men inevitably turned these societal messages into self-imposed limitations and ceilings.

Men have never had such creative outlets, such allowable expressions of freedom and comfort.  They have not really ever been given the opportunity, the ability, to express their sexuality.

How often do you hear women talking about a naked beautiful sweet innocent pure man just waiting to be plucked?  Women hardly ever do, and this is not a good thing.

Why cannot men be valued for their sexual ability to please and bring happiness to someone else through sensuality?  Through sexual talents and skills?  Through the pleasure they could potentially bring to women through their bodies?  Or even simply through being admired for their physical presence?  There is simply no good reason for men's sexuality to be de-valued in this stifling nature.

Even in modern society, men are arrested when they are naked out in public.  What are we teaching young boys nowadays when we tell them that it is not okay to be free and liberated, that it is not okay to feel at home, comfortable, and natural in one's own skin?

Here are links to more self-esteem building articles for men.

Why Middle Class Whites Act Like This, or, Worse Middle-Class Snootiness

My theory of exactly why middle class white people act like this.  I do think it is accurate.  They want very badly to be upper-crust, so they act in the manner that they think upper-class people act.  Meaning they think that upper-class are racist people who do not acknowledge the fact that Asians even exist.

See, this is why they are only middle class.  Why they are not upper class.  Upper class people are aware where the global economy is going.  Where it is becoming increasingly focused.  Middle class people have no clue of the true news and current events in the world, where the most productive nation is, the gross national product being produced in what country.  They have no clue that we in the western countries are increasingly dependent on China and India for all of our technological needs, information, and help.

It needs to be emphatically declared that this is an __epidemic stigma__ that afflicts specifically middle-class white people from non-major cities.  rich white people do not act like this, and poor white people do not act like this.  For example, white people who grew up in, Philadelphia, Chicago, D.C., the Piedmont Crescent generally do not act like this.  They are just much more aware of things, and therefore are not easily fazed by Asians.  And they are aware of the existence of black people.

also, really country redneck farmers and people who go into the military are also generally good people.  yes, I stated redneck.  nice rednecks do exist.  the reason they are nice is that, generally speaking, they are busy all the time and do not have time to bother about white or non-white or all that shit.  what they're worried about is, are you going to be here on time so you can fix those sinks like you said you would?  are you going to pay me rent?  just deliver on your word and they're happy.

especial those that grate on my nerves are the ignorant whiny middle class white people who like music.  like "indie" or college rock bands, and know absolutely nothing about rhythm nblues, soul, any non-white music whatsoever.  such as the fact that the absolute most "cool" hiphop music to come out of the world nowadays is located in south london(?) ghettos -- and the caribbean apparently.  the carib also has a lot of western-ghetto indian people apparently.  hell, neither do I, but at least I do not pretend to be cool underground cutting edge of pop culture.

Social Experiment, Part V

Currently the way our society is modeled, a man is not allowed to express his sexuality other than as proxy through a female.  Think about it for a gentle moment.  When was the last time you saw a man feeling comfortable and free enough to express his sexuality and the fact that he is comfortable with his body -- simply because he wanted to?  As in, without needing a woman to validate him.

When was the last time you saw an admittedly attractive man feel comfortable enough in himself that he felt at home being nearly nude around other people?  Most likely all the recent times that you can recall, a man has only been bragging about a sexual encounter while he himself was fully clothed.

Again, that is just talk; it is simply hearsay.  None of that can be proven.  And most likely, he was not really invested much in the very conversation itself.  Most likely, his voice patterns, his tone, his inflection, all, did not truly reflect how passionate and sexual he felt about this supposed woman.

As you can see, the man does all of this because he is not truly comfortable with his own sexuality.  If he were truly comfortable, then he would not feel the need to gab stories about a hypothetical woman that supposedly was attracted to him.  If he were truly comfortable, then he would just express himself and would be able to integrate his sexuality into and of himself, simply in the way he talks, the way he walks, the way he carries himself and expresses himself.

It would not have to be in reaction or response to a woman, because again that is not him being comfortable in his own sexuality; it is as I said, only in response to a woman who happens to be there.  A man should be comfortable confident enough in his own mannerisms, in his own gestures, that he should be able to express his sexuality without needing a hypothetical imaginary woman to validate him as a sexual being.

You see how there is so much negativity surrounding general peoples' expectations of men's bodies and sexuality?  This double standard has got to stop.  If we have so much positivity and encouragement that nurtures women's sexuality, and we encourage women to be sexual beings out in public at all times, then we must treat men with an equal amount of respect

This is horrible.  This is the sproutlings of a police state in the making.

