desertvixen: (sweet valley high)
So I picked up this chicklit title in the Kindle Big Deal (which is going downhill and fast, IMO) called Must Love Otters.  Sounds promising.  I love otters.

Until in the first chapter, the author writes something that should have been my clue to put the book down.

Panty Tarantula - as in a woman's unshaved pubic area.

Run away now.

I read on for awhile, but it didn't get any better.

desertvixen: (SFC)

 They did print my response to Single Female Soldiers Getting Pregnant Destroys Government Property.

 Part of it, anyway.  (I know, I know, they reserve the right to edit, but ... they sort of pulled my letter's teeth.)

 My letter is under the cut, with the parts printed in the Times in bold.

 They cut all the good parts! )
desertvixen: (sexism)
I have read my last letter in the Army Times written by a condescending idiot. I'm firing back this time.

Did you know female soldiers get pregnant out of wedlock so they can get more uniforms and TENNIS SHOES?

I guess I know what I'm writing tonight....

ETA: Here's the letter. The letter is in italics, I'm in plain.
I also changed the icon to reflect the letter.

I find the question regarding the female soldier refusing to deploy because the lack of a family care plan not only discriminating but outright ridiculous. The Army regulation on family care plans is black and white and if the Army even considers any favoritism because the soldier is a female then the whole regulation needs to be rewritten.

In March 2003, my ex-wife left me, leaving me without a family care plan and set to deploy to Iraq. The question to me was "Find your ex, give the kids back and go to war...or get out." There was no question of me being a single father with three children. Why is there consideration for this specialist?

Point 1: This guy was screwed by his command. If he became a single parent, then they should have given him the thirty days to get an FCP together. I don't care how close to the deployment it was - that's the regulation. You know, the black and white one? I have worked with several single father soldiers, so I'm either calling BS on his story or saying this: His command failed him.

Point 2: The specialist HAD an FCP. It failed. The person designated as the long-term provider did a flake on her. Based on what I've read, her command failed her.

Why is the Army allowing female soldiers to remain in the Army by getting pregnant out wedlock?

Because it's not the pre-1970s Army, maybe? My ex's mother was in the Army and was separated when she became pregnant with her first child. We don't do it that way anymore. We don't treat unmarried female soldiers differently than we treat dual-military female soldiers. Why? Well, that would be...discrimination!

We have single female soldiers getting pregnant and I believe because they know they only won't have to deploy, but they get more uniforms. tennis shoes and months of convalescent time.

This is the line that made me lose it. No, they don't pull women out of the recovery room and put them on the plane, but female soldiers who are moms also get deployed. Even single soldier moms. They deployed me.

More uniforms - which previously at least, we had to turn in. (I don't know if we get to keep the maternity ACUs.) Not to mention - NO ONE WANTS THESE UNIFORMS. No one wants to wear a BDU or ACU tent.

And I didn't get my tennis shoes. Who do I file a complaint with? To be fair, I think he means we get to wear tennis shoes, which many of us don't. The tennis shoes are supposed to help with swelling issues. I'll be honest - I had to sit on the floor to lace my boots, but I would have rather done that than worn tennis shoes with my uniform. But that's me.

Months of convalescent leave. I can only assume that he's referring to the APFT exemption, for which we get six months. Otherwise, the Army gives us 6 weeks. People can take more if they have it, and their command approves. As far as the APFT exemption, I'd like to see this guy gain 40 pounds, not run for six months, totally get his abs out of shape, and then have to get back into APFT shape. It's not a damn vacation, I promise you.

Don't get me wrong, to female soldiers who are married and are trying to build a family, God bless and best of luck.

To quote the movie Clue, "Too late." I took you wrong. I'm so glad we have your approval.

But the single females getting pregnant should be separated for destruction of government property, and breach of contract being unable to fulfill their obligation to the Army.

So, what about the cases where a female soldier was impregnated by a male soldier? Does he get charged too? Pregnancy takes two - it's not like we go to the store and pick up a pregnancy. Luckily, the Army disagrees with this person. Also, this comment reeks of "stupid girls should have kept their legs shut". Just what I want to hear out of my fellow NCOs.

I recently reclassed and while in AIT three soldiers got pregnant and laughed stating they won't have to go to war now.

So, let me get this straight. Some women made a flip remark, or maybe a joke, about not deploying. If they weren't joking, they're wrong. Soldier moms go to war too, so the joke will be on them in the end.

As long as the Army condones this, others will have to take up the slack of these so-called soldiers.

It's also another episode of one of my favorites - one woman's screwup is held against the rest of us. It's That Girl! You know her. She's the one who oopsed someone's buddy, or filed a false rape report to get even with a bad date, or got made because a guy held the door. She's the one who causes all the problems for the rest of us. Too bad she's made of straw.

So the question is, what should the Army do now? Stick to the policies and regulations that are in place for every soldier in the Army and make her deploy, or if she is in her first enlistment, give her a general discharge and a handshake and make her take responsibility for her actions.

If she can't get an FCP together, then yes, she should be separated. If she gets it together, then she deploys.

Anything else would be a disgrace.

No, the disgrace would be that these attitudes are still hanging around.

The writer is a SSG at Fort Carson.

So I am going to write the Times, along with this entry.