Here are links to more self-esteem building articles.
Part I of Men's Self-Confidence Revolution
Part II of Men's Self-Confidence Revolution
Part III of Men's Self-Confidence Revolution
Part IV of Men's Self-Confidence Revolution

Social Experiment, Part IV

Challenges men's roles and negative societal stereotypes.  Unhealthy stereotypes.  That of being the provider and strict domineering leader of the family.  Men should be encouraged to break free from these horrible oppressive roles that society dictates that they conform to.

They should break free, go with their heart, break the mold, dance to the beat of a different drum.  And that if they dream hard enough, then anything, ANYTHING, is possible.

We should have more male strippers and prostitutes.

We have kept men's bodies hidden away for far too long.  We have taught them to be ashamed of their bodies.  Women are always encouraged to strip in public as often as possible and this is definitely a good thing.  There cannot be any argument against that.  Anyone who says otherwise is as bad as Hitler.

Shouldn’t men be encouraged to be free and be proud of their bodies?  We have unfortunately, consciously or not, festered a culture that teaches men that they should be ashamed of their beautiful regal majestic forms, taught them to hide away and that women should lower their gaze if ever they encounter a naked man walking around on the street.

In the workplace, in school, in public life.  Every day, we are telling men that they should wear shirts that button up to the collar, that button down to the wrists, pants that go all the way past the ankles and reaching the heels of their feet.

Not an inch of skin are men allowed to display or be proud of.

And it seems, people as a collective consciousness, are unwittingly perpetuating [[[ festering, feeding ]]] this edict.  Any time if people encounter a naked man in pop culture or in public society, they express shock, horror, disgust, fear, nausea.  They say, "Ew gross, put some clothes on, or "keep it in your pants buddy."  However, if they similarly see a naked or near-naked woman, they say, "take it off honey," or "show us your t--s."

We have Times Square billboards advertising the TV show "look good naked."  This is a show that encourages women to feel free to express their sexuality out in public on 60-foot-high billboards.

Why are we not fostering, growing, and nurturing men's sexuality in the same manner?  We should be encouraging men to be much more free and liberated.  We should be encouraging men to feel comfortable with their bodies in all aspects, as procreators, as sexual beings.  We need to encourage men to feel that they should be on an equal footing with women.

Perhaps one day we can envision a universe in which men's sexuality is truly celebrated.  Not in covert, secretive, dark elusive manners such as simply talk.  But in a much more welcoming, safe, manner.  We need to try to actively transform this society into a safe place, a place where men can feel comfortable.  We need to be a more loving, accepting society that welcomes a man who wants to express his sexuality -- his OWN sexuality.

Here are links to more self-esteem building articles.
Part I of Men's Self-Confidence Revolution
Part II of Men's Self-Confidence Revolution

I Know How Artists Think Because I Am One Of Them

Most of the time we hear artists spew some crap about "break from the mold, go with your heart, don't care what anyone else thinks of them, independent, dance to the beat of your own drum," all that crap.  But if ever an artist tells you they don't care what other people think of them -- they are lying.  Simple and honest truth, they are lying, either to you or to themselves.

Artists care VERY, VERY MUCH what other people think of them.  Possibly even more so than most people, because artists are most active in their right-brain half, which is the lobe responsible for emotions, romantic notions, passion and feelings, also natural creative talents.  So they are hypersensitive to what people think of them.  (That’s why they go out of their way to declare that they don't care what people think of them.  They know the truth, and they are overcompensating trying too hard to prove to everyone the opposite.)

It is also why they go out of their way and expend quantifiable effort to offend, disgust, and be sensationalistic.  For the artist, it is MUCH, MUCH EASIER to be told, "Ohhh I'm sorry your drawing might very well be nice, oh but dearie me, it does not follow the technical guidelines or subject rules for the contest.  And therefore it is disqualified on technical grounds.  Such as the subject matter or content are not fitting for this category group of art, exhibit or whatever."

For the artist, it is much, much easier to be told that, than to be told, "Well, your drawing followed the technical guidelines, followed the rules of the contest and the wide casting call for people to submit their artwork, and was perfectly suitable -- but it’s just not good enough.  And therefore we will not be featuring it."

The first one is much easier to hear than the second.  The reason for this is that the first one is not truly a rejection.  It is simply a dismissal on technicalities.  It is merely a disqualification based on some paperwork grounds of rules, regulations, protocol, stuff like that.  Things that artists love to flout and mock.  it is not necessarily a commentary on the quality of the artist's work.

Whereas the second one is actually a rejection.  The second one truly involves the artist having gone through the effort of creating a piece of work, the artist pouring out its heart and soul, the artist expressing itself, for the sole purpose of being approved and appreciated by the art experts.  And then the hypothetical judges disapprove of and reject the artist.

So the artist is launching a preemptive strike.  They are disqualifying themselves from the contest or submission-call on purpose so that they can protect their own feelings from being hurt.  Another way of stating it is that the artist is hurting the judges before the judges can hurt the artist.

This all unwittingly plays right into the artist’s hands and gives them the green light.  Then they can get up on their high horse, they can act all haughty and lofty.  This permits them to recite all those rote lines of, “Oh you just don’t like creativity; you're so immature; you’re so afraid to take risks; you’re against self-expression; you're against freedom of speech,” all that crap.

I'm an artist myself so I know how they think.

Social Experiment, Part III

Some women try to use the excuse that when men do this, it is because they are vulnerable trapped, don't see any other way out, they are poor innocent pure little lily white lambs that did absolutely nothing to deserve this.

Men are so gullible.  When a woman does that, she is more than celebrated for it, but when men do that, all society is able to do is poo-poo and offer pity.

Why does society do this to men?  Why can society not see that a man expressing his sexuality in and of itself, should be a positive thing?  That this could be a turn in the right direction, a bit of evidence that society is finally on the right track again?  Why is it that all society seems capable of doing is offering sympathy, and underhandedly, hints at shame that the man "should" feel?

A strong confident, free-thinking reaction would follow thusly:
Ohmigosh that's so totally not true!  and if you don't like men that dress like independent freethinkers that follow their heart and break the mold and are not afraid to take risks then you're just intimidated by strong intelligent men who are in charge of their own life.

You’re just mad because I'm a capable, vibrant, confident man in charge of his own life.

Men, don't be so shy!  Show off your body.  You’ve earned the right.

Don’t be so shy.  Don’t be so quick to cover up and deny yourself your own right to self-expression.  Freedom of self-expression.  Don’t be ashamed of your body.  Be proud of your body.  If women have earned their right to show off their bodies and express their sexuality, then so have you.  You deserve to be confident and empowered like this.  Why should women have all the power in the form of girl-power?  Why shouldn't you feel empowered with your body and be proud of it?

You just can't handle the fact that I can go to job interviews, college admission interviews, and the workforce all while being confident and strong in my sexuality.  Women aren't the only ones who are multi-taskers.  Men are just as capable and adept at handling all facets of their being as women are.  Men can be professional, respectable, prestigious, and esteemed all without neglecting their sexuality -- just like women can.

Men, heed this call.  Who says you have to turn off your sexuality when you are in the work force?

If anyone ever tells you can't present yourself as a sexual being at a job interview, then they're just jealous that they can't handle being sexual while at the same time being a productive member of the job force, the way you can.

Capable of making your own decisions.
You don't need someone to do the thinking for you.  You can think for yourself.

Show everyone that you are an independent thinker.  Break free from the mold, think for yourself.

And what's wrong with wearing sexy clothes to a job interview?  If anyone anywhere raises any so-called objections to this, this is probably due to the fact that they just can't handle that you are a strong confident man who is in charge of your own life.

Well, if someone has a problem with that, then they just can't handle the fact that strong empowered liberated men exist who are much more mature and evolved than they.

And if they don't like that then THEY are the ones with the problem, not you.

Oh they're just jealous and they're intimidated by the fact that he's a strong capable man in charge of his own life.

If they can't accept that then they’re just jealous.

They're just jealous that this is a strong, able man who can reconcile all the facets of himself as a whole healthy human being.  They’re mad that they can't handle the same rigorous but ultimately exhilarating social psychological demands that he can.  They are simply mad that they cannot attain the same level of peace with himself that a strong man is able to.

Here are links to more self-esteem building articles.
Part I of Men's Self-Confidence Revolution
Part II of Men's Self-Confidence Revolution

Middle-Class Snootiness

Lamenting about the fact that they cannot get a job after college.
There seems to be a characteristic snootiness affecting the middle-class whites of America.  They think highly of themselves because they have a four-year college degree.  Well, this would be valid... if the degree were actually worth anything.

Not all college degrees are created equal.
///[[[[[They think that because they have a four-year college degree, this automatically makes them smarter than someone who only graduated from high school.]]]]

**And by the way, what do you mean there are no jobs?  There are TONS of jobs for someone with your qualifications.  Cashiering, working at grocery stores, working at McDonalds, janitor-- the custodial arts (that's from "breakfast club"), waitressing, hotel maid, customer service store clerk.

They think that to actually workkk is an affront to their dignity.  "I should go and get a job as a waiter??  How dare you!!"  "I should get a job as a janitor??  NUh-uh!!"