I'm a single mom, and a senior NCO, and tired of this attitude. I'm NOT a single mom by choice - I'm a single mom because my husband came home from his deployment and decided husband and father were two jobs he couldn't handle. So this guy would probably be "okay" with me. I don't give a damn, and I could care less about his approval.

desertvixen: (schroedingers cat)

I know, it's so hard to pick just one, so I offer several.

The article in full is here:;_ylt=Aj1IO1YDPBeYiuLN8SgxfDlhr7sF
By Ann Coulter Ann Coulter – Thu Jan 15, 3:57 pm ET

The Treason Times' banner series about Iraq and Afghanistan veterans accused of murder began in January last year but was quickly discontinued as readers noticed that the Times doggedly refused to provide any statistics comparing veteran murders with murders in any other group.

In most of the stories I've read about veterans who return from Iraq and kill someone, there's been some focus on the role that being in Iraq might have played.  Deployment brings a lot of stress on people, and can exacerbate problems.  The record on asking for help on mental issues also remains a little sketchy. 

 There are some cases that don't fit this mold, like the Maria Lauterbach murder.  That one, however, has its own issues that need to be addressed.

But as long as the Times has such a burning interest in the root causes of murder, how about considering the one factor more likely to create a murderer than any other? That is the topic we're not allowed to discuss: single motherhood.

As you might imagine, this is the part of the article that started pissing me off. 

As I describe in my new book, "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America," controlling for socioeconomic status, race and place of residence, the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent.

As a now single mother, I'd like to say several things.  None of them however, are polite.

By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers. Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced.

Maybe, in the face of these statistics, we look at the idea of having society HELP single mothers, instead of condemning them, and their children.  Maybe we look at the idea of providing robust after-school programs, so kids and teens have somewhere safe to be after school.  You know, because a lot of their single mothers will be at work.  (If they weren't at work, I'm sure we could cue up the "welfare queen" argument.)  Maybe the single mother is lucky enough to have family that can help her out, maybe not. 

With new children being born, running away, dropping out of high school and committing murder every year, it's not a static problem to analyze. But however the numbers are run, single motherhood is a societal nuclear bomb.

 Never mind my earlier restraint.  Don't lecture women about motherhood, something YOU have not attempted.  Fuck off.

Even in liberals' fevered nightmares, predatory mortgage dealers, oil speculators and Ken Lay could never do as much harm to their fellow human beings as single mothers do to their own children, to say nothing of society at large.

You know it's just on the tip of her tongue to talk about dirty sluts who couldn't keep their legs shut.

 I'm a single mother.  Not by choice.  I'm a single mother because my combat veteran husband (3 times for global war on terror) decided after seven months in Afghanistan that he didn't want to be married anymore.  No counseling, no pleas, no working on it - just a divorce.  Of course, I'm sure Ms. Coulter would pin the blame on me being an uppity feminist bitch.  I'm over here, separated from my toddler for a year, because it's for the best, financially.  I'm lucky that I have this opportunity to get ahead, to have a cushion to make the transition easier.  A lot of women don't have that. 

 Of course, it's always easier to throw a stone than offer some help.


desertvixen: (penelope wtf?)

 I found the story through a link on, but this is pretty serious, in my eyes.

 Marine Removed From Duty Over Bible Coin Reports

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A U.S. Marine in Iraq has been removed from duty amid complaints that he was handing out coins with Bible verses at an American checkpoint, the military said Thursday.

A military spokesman said Iraqis in Falluja complained that the Marine was giving the coins, which were printed in Arabic, to people at an entry control point in Falluja.

U.S. military regulations prohibit religious proselytizing.

"This has our full attention," said Col. James L. Welsh, chief of staff of Multi-National Force, West. "We deeply value our relationship with the local citizens and share their concerns over this serious incident."

At least one of the coins is stamped with the words "Where will you spend eternity?" according to a report published Thursday by McClatchy Newspapers.

The other side of the coin reportedly contains a verse from John 3:16 that reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

Several Falluja residents said they were given the coins over a two-day period and complained that U.S. troops, whom they consider foreign occupiers, were acting as Christian missionaries.

"Regulations prohibit members of the coalition force from proselytizing any religion, faith or practices," said Col. Bill Buckner, a coalition spokesman. "Our troops are trained on those guidelines before they deploy."

A military statement said "appropriate action" will be taken if the reports are substantiated.

The reports stoked religious concerns in Iraq just weeks after Iraqi police discovered that a U.S. soldier had used the Quran, Islam's holy book, for target practice.

The U.S. commander in Baghdad took the unusual step of holding a public ceremony and reading a letter of apology from the soldier, a sniper section leader, to local Iraqi leaders.

Many in attendance were members and leaders of Sunni militias that the U.S. military has courted to help fight al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgents. Sunnis often face criticism from other Iraqis for cooperating with American troops.

Falluja, also a mostly Sunni city, was the scene of bitter and bloody fighting early in the Iraq war between U.S. troops, al Qaeda in Iraq and Sunni insurgents loyal to Saddam Hussein.

 **** **** ****

Seriously, WTF, over?  Not just any Bible verse thing, but ones printed in ARABIC, which spells out deliberation on someone's part.  What's next, Chick tracts in Arabic?  (Yes, they're available.  They stock 3 and custom order others.  They also have a special Muslim FAQ.)

Also, using the Quran for target practice is NOT COOL.  It's disrespectful.  It's needlessly inflammatory.  And it's f*cking stupid.  Let's just turn that one around and imagine someone had used a Bible for target practice?