They take umbrage at the notion that since they cannot find a high-paying professional job right out of college, that they should ever humble themselves to the level of accepting a cashiering job.  "I went to college!  I'm not going to settle for a minimum wage job!"

Social Experiment, Part II

Here is a link to a previous self-esteem building article.
Part I of Men's Self-Confidence Revolution

We are subconsciously teaching men to be ashamed of their bodies.  We must encourage and support positive behavioral patterns.  We must bring about positively-received expression of their sexuality.  We must teach men to be proud of their bodies, to break free from the bounds, from society's chains that dictate what acceptable social behavior should be.

If at any time a glimpse of a man's chest is showing, he feels shy, and he feels compelled to button his shirt, readjust his collar, straighten his tie.  If at any time a man's ankle is showing, he feels obligated to pull his socks all the way up and make sure his pants reach all the way down.  After first making sure it is securely buttoned and the fly is securely fastened of course.

So far men are still only celebrating women's sexuality.  And in tandem they are ignoring their own.  When men talk about a supposed conquest over the weekend, do you actually think he is expressing his sexuality?  Who is truly being sexualized in this scenario?  The man?  No.  The woman.  Absolutely nothing wrong with that, we must encourage women to express their sexuality out in public at any time, at any opportunity, no matter what the social situation.

After all, expression of a personal private delicate matter such as an individual human being's sexuality is of course appropriate and welcome no matter what the social situation and location.  No question about that.

But it is positively devastating and most regrettable that this man is neglecting his own sexuality while he is in the process of acknowledging a woman's sexuality.  He is denying himself.  He is reduced to self-flagellating and he is denying himself access to his whole humanity as a unified being.  There is no good reason for this to continue whatsoever.  There is absolutely no good reason for a man, for any man, to feel that he must deny himself the right to express his sexuality as an independent aspect of his being, independent from any women that might cross his path.  He is starving and weak, and is keeping himself blind and helpless in the process of not acknowledging his own naked male body.

In the process of not expressing his sexuality and physicality, he is denying himself, himself.

There is no good reason for a male to feel he has to, be pressured into thinking he has to, to be forced into denying his right to express his sexual body as a healthy aspect of his whole, in and of itself.

As a society, we have neglected men's needs to express themselves sexually for far too long.  The man is only talking, this is hearsay, and most likely it is while he is still fully clothed.  He is not truly expressing his sexuality.  He is not truly appreciating his own beauty, he is not truly appreciating his own male body, he is not truly reveling in his own glorious naked male body, neither figuratively nor literally.

We are ignoring the fact that men also need to express every aspect of themselves.  Emotionally, psychologically, mentally, intelligence-wise, physically, and very much sexually.

We see how not being able to "look good naked" damages women's self-esteem.  Well, are men not creatures of emotion and psychology too?  Does it not damage their self-esteem to be too reserved and repressed and not being allowed to "look good naked?"  Should they not also get the opportunity to be free and comfortable with their bodies, and to be able to look good naked while out in public?

If we are to live as a free, enlightened, advanced, evolved, civilized society, then this means that all, but ALL, members of society must enjoy equal opportunities to express themselves sexually.

Social Experiment

(((((Let’s see how long this lasts before someone calls it on its bull3h:+.)))))

I have seen for a fact that women who are readers of various magazines -- People, Reader's Digest, that one punk women's mag (not necessarily fem, just punk, i.e., ugly with intentionally bad hair) angrily object to men being treated as sex objects pieces of meat.  But they seem to have nary a qualm when women are treated in the exact same way.

Why in the world are we resorting to these negative stereotypes of men?
Why can’t a man’s expression of overt sexuality ever be seen as a good thing?  It is a horrible cult of victimhood that we are perpetuating these myths and rumors.  If a man is expressing his sexuality in public, that could be seen as a good thing if we as a society simply choose to see it as a good thing.

The current wave of girl power, i.e., feminism has gone to an even further degree to ignore men and their needs psychologically, emotionally, physically.  The pendulum has swung too far the other way (pun intended).  We encourage and support women to strip naked in the streets at all places all times.  Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

However, we unwittingly have been forsaking men and their needs to express themselves sexually.  All over society, we hear men and young boys are coaxed and guided to get rid of their virginity.  And this is fine, of course.  Evolution tells us that as soon as people reach puberty, there is really no compelling reason for them to remain chaste or pure.  Which, by the way, are demeaning terms to resort to calling people.

But is this truly encouraging men to express themselves sexually?  Think about it for a gentle moment.  Are they wearing their sexuality on their sleeves the way empowered women do so?  Whatever supposed sexuality in which men are engaging is behind closed doors.  They are not truly expressing themselves out in public, in the everyday workaday, as a general routine of life.  Whatever sexuality they might be practicing, we only see little glimpses and snippets of it sneaking around here and there.  Being expressed freely and in an uninhibited manner.

When they have a sexual encounter over the weekend, how do they usually proceed?
As an intrinsic part of who they are, as a fiber of their very being?
Do they conduct themselves for the rest of the week as a sexually-aware, sexually-comfortable human?
Are they comfortable being sexual and liberated and expressive for themselves, for their own sexuality, unto and of itself, for their own sake, whether a woman is present or not?

Or as is much more often the case,
Do they usually express their sexuality only with that one given female?
Do they express their sex in the heat of the moment, only to return to a staid, buttoned-down existence the next day?

I Know How Writers Think Because I Am One Of Them

When writers say stuff like, "gosh, I'm so humble, I never in a million years in my wildest fantasies, ever *dreamed* I would become world-famous and read all over the world and translated into two hundred languages, ohmigosh, it's such an honor just to be  *mentioned* in the same breath as Stephen-King/John-Grisham/James-Patterson/Michael-Crichton.  Ohmigosh, I never ever besties forever and ever had wanted to become renowned or recognized or respected as a well-known writer.  I never ever finders-keepers-losers-weepers eenie-meenie-mynie-mo-catch-a-tiger-by-the-toe expected to get on the New York Times Bestsellers List.  I never expected to become famous, I just wanted to be published.  I never expected anyone to actually read my works and acknowledge that my writing exists, I just wanted to be in print."

I've read quotes by musicians that also in their own words "never expected to have such a huge following, never expected to have such a devoted fan base, they were just happy to be able to record their music."  "Ohmigosh, I NEVER ever ever ever besties forever and ever DREAMED that I would ever be mentioned in the Billboard music popular lists.  Or end up on the New York Times Bestseller List and achieve commercial success.  Or be mentioned in Oprah's Book Club."

Yeah, right.  Bull shyte.

Give me a break.  Yes, you did.  EVERY writer/musician/artist/etc. wants to be world-famous and renowned and respected and become a household name.  If they say they don't, they are either kidding you or kidding themselves.

**incl excerpt I read a quote somewhere from someone, about how "on some level, everyone wants everything they ever write to be published."  ...And I realized this was true.  I remember first witnessing and becoming aware of this back when I was in third grade, eight years old.  There was a storage shack in the apartment complex, with hundreds of abandoned, forgotten, discarded curiosities[[curios]].  Our neighbor was with us, and she happened upon an old diary ___

The Soul Being Intertwined With (Moral) Professional Success

For a very long time, I was incredibly bored with the word "soul."  When people would talk about losing their soul, it didn't have any effect on me whatsoever.  Even when the topic discussed was profound and serious, and even tragic sometimes, I still didn't get it.

I don't give much credence to the word "soul."  It sounds like some silly bs, mostly because the only times I heard it was when high school kids are talking about soulmates.  Or hippies saying that anyone who wants to earn a decent living "has no soul."

Never mind the fact that the person in question is earning it though probably moral and honest means.  They want to make an honest buck.  Simply the fact that they want to make money automatically qualifies them as a counterargument to "ohm, I have a soul."
Usually makes me burst out laughing and then yawn and flip to the next page out of boredom.

And when I hear the word soul, I thing of a bag of sputum and mucus, mostly mucus. A big drip like an uvula hanging in the back there.  one time I was sick and I could feel the mucus dripping in the back of my throat post-nasal drip except it was much thicker and tasted gross n slimy-salty , it was thick infected mucus I think, and that's what I picture for some reason when I hear the word soul.

Not Hardly, or, Perhaps Even Worse; or Disillusionment

Let’s get a few things straight.  Writing in and telling me you are a liberal earns you absolutely no credence with me.  There are puh-LENTY of liberal misogynists in this world.  This is a fact that every human being on the planet needs to clarify and permanently brand onto his or her brain:  so-called liberals are absolutely, equally as hating of women as conservatives, on a number of different issues.

A strange new development has emerged out in the editorial opinion pieces. Liberals have always heretofore been hailed as the harbingers of revolution, the bastions of positive social change.  But lately, it seems they have revealed their true ugly natures.  It appears that they are gruesome dumbazzez.

You liberals accuse conservatives of being stuck-up, snobbish, conceited, displaying holier-than-thou behavior.

[[[[[[[after reeling from accusations of being ashmd bod]]]]]]

Why?  Because they have standards?  Because they want to be true to themselves rather than kowtow to the morass of your opinion (and of your ilk)?  You are making the claim that the fact that conservatives have morals is the reason you are superior to them. You are essentially saying that the fact that they are human beings who have boundaries that need to be respected, that they have limits beyond which is disgusting for them, is what makes you better than them.