Also, proselytizing when you are literally carrying a weapon maybe isn't so nice and friendly.

desertvixen: (schroedingers cat)

The Sky Is Falling

A couple of you stated that you have seen the looks on others faces and know that it is a dieing world...what I have notice lately is dieing America. (Is that selfish to think of where America is versus the world?) I find myself increasingly heartbroken over the loss of my country. America was so good. And I feel so honored to have been chosen to live my life here. Yet, the past two weeks as I attended my youngest neice's band concert and my oldest neice graduation...I cried. I cried for our way of live that seems to be slipping away. The loss of the America I grew up with, the values, our stregthen, our faith and our goodness is fading away and something else is taking that place. I know that America has never been perfect but what an honor and gift to have lived my life in this amazing place. It breaks my heart to see the way we are changing, the less proud we are of our country as a whole, the less we stand for our Christain heritage...the more the tarnish emerges. So sad. My sister kept looking at me..."are you crying again???" Yepper! All I could think about is how long before, we can't stand and say the Pledge or sing the National Athem...or those millions of other little traditions that make up the fabric of our American lives?

No, America is not and never has been perfect.  But it's still pretty damned good.  It never will be perfect, either, for two reasons. 

The first is that America isn't a finished product.  Our systems, our laws, our beliefs have changed and will continue to change.  Not so long ago, interracial marriage was illegal.  Less than 100 years ago, women had no legal or political voice because they could not vote - the only way to express their views was through social movements, such as the temperance movement.  At the beginning of our country, it was considered acceptable to own other human beings.

The second is that America is made up of her citizens.  People.  Flawed human beings with prejudices and beliefs and issues.

Also, the reason that America is going away?  Enough people cared about changing it, about making it better, that they did. 

Lastly, I'm throwing out the BS flag on the Pledge/Anthem bit.  Yes, I know there are court cases for the Pledge in school, but really people.  If you feel the need to say the Pledge, say it. Make it a part of your daily life.  But don't force it on others.  Not all Americans are religious AND it's not the end of the world.

Who Let Him Out in Public?

(Former Senator Rick Santorum, who is known for his right-wing religious views.)

Is anyone saying same-sex couples can't love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too? Marriage is and always has been more than the acknowledgment of the love between two people.

Ricky, Ricky, Ricky.  You said the point right there.  Marriage is about more than love.  It also, in our society, confers benefits on those of us in that state.  The right to better tax benefits.  The right to make decisions for each other in health crises.  The right to raise children together.  The right to be acknowledged.

I really do think we'd be better off if we separated the civil/secular marriage from the religious marriage ceremony.  NO ONE is advocating that churches be forced to marry same-sex couples.  If they were, then yes, I would have a problem.  A lot of countries do split the process - you have to have your civil marriage for the secular benefits, and then you can have the religious ceremony.  It's actually what we did, courtesy of OIF #1. 

desertvixen: (penelope wtf?)
 The last one was getting a little long, and I wanted to give this person (I think female) special attention. 

 Judgemental Rape Counselor

I was doing counseling with victims of sexual assault at a secular agency. Yes, I understand that what a woman wears has nothing to do with "traitional" rape (which is a matter of control and/or anger, not sex), but after talking to some of these women, I got to wondering what ever happened to common sense. Young women would go out with guys wearing clothing that left little or nothing to the imagination, have quite a few drinks, go back to the guy's place....then call us to complain that they'd been "assaulted!" Hello? You dress like a streetwalker, both of you get drunk....what did you THINK he was asking you to his apartment for - a Bible study?

While I grant that getting drunk with someone you don't know well is not smart, rape is not a punishment for stupidity.  This person has also obviously not experienced the date that goes Really Bad, and ends up with one party trying to force the other to have sex.

I suggested to the head of the organization that we start a City-wide campaign, along the lines of, "If you want to be treated like a lady, try dressing like one." There IS a campaign with billboards and signs on the sides of buses about waiting until marriage before having sex (from a different agency); I wanted to take it a step further. Guess what? Virtually ALL the (female) counselors had a fit when I suggested such a thing; they claimed they had a "right" to wear anything they want! I tried the tact of, "Doesn't it bother you to have your husbands looking at all these half-naked girls?", to which I was told, "If my husband can't control himself, that's HIS problem!"

Yay for those counselors!  Women should have the right to wear what they feel like wearing, regardless of what others think about it (assuming, of course, that no laws or dress codes are being violated).  Besides, who gets to define "ladylike"? 

And God forbid we expect the men to control themselves.  Really, sometimes when I read these arguments, I need to be reminded why feminists are the ones who hate men because we expect them to, well, act like grownups.

I really couldn't continue on there - they were "helping" girls after the fact, but doing nothing to prevent them being assaulted in the first place - it was like pulling out a band-aid after telling someone it was OK to stick her hand in a chainsaw. (And let me reiterate, because I always get a lot of flak on this - what a woman wears has NOTHING to do with traditional rape; I'm talking about date rape, so-called sexual assault, and driving a man - when both parties are often drunk and/or on drugs - into a frenzy, then primly saying, "No means no!")
Because these women have no common sense, men's lives are litterally being destroyed with criminal records that will follow them the rest of their days.

Thanks for adding to the feeling of so many victims of date rape that what happened to them wasn't "really rape" because it was someone they knew, or because they had a moment of poor judgment.

No means No.  I sort of feel bad for the guy if she changes her mind at the last second, but blue balls will not kill you.  And I fail to understand why this person thinks "traditional rape" is different from the others - they're all about power.

Fashion Advice

You see, the problem isn't just with "worldly" women. I attended a special program for adult students at a conservative Christian college. I needed a few more electives, so thought a course in Popular Culture would be fun. My final presentation was on fashion, with an emphasis on overly-provocative clothing (including for small children - there's actually a "look" called "prostitot") and the WOMEN (all claiming to be "Christian", mind you) had a fit! Once again I heard the cry of, "We have the RIGHT to wear anything we want!" I tried to explain the effect on men, who are visual creatures, and told them they were causing these men to sin, but they didn't want to listen; I made several enemies that day! Ironically, after the class almost all of the MEN came up to me and thanked me, saying it was nice to see someone understands!

Kind of beats the same drum.  The poor little men, visual creatures.  We're leading them to sin.  It's all our fault.

Basically my take is: if you want to dress modest (for whatever reason), then please feel free.  I know there is at least one person on the f-list who prefers to dress modestly for religious reasons.  She, however, gets what many of these people do not - it is HER choice to dress modestly, and she isn't trying to force her choice on anyone else.

desertvixen: (evil kitty)

 I'm a little backed up on the goodness.  Limited Internet access during my trip, and the fact that I've been napping to catch up.

 But here we go.  They were busy while I wasn't reading.

desertvixen: (evil kitty)

 I have to get it in now, because I won't be having reliable net access this weekend in Florida.

 Nice Of You To Be Honest

Yet another attempt at compromise that many Christian leaders have come up with at first seems reasonable, but it is rotten to the core. It goes like this: "We just want equal time."

Wrong! We don't want "equal time" with baby-killers, condom pushers, New Agers, and sodomite recruiters. We do not want them to have any access to public schools. We won't tolerate their having a single minute to expose our children or anyone else's children to their godless agenda. Planned Parenthood, Queer nation and their cohorts form hell have no right to give the time of day to children in school and fill their unsuspecting minds with filth. We don't want equal time, because we want them to have no time.

We will not put the flawless, eternal Word of God on the same par with godless laws, or the ungodly lies of men and demons. God's Law is supreme and will abide forever. man's rebellious thoughts are as chaff for the fire.

Yet, they're the ones being persecuted.

*** *** ***

Another question, a Rapture clause in someone's will?  Wouldn't they have to wait seven years to be declared actually dead?  Would it make more sense to have a trust instead?

desertvixen: (evil kitty)

 No Fun Allowed
That why my girls will never dance ANYTHING. I want them to be obedient and be modest. Any dance outfit I have seen is immodest. I'm always telling my girls that any clothing that shows their figure is wrong and God doesn't like it... I even find Irish dancing wrong, not in the dress code, but it the fact that it's not for God: so I don't care how much they beg and whine... no dance in this house...ever.

 This is just sad.  Not horrible cruelty, but just petty.

 I sympathize with the desire to dress your children modestly.  I am looking at the 4-6X clothes, and cringing mentally.  But condemning dance outfits as immodest strikes me as silly.

 Just sad.


On rape

May. 13th, 2008 09:37 pm
desertvixen: (sexism)

 This is more serious than the other two.

Yes, They Really Do Exist

Hey, women, wake up! Face the fact that you are the more vulnerable of the two sexes. Face the fact that your dress, your manner and your behavior can be provocative. Realize that men are not real smart and that they are programmed to respond to sexy women. Sometimes, those men haven't the where-with-all to understand the word, 'no.' Just as everyone should avoid 'occasions of sin,' women should avoid occasions of sexual stupidity.

So, once again, we have the "men are animals who can't control themselves" argument.  Yet, they continue to claim that it is FEMINISTS who hate men.

There may be some actual real-live feminists who hate all men - I have not met any of them, but they may exist.

But these people who think men "can't help it"?  Pardon me if I think they dislike men.  And if men can't control themselves, how in the f*ck are they qualified to run everything?

Yes, women may dress provocative.  They may act provocative.  They may do stupid things. 


Men do have the capability to understand no.  Some of them just have situations where they choose NOT to.

desertvixen: (evil kitty)

A rundown from FSTDT:

Aggressive Persuasion Can Be A Beautiful Thing

[...] Is a husband, pinning his wife down to have sex with her rape? What defines rape in a marriage?

When she says, "No."?

See, even then, I have a problem with it. A wife and husband are to give to each other of this. If a man is pinning her down, yet lovingly trying to... ehh it's too "grey". I hate it. It's of Satan,and the liberals are holding hands with Satan on this one.. destroy marriage with "rights" and villifying your spouse. Satanswants to break down the church and marriage. He wants us to think we don't need God, or each other....

The notion of marital rape. It's almost an oxymoron. It actually sounds like a litigous term used by 3rd Reich Femi-Nazi Women's Lib Czar's who hate God, burn flags, don't eat meat, and glorify same sex sexual relationships.


Yes, it would be insensitive and unloving for a man to force his wife to do something sexual. If he took a gun or another inanimate object out and threatened her life, or her health, yes, that could be seen as rape. Yet, if he was aggressive in order to persuade her, I could see that as a wonderful thing. Wonderful? YES.. because that could be the answer to some dynamic in thier relationship. [...]

OK, so I'm probably not the only person reading this comment and going, What?  I kept getting lost in it.  They start making sense for two seconds, and then it gets weird again.