That one wasn't too hard.  But this next one is perplexing, extremely disappointing, heartbreaking, and did I mention confusing?  Unfortunately I had to learn this.

Writing in and telling me you are a woman earns you absolutely no credence with me.  There are puh-LENTY of women who have this weird, sick, permeated hatred of women.

There are a disturbingly large number of editorials, authors of fiction, writers, people I have encountered in daily life, etc. whom I have read over the years, who cannot stand the sight of a woman in power.  For some reason or other, they seethe anger and vitriol at women who have power and authority in the government, in military, in any form of genuine societal authority.

Katie in 9th grade who said, "I don’t think girls are able to handle Citadel military school."  Sara w. in 8th grade who said, "I can't stand Hillary Clinton."  Author of "Animorphs" book series who thinks that the only way a woman could possibly be in power, is that she must be bad.  She must be working for the bad guys.  Consider the sheer number of people who don’t like Hillary Clinton.

Some black women who, when encountering facts of any men's infidelities, sexual promiscuity, unfaithfulness.  For example Bill Clinton cheating on Hillary, they will say, "He's a man, he's going to act that way."  Some black women making excuses for misogynistic lyrics, rap music videos, the way the gangsta rap culture portrays women specifically in general.  They say, oh well that's just the culture, it's just how it is.  That one girl in Columbia College public speaking class.

It would cease to be "how it is" if women refused to accept it.

Crispy Critters Cereal

The eighties were so nice.  We had jingles for consumer products.  We had little mascots, little representatives for those products.

"Oh here comes Crispy Critters, a good wholesome bunch; the low sugar cereal with lots of c-rr-runch.  ...Indubitably delicious."  It was a wonderful, happy, or at the very least, caring and sincere era in which to grow up.

Not like nowadays with all their postmodern jaded ironic people.  "What, you want to be sincere and un-ironic and straightforward and honest and open, and say exactly what you mean?  You’re saying you _don't_ want to leave people wondering if they got your meaning, by speaking in passive-aggressive tones of ironic code and sarcasm?  You’re saying you _don't_ want to leave people slightly offended and insulted by speaking in underhanded insults?  What, you want to make sure you two in the conversation understand each other and have a polite civilized discourse?  ohmigosh, so lame and uncool.  What, you want fun and passion for your work?  So boring."

Stupid cynical ironic.  Oh you’re just too cool for Christmas, aren't you?  Ungrateful too-cool-for-school jackazzez.

Insincerity And Irony Are Cool

totally insincere at all times.  bc they are too afraid of looking liek they care or are happy peppy energentci.

they are too afraid of getting hurt.  so they exhibit a total lack of feelings, a total lack of wearng their heart on their sleeves.  a total lack of not expressing theie loving heart.s  they see this lack of feelings as sternthg.  if they don't have feelings, if nothing registers on theier feeligns, then nothing can hurt them.  they wonj't get hurt.

It's like as if they are overly concerned w impressing the cool kids.  Then they won’t be laughed at.  then they won't be made fun of.  in high school, the kids that were really involved inthe commnnjiyt, doing cimmunuyr outreach programs, doing volunteer, work , volunteering at a soup ktichen, giving the homeless showers or whatever.  these were the preppy good do-gooder kids with way too much eneryg and team spirit and always trying to rally up the student bodyy to get them to havfe some school spirit.  how incredibly dorky.  "come on, gang!  we can do it!"

it's cool not to care.  it's cool not to be sincere.  it's cool not to ever show your trye feelings, it's cool to display to everyone that nothing touches you, that nothing affects you, that nothing slices through that cool metallic esxterior to get at the warm soft sponginess underneath.
never coming right out and *saying what they mean.*  alwasy talking in cirecle,s aleawyas speaking in code.  always beaitn around the bush.

The Subject of Smoking versus Drinking

We have all these laws everywhere that put an iron foot down with the notion that smoking is bad.  Smoking anything at all.  Cigarettes, marijuana.

Okay, fair enough.  Yet the laws are unbelievably lax when it comes to drinking alcohol.  Tequila, liquor, beer, wine, vodka.

This is even though alcohol leads to a multitude of crime and other social problems.  Drunken frat parties on college campuses.  Date rape.  College campus rapes.  Drunk driving.

Just so we're clear, in no way whatsoever am I excusing people's behaviors when they are drunk.  There is no such thing as "under the influence" in the sense that it therefore absolves people's behaviors when they are drunk.  Drunk people voluntarily, consciously chose to get drunk.  Drunk people chose to get behind the wheel and endanger the lives of innocent people on the road.