Bottom line: It's fine, as long you both enjoy the dynamic in your relationship being answered that way... and you have a safeword.  Otherwise, it falls under the heading of "problem".

*** *** ***

Feeling Castrated

A man's point of view...

I can not speak for all, but a lot of men I know feel- pardon this expression- "castrated" in todays world. Even scientific studies show fish and men in the UK feminizing under the pollution of estrogenic compounds in the water supplies from the breakdown of wastes including primarily birth control (excreted in urine), pesticides, and soybean use (both estrogenic). Radical feminism, which is harmful to women, has been very effective at reducing the "manliness" of men as well. How often do we see men being portrayed in positive light anymore? On TV, the dad is always a buffoon kept alive by the wise wife. We have a total and systematic- even deliberate- breakdown of the family structure.

I hate to break it to this guy but... the majority of corporate heads allowing pollution and approving these TV shows where the dad is a buffoon with a hot wife are MEN.  There is not a Super Secret Female Cabal Ruling The World.  If there was, things would be different.

(whining about how he's accomplished, but can't get a good job)
Men have become soft, lazy, ineffective, and absent. The decline in manhood is natural based on the progression of sin permeating every aspect of our lives in a cause and effect sort of way. Look around- the 'metrosexual' or metro male is the image du jour. The manly guy who can use his hands, fix things, build things, etc. is marginalized. Pansy-boys are celebrated.

You know, I fail to understand this one.  Maybe because I'm in the military, so I definitely still see PEOPLE who can do things being celebrated.  There is more than one gender-specific way for people to be. 

desertvixen: (penelope wtf?)

So, Washington University in St. Louis is presenting Phyllis Schlafly with a honorary doctrate.  It wouldn't be my choice, but I'm not the one making it. 

She did an interview with their school paper which makes for some interesting reading.

Phyllis Schlafly Interview

What do you mean when you say, "Feminists want women to think that they can't succeed"?

Everything that they are teaching in Women's Studies and in those courses is that women are victims and that marriage is unfair to women and that it makes them second-class, that men are naturally batterers and that if you get married you'll probably get beaten up. It's a dreary picture that they paint for women of the life of a married women or a mother.

I guess I missed that class. 

So you see the feminist position as saying that there is one acceptable path for women in the world, the path of the career woman?

That's right. Because they think that if you give them the choice, too many will pick getting married.

The two options are not always exclusive.  It is possible to have both career and family.  Men have been doing it for ages... oh wait.

Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?

I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That's what marriage is all about, I don't know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn't mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn't rape, it's a he said-she said where it's just too easy to lie about it.

"I think that when you get married you have consented to sex."  It's not a blanket consent form.  Being married does NOT mean that women have to give it up anytime he wants it.  If she never wants to have sex, then you have bigger issues that probably require counseling.  Or there's always talking about the subject.  There may be a physical or emotional reason that can be dealt with.

"That doesn't mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery."  OK - so it's okay for him to force you to have sex (whether physically or by nagging you into it), but it's not okay for him to hit you.  I have to tell you, I think the former is far more damaging than the latter one.  And really, if you have to nag your partner into it, what is the point?

 I mean, I have to admit here - there was a fairly long period where I just did not feel like having sex after I had my daughter (well after the six week mark).  I just didn't feel any desire to, at all.  It may have been hormonal.  I missed feeling like I wanted to have sex, and I'm grateful that my husband was understanding and didn't let his frustration become an issue between the two of us. 

 But honestly, if one partner is just submitting out of duty, is it really worth it?

To me, though, this is the saddest bit: "That's what marriage is all about"

Funny.  I thought marriage was about partnership.  And love, which may be expressed through sex.  It may also be expressed by a husband getting up on the 2AM feeding so his wife can sleep, or by a wife doing something similar for a husband. 

Marriage is about more than sex - it's about being partners.

And then she accuses feminists of wanting to keep marital rape in the grab-bag of goodies.

Sometimes, I really just find other people depressing.

desertvixen: (feminine intuition)

 K, we all know that Colorado Springs is home to Dr. Dobson, and our friends at Focus on the Family.

 This is really on the whacked out side to me: Teen Fights For Personhood Amendment

 Seven years after the attacks that left Americans stunned, Coloradans may be voting on a proposal that Kristi Burton, a 20-year-old deeply religious home-schooled woman, thinks will change the world: an abortion ban.

Dubbed the Personhood Amendment, her proposal is simple in its succinctness: It states that the state constitution should be amended to define a person as including any human being from the moment of fertilization.

The implications of that statement, though, are certain to make Colorado a national battleground on the abortion issue - it could outlaw abortions and some birth control.

You know, I get that people don't believe in abortion, for various reasons.  Other people believe that a woman's right to control her body is more important.  I think we all know which side I come down on.

 But seriously - until it implants in your uterus, it doesn't matter whether the egg gets fertilized or not.  If it doesn't implant, pregnancy does not happen.  A baby does not result. 

 To me, the answer is simple - if you don't believe in abortions, don't have one.  Don't take away other women's rights to choose to do what they feel is right for their lives.

desertvixen: (penelope wtf?)

 I don't get to read for 2 days and it starts getting good.

 No One's Told Him There Are Liberals In The Army

The US should ship liberals to the mideast to die. I plan to join the military soon, will have my gun and my gear. Remember liberals, i am pledged to fight enemies both foreign and domestic. Keep up your shit, I don't need a justification from God to blow your traitorous, fucked-up heads off.

 Apparently someone's forgetting about those constitutional rights and stuff.  Thanks, the Army does not need any more stupid.

Degree in Marriage and Motherhood

I went to a wonderful consertive Christian college, Hyles-Anderson. They actually have a 4 year degree there that is called "Marriage and Motherhood". Its a mix of home eco.,counseling, and education classes. I think its perfect for the future housewife and homeschooling Mom and if for some reason I ever need to work outside the home I have a B.S. degree

I'd laugh but it just makes me sad.  I just hope she never needs to use it.

We Know Who Slept Through History Class

The Crusades weren't Christian. Christianity teaches salvation by faith, not by going on crusades. The Inquisition went after protestants and Bibles. They burnt Bibles. Salem witch trials were actually witches burning Christians.

I don't understand why people feel the need to act as if Christianity has not had its horrible moments.  Its mistakes.  (Especially since I detect the Catholic-blame in this one.)  The Church is made up of people, flawed creatures that we are.  It's not important that it be perfect (especially since all these things seemed like a good thing at the time to the people making the judgement call - morality does change over time), but more that we be able to acknowledge that mistakes were made, apologize, and go forth to do better.

Mike Pearl Rears His Ugly Head

If they go out to the bathroom, go with them. Never allow them to spend the night with friends or cousins. Slumber parties are sin parties. Never allow them to listen to music through headphones. Three-minute phone conversations, no chat rooms, no surfing the web for any reason. Parents should make it physically impossible for them to even access the web. We didn’t allow our children to spend time in their bedrooms unless they were working on a project or reading. Bedroom doors were always kept open, except for two minutes while dressing.

Sadly, his children are grown and the damage has been done.

More Creepy Pearls of "Wisdom"

Raising daughters is not a good business deal. You make a twenty-year investment and then just up and give the whole thing away to an inexperienced boy who doesn’t at all appreciate the value of what he is getting, and is probably not worthy of the gift, or “theft,” as it may be. To top it all off, he changes her name – takes her out of the family, and erases all traces of her lineage. Her children will not carry on your family name!

The 'inexperienced boy' bit is kind of creepy.  But the whole thing is. Beyond words.


desertvixen: (schroedingers cat)

 Yes, I am a glutton for punishment.  Luckily this guy doesn't post every day...

 Respectable Men Don't Use Contraceptives

Men want respect. Some men deserve more respect than others. Respectable men do not beg for sex. This is what you men should remember. Respectable men are non-contraceptive. Contraceptive males are called boys as they cater to the insecurities and whims of females.

And I was with him on the "Respectable men don't beg for sex" point.  But contraception can be very respectable, when (shock, gasp!) women do not want to become pregnant. 

Know that contraception is a female ploy. A man who agrees to contracepting is being played by the female. Whether the female is his wife, his girlfriend, his fubu, or a plain old prostitute.

Nice way to imply you think wives/girlfriends are some sort of fancy prostitute. 

Contraception is a way females play russian roulette, it is a manner in which they choose the fathers of their children. A woman subconsciously chooses the father of her offspring by conveniently “forgetting” to put on that condom, by “forgetting” to take
her pills, by “forgetting” to put on her diaphragm.

Well, actually, some of us decide to also achieve it by only sleeping with the man we're married to.  But even then, we aren't always trying to get pregnant.

A wife may have chosen to marry a man as her legal husband. But her body language, her reality shows she has in fact NOT chosen him to father her child when she chooses to have fake sex with him by using condoms on him.

Awww, do I detect someone who doesn't like wearing condoms? 

Nonsense! There are many women out there who will accept your entire manhood, real sex and all. Will get pregnant? No problem. Glad to choose you to father her children, now, today.

And that's their choice.  Not ours.  But they are more than welcome to it, as long as it is something they choose.

Sometimes I think the metaphor of adam and eve was that Eve engaged Adam in contraception. The forbidden fruit is contraception.

This is one of the more original takes on it, but I notice we still get to blame the woman.

And from another post:

You see love is also hormonal and chemical. Your semen has hormones and chemicals that will make a woman love you.  Inseminate them regularly and they will stick to you like glue.

I can't even work up a good mock.

desertvixen: (sexism)

 There's more where this one came from:

 I apparently missed the "polygamy" tag at the header of the post, which helps make things clearer.   He does, essentially, want a license to screw around, spreading his seed, and evil contraceptive women are trapping him because they won't play the game his way.

 It gets better.  Here's another entry from the actual page, not FSTDT.

Let us dive into the crazy.  His words are in bold.

The natural scheme of things is that males and females are attracted to one another. They have sexual intercourse, females become pregnant. Children are born. Children are raised to become adults life goes on.

In the natural scheme of things, healthy men are sexually active when called upon for action. Women have a cycle where they are interested in sex when the time is “right”. That right time is when she is healthy and willing to bear children. A pregnant female is not interested in any more sex, nor should she be having sex, she is already pregnant. Do you understand?

 One of the nice things about being human is that we do not go into heat.  My understanding is that yes, at certain times of the menstrual cycle, women may be more interested in sex.  However, it doesn't have to be the fertile time for us to want to have sex. 