Drunk people chose to
Alcohol is not some sort of mystical powerful force, wherein ingesting it [[conveys]] possession by an evil spirit.

But where is the consistency?

If drinking anything at all is okay, then smoking anything at all should equivalently be okay.

From what I have read in studies and polls and seen on news reports, smoking cigarettes does not lead to severely impaired driving.  Smoking cigarettes does not lead to foggy thinking nor slurred speech, [[bad judgment,  Smoking cigarettes does not lead to violent crime.

Alcohol leads to a hell of a lot more

I personally have never touched a drug or cigarette, etc. in my life.  But I can easily detect the ridiculous inconsistency in the laws regarding any and all kinds of chemical dependencies.

Blustering Bravado CEOs

The vast majority of women's magazines are a severe insult to my intelligence.  Not to mention an insult to my morals.  (Sigh of boredom and wanting to move on.)  I am well aware that it is not cool to mention morals.  But no one has ever accused me of being "cool."  Nope.  I wear the badges of Nerd and Geek with immense pride.

For all their blustering bravado that they are "career women" [[[[whow done't have time]]]]] and therefore we should regard them with awe......

...Their careers are surprisingly... dull.

When I was at the mediocre private women's college, all those girls did the exact same core thing.  They all majored in silly fluff majors akin to those featured in checkout-aisle magazines.  They went to college as a distraction until they got their M.R.S.  They were probably relieved if and when they managed to find a guy to which they could attach themselves, like leeches.

Or like sea lampreys.  You know, those scary looking worm-fish that superficially resemble eel except they have rows and rows of endless teeth.  It is mesmerizing to see one.  Their teeth are circular formations (more accurately than rows) that spiral in concentric rings.

You know what else this reminds me of?  I remember watching a wonderful, fascinating educational video called Donald Duck in Math-Magic Land.  (A much happier memory than the sea lampreys.)  There was at one point a demonstration of a perfectly formed geometric illustration.  It was a series of shapes that nested into each other, a triangle that had inside it another triangle; and that it turn had inside it another triangle; and when you zoomed in closer, this one in turn had inside it another triangle.  A hierarchy of shapes.  It was an infinite amount of detail that could venture into the sub-subatomic level of organization.  (Also too kind of like Russian stacking dolls.)  It is dizzying to behold a set of sea lamprey's chompers.  Anyway, I digress.

But at least they were more or less honest about it.  They never put up a pretense of being strong capable women in charge of their own life.  They were wimps, they were spoiled pampered princesses.  They were whiny, racist, pain-in-the-ass, middle class white kids.  They went to college as a distraction until they got married or found a boyfriend or something (Doogie Howser paraphrased).  And they never pretended any different.

Groundbreaking New Claim About Accepting Opinions Automatically

I think we can safely make another true claim, that just because something is counter-culture does not automatically mean it is good.

There already exists the well-justified, addressed notion that just because something received accolades from the establishment, such as Grammy awards, or Academy awards, or if an artist achieves commercial success, none of this automatically means that the recipient of that stuff is actually any good.  Talented, original, etc.  I think that one is pretty well-established in the lexicon of the middle-class-white-kid-who-wants-to-play-free-thinker-intellectual-for-a-day.

They absolutely cannot stand an honest critique of a so-called artisan's work.  Don't you dare offering a differing opinion from what the counter-culture alterna-circuit approves as accepted dogma.

The only opinion they tolerate is their own.  That something is "groundbreaking, controversial, trailblazing, dance to the beat of their own drum."etc.
This is outside the mainstream, this is deviant.  Therefore on principle it is automatically better than the mainstream.  You better accept this as being better than the mainstream.  Or else.  "ohyourre not being true to yourself, oh you're just putting on a façade."

They do not want anyone to say what they <truly> think.

Well, what if I think it is utter trash?
What if I think there is just a whole lot of pomp and circumstance selling this crap to the public?  And not a whole lot of talent being utilized to make this stuff?  Not to mention, there is not a whole lot of evidence of talent displayed at all.

Then they spring back a whole lot of irritating blathering natter about how, "you are closed-minded; you are not truly expanding your horizons; you are not truly possessing artistic sensibility."  They pipe up with, "you are not truly possessing a discerning eye; you are just looking at a gut reaction rather than taking the time to dig deep and find a more profound meaning."

Let us get one thing straight.  The counter-culture types are every bit as adamant as mainstream folks are about enforcing their opinions onto others. They are shoving their viewpoints down people's throats.

If you do not like their brand of judgment, you are closed-minded.  They hype up their endorsement of entertainment expression things that they want to impose and inflict on others.

But now I think we can [[[follow, trace, document, chronicle]]]] another one emerging.