 As far as the "pregnant women not being interested in sex", I have to throw up the huge BS flag.  As I think, do many of us on this f-list.  Sex is still fun when you're pregnant (as long as you're having a normal, healthy pregnancy with no risk factors that could be exacerbated by sex).  It may require some changes, but it's still fun. 

 But then, I also believe that sex is for more than procreation. 

 So yes, I understand...that you're a touch out there.

 And yes, some women may NOT feel like having sex when pregnant, for whatever reason.  And it's okay.  Because you know, we're all DIFFERENT.  We're all individuals.  In fact, even different pregnancies can be different for the same woman.

Once a female has given birth, she needs to breast feed her little one for some 2 years and stick close to her baby. At this time there is no desire for children. And if there is no desire for children, no sex is desired.

 Well, yes, the WHO does recommend breastfeeding for 2 years.  Part of the reason behind this is that it is the most suitable food for infants, and part of it is due to the fact that many places in the world have water sanitation issues that make it overall the safest choice. Here in the US, it's not such a big factor.  There are lots of factors, so let's not open up the can of breastfeeding worms.

 Another BS flag on "no desire for children" = "no desire for sex". 

Now the civilization and other means of organization have come up with marriage. A man for every child to ensure that children are better taken cared of. A man and his whole family plus the woman and her family is a pretty good idea. Since a woman may only be interested in sex every 2 to 3 years it makes no sense for a man to with hold his sexuality in those 2 to 3 years where a woman is not sexually available, nor should it make sense to rush a woman and have additional children when she is not healthy nor ready yet. So it was and still is natural for men to have multiple wives. Everyone was happy with this arrangement. The man’s family had more offspring through their men. And the women could pick the best men in their village to fertilize them. Polygamy was the norm and everyone was happy.

 Yes to not rushing women to have more children - WTF? to the rest of the post.  I also have news for the poster - somehow, I doubt you would have been among "the best men".

Then an imperialist civilization arose and through their primitive monetary system and contraceptive technology had the dumb idea to impose government business partnerships called marriage and made it exclusive and unnatural. They called this invention monogamy. An artificial construct founded on contraceptive herbs and technology. They made it law that men and women can marry only one at a time. If they wanted a new partner, they needed to divorce their old partner. In the old days, you just added a new wife and everyone was happy. Common divorces made people unhappy in the empire and eventually the concept of marriage became moot and no one wanted to have anything with that government partnership called marriage.

 More WTF? here.  Also, wondering who the "imperialist civilization" was. 

 And how much do you want to bet that "everyone" means the men?

Fast forward 2000 years later today in my country. Monogamy is made possible through contraceptive technology. Women become sexual toys, sexual receptacles, available to give and receive sexual pleasure any time with minimum possibilities of pregnancy. In government marriage, men are given the unnatural burden to have sex with only one woman because with contraceptive technology, that woman, his wife can supposedly fill all his sexual entertainment wants.

Okay, first off: Contraceptives do not mean you have to have sex.  The pill does not make you into a "receptacle", although thank you for exposing how you truly view women. 

 As far as the wife as sexual entertainment, it goes both ways (but that involves acknowledging that women desire sex for more than procreation).  There's also those two concepts of fantasizing and masturbation. 

But this is unnatural. Millions of years of evolution cannot be enforced by man made laws policing sexual behavior. What happens today is that contraceptive technology has debased sexuality into a religion of entertainment, of pleasure, instead of sex being a means for reproduction. This sexual repression has led to enormous industries serving the contraceptive side effects. Prostitution is the all encompassing side effect. Millions of women are now prostitutes for money, for food, for love, for free. Millions of men have been stunted of their maturities by submitting to contraceptive sex.

 I agree there are issues with sex in our society, but you can't blame them all on contraceptives.  They may play a part in some.

Millions of women feel they are goddesses, they control a man through his contraceptive penis.

 Yes, this is the super-WTF that ended up on FSTDT.

What a shame. What a low down shame people have gone today. Men submitting to women and thanking them for sex? Give me a break.
Top grade males are always in high demand. Top grade males do not submit to contraceptive slavery. A woman who partners with top grade males want their sperm, they demand it, top material to make their babies with.

Again, this guy is mistakenly thinking he's one of these top males.

And yes, sometimes my husband does thank me for sex.  Sometimes I thank him.  Although, it's not just thank you for sex, but thank you for a lot of things. 

And punishing males for their non-compliance to monogamy?  What an an unnatural man made abomination of laws we are  living in.  Most wives cannot keep their end of the bargain.  Most of them don’t enjoy being sexual receptacles and have sex during times they don’t want to.  Contraceptive technology is imperfect and unhealthy in the first place.  Those health conscious women will merely abstain from sex.  And where does that leave their husbands?  Back to nature.

 Marriage does not equal a license to get sex whenever he feels like it.

 And yes, contraceptives have their ups and downs.  That's why 1) we have a variety of different methods to suit different women and 2) there is no one forcing women to take them.  That would be just as wrong as forbidding them to all women.  Some women, for whatever reason, do not like birth control.  That's okay.  The important thing is HAVING THE CHOICE.

The idea of a 2nd wife, 3rd wife, 4th wife doesn’t sound so bad after all now.  What woman wants to give birth year after year after year?

 That, dear sir, would be why women use contraceptives.

First wife is pregnant, sexual relations stop and continue only when her child is 2 to 4 years old.  A 2nd wife may be a good idea, and when that wife becomes pregnant, a 3rd wife may be a good idea, then a 4th wife, then it is back to wife number 1 then 2, then 3 then 4.  Everyone is happy.