I think this has been well established, it is now common knowledge that, just because something is mainstream does not automatically mean it is of good quality.  Songs and musicians that win Grammies, The oscars movies, tv shows that receive much critical acclaim, et cetera -- these are not necessarily the best offerings out there.  This idea has been successfully [[[grafted welded branded]]]] into people's collective skulls.

But I think now we need to address another issue that has risen to prominence.  Just because something is counterculture, alternative, like "indie movies" does not automatically mean they are good, either.  There is a sizable lot of entertainment material, which according to them is "unique, dance to the beat of their own drum, rebellious, goes against the grain," all that crap -- that actually sucks.  Just because they purposely rebel against the established authority does not automatically mean they are better.

I'm sorry, did I shock you?  I'm sure this revelation must jolt your sensibilities.

Much Ado About Blustering For Free Speech

Now I realize that for all their preaching and blustering about free speech, freedom of expression, express yourself, etc., liberals are not very tolerating of opposing viewpoints at all.  These self-proclaimed "liberals" are in fact exceedingly closed-minded.  They cannot stand when anyone expresses disgust or disapproval.

Liberals always say they are in favor of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and freedom of religion.  They say they want people to be more open-minded and to practice tolerance.

Unless it is the liberals themselves that have to showcase some tolerance.  Unless it is the liberals themselves that have to show some respect for others' beliefs.

Case in point:  the dude that wanted the Ten Commandments plaque removed from the front of his child's school.

Geez, liberal.  If you have a problem with it, then don't look at it.  It's as simple as that.  Just don't look at it.  Isn't this exactly the same advice you give to parents, uptight people, and Christians anytime they have a problem with sex and violence on TV?  Just look away.  Just change the channel.  Just turn the TV off.

So why the hell can you liberals not practice what you preach?  Are you not capable of this?  Do you not possess the capacity for self-regulation and control of your own actions?

If you don't like the religious stuff in front of your child's school, then don't look at it.  Just ignore it as you walk by it.  Don't make it a problem for others.  According to your own heavily-thumped doctrine, you have no right to do so.

So, what is it?  It is not okay for them to impose their beliefs on you, but it IS okay for you atheists to impose your beliefs onto Christians,?

you say that they should not be allowed to express their religious beliefs.  why not?  and you think it is okay to tell them not to pray in public.  you say that that the Ten Commandments should not be displayed outside of courthouses or outside of schools.  you think it is okay to tell them where they can and cannot express their religious views.

YOU are oppressing THEM.
You say they should not be allowed to express their religious beliefs.  But why not?  Because you feel that it oppresses you?

And yet you are doing the exact same thing.  By enacting law that they cannot express t___, you are effectively oppressing them.  Why should your rights be more important than Christians' rights?

You say that it offends you?  Well, guess what.  You are offending them.  There seems to be quite a bit of hypocrisy here.

**mention about the thing in high school ""meet me at the flag pole.""

*also the thing about having a problem w prayer in public school
-erm excuse me but couldn't you just, like, not pray?

Oh.  So what you are saying is that you don't **really__ respect other people's opinions.  You are not welcoming to diverse ideas.

No, you do not.  You are not truly open-minded and free speech and freedom of thought.  Freedom of thought means freedom of thought for everybody -- including Christians.

Either practice what you preach and DO be truly open-minded -- or be honest and admit that you are not.

Same with controversial books.  Read the interviews carefully whenever an author is asked whether or not they think it's a good idea for children under the age of twelve to read their books (or under age eighteen for that matter).  These are books that by rights are grown-up books that contain a lot of gruesome subject matter.  If you'll notice, they never come right out and say what they really mean or what they are really thinking.  They kind of give an equivocal response____
Okay, then about when someone--

HHow about you come right out and plainly state that you do not think little 12-year-old kids should be reading those kind of books?  Or do not think little kids should be playing those violent, sickening video games?  If you truly believed in free speech, then you should have no qualms whatsoever to voicing your true opinion.

Sorry sweetie pie, but freedom of speech works both ways.  If you liberals get to express whatever you want, then so too do conservatives have the same privileges extended to them.

 I don't know why destruction of emotional health, erosion of personal barriers, and desensitization to violence are all considered okay.  Especially by way of forms of entertainment.  What is wrong with just having kids play normal, cute video games where they don't savagely rip apart women's limbs?

Back in the day, we played Super Mario Bros. on a Nintendo Entertainment System.  We were thankful for it and we were happy with it.  It was fun, and it was all the fun we needed.  That and Tetris on a little handheld gameboy thing, hehe.  We did not need scenes of gruesome violence to sate our entertainments needs.  We did not feel somehow deprived of some formative experience because of lack of TV screen trauma.