And, so, while she is waiting for him to come back, it's okay if she finds another "top male", right?  Somehow, I don't think so.

All that is needed today is a change in the monetary system and everyone should be happy.  If each and every child came with a guaranteed living fund, people would choose the natural way.  I’m dreaming.  The international money masters, the bankers would never want this.  They want the money and the power all to themselves.

Government monogamous only marriage is just one of their tools to control a hapless citizenry.

 And we end, where we started, on WTF?

 Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see government devote more resources to children.  Every child should have health insurance.  Every child should have enough food to eat, a warm, safe place to live, and education.

 But not as a sledgehammer to convince women to put up with this BS.

desertvixen: (feminine intuition)

I stopped reading too soon.  This one is MUCH better than the last one.  (And, by better, I mean OMG! Crack)
A man is a wonderful thing. All that power, all that energy, all that intelligence. A man’s sexual instincts allows him to reproduce for the survival of his bloodline. Paired with an equally wonderful woman, wonderful offspring are produced.

But paired to a contraceptive woman and agreeing to her demands of contraception, he his demoted to a lowly snake slithering on the ground begging for sex. Phoooey. A man begging for sex is pathetic. Agreeing to contraceptive sex is pathetic. The contraceptive woman today is the most common type of woman. This is why society is dysfunctional. And this is no accident. Contraception is ingrained in today’s children, in the feminist manifestos, in marriage seminars. Some men get into marriage thinking it is open access to beautiful sex, instead submit to chains of contraception that enable a facade called monogamy.

There are many good men out there. Family oriented, family serving men. Most confronted with demands of contraception from women who demand monogamy. A few months later the contraceptive sexual activity gets old, stale and downright not worth it. It is not so different from aversion to sexual activity induced by infertility problems.
A man agreeing to contraception is not a man. He is a slave to his woman. He is a slave to his sexual desires. The 21st century are feminist times. Men have been castrated by contraception. Contraception is the core of the feminist religion.

Men can break the feminist stranglehold by swearing off all forms of contraception with his women. If she wants contraception, then let her be. Never beg. Never be enslaved. There are better women.

Point #1: I'm not sure if it's proper, but "contraceptive" as an adjective applied to a person seems like really bad word choice.  Actually, it makes me picture a sort of superhero - ContraceptiveWoman!

Point #2: I have news for you.  The more kids you have, the less likely it is you're going to have lots of opportunities for "beautiful sex". 

 Point #3: He's against contraception, but he's also against monogamy?  So... basically it sounds like he's in favor of guys getting to screw around in the name of "perpetuating his line".  Except, that doesn't sound very family oriented to me.

 Point #4: I'm going to hate telling my husband he's "not a man". 

 Point #5: This guy is a waste of oxygen.  More proof of why we should let the crazies on the Internet.  Otherwise, rational people might not believe they exist.

desertvixen: (evil kitty)

 I haven't posted anything from in a few days, but this one made me laugh:
Neither does the Catholic church exist in the Bible, it's an invention of man.

Note: I'm talking of the official Catholic religion headed by the Pope, not he universal or catholic church of Christ which includes all of the saved. It can be confusing since the official Catholic religion has "borrowed" the word catholic for their name while having no idea what the catholic church really is.

I can't even really work up a good mock for this one.

desertvixen: (evil kitty)

Science show proof as a fact, not opinion that sperm is designed to penetrate. It will be drawn to go straight straight to the hard shelled egg in a woman's womb and start penetrating it to form a zygote (baby). The vagina wall is very strong and it can withstand millions of sperm penetrating at it and NOT ONE sperm will be able to burrow through the vagina wall. The anus wall is not the same. Its wall is very tender, soft and fraige. When sperms enter the anus area, it has absolutely NO PROBLEM burrowing through the anus wall. Once it is out, its next goal is to drive straight for the immune system and start attacking it. The immune system begins to weaken. It makes the human become more sick and die faster. This explains now why God did not promote homosexuality.

Someone was reading Jack Chick tracts in biology class.  The bolded parts are especially WTF.  Women are not chickens or reptiles, thanks.

Rowling presents true New Age heroes in other, more subtle ways. The powerful, famous "good" wizard of the story is Dumbledore. His loyal pet is named FAWKES. Guy Fawkes (1570-1606) was the Roman Catholic that is famous for the Gunpowder Plot. On the night of November 4-5, 1605, he was caught in the cellar underneath the House of Lords. He was arrested and hanged for conspiracy to blow up the English Parliament. This was really Satan's attempt to stop the Authorized Version from finding its way into the hands of the common people. To this day, every book on witchcraft, astrology, new age religion, etc. hates that one Book more than any other. The reason is that it is blunt in denouncing astrology, etc. Witches and astrologers find it easier to justify themselves with new versions (according to their own admissions - see "The Four Horsemen" by Elizabeth Clare Prophet, etc.). "Fawkes" becomes a name for a LOYAL pet in Harry Potter. Rowling's point is ominous. Perhaps this is one of many reasons that Catholics love the Harry Potter

Or, maybe, just maybe, he's named Fawkes because of the fact that phoenixes burn themselves up to regenerate....

I hate to be the one to break it to people, but we definitely have more pressing problems than Harry Potter.



desertvixen: (Default)

October 2017

12345 67


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 22nd, 2017 08:14 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios