Archive for the ‘Sexual Revolution’ Category
I became involved in a rather heated debate about the subject of gay/same-sex/homosexual marriage and if I had a dollar for every time someone bandied about the term “homophobia,” every time someone accused someone as an offensive debate maneuver of being “homophobic,” I’d have a lot more money than I have now to give to charity.
I think it is a myth, I said, that Americans are homophobic. Instead, I believe Americans are fearful of the diseases the homosexual community harbors such as AIDS and hepatitis. It’s a natural fear. Both of the diseases, AIDS and hepatitis, are frequently fatal. Phobias are irrational fears. Fear of contracting a deadly disease is not irrational. So, in that regard, “homophobia” is incorrectly waged.
In another regard, the term “homophobia” is being used incorrectly in its true context. The correct usage of the term “homophobia” involves fear of being labeled homosexual, not a heterosexual fear of homosexuals. It does not refer to straight people fearing gay people. Such usage of the term is incorrect.
What I didn’t like about the debate is that the “gay/same-sex/homosexual” side was so vehemently against any observation about their behavior and how it could affect the health of society that it amounted to little more than censorship and to me, that censorship is what is destroying any barriers that the heterosexual community is putting in place to prevent the spread of AIDS, whether those barriers be verbiage that identifies populations where the disease is prevalent or what behaviors are statistically unhealthy. In other words, you can’t tell us what to do and so what if you get sick and die. I’d be willing to wager that you are going to find some substantial disagreement with that sentiment.
The term homophobia has been levied by members of the gay community against the general population for some time as a means of suggesting some sort of inequality, and perhaps rightly so, but it turns out that the term is being used incorrectly and it involves the perspective of a single person’s fear of being perceived as homosexual, not that heterosexuals are afraid of homosexuals.
I would have let it go, but during the debate I was not only called “homophobic” but a few other choice names. So, I figured a public record of the correct usage and my perception and that of many, many others of what “homophobia” is was in order. Most Americans could care less about homosexuality these days. But the diseases historically associated with their community, that’s another issue. It’s no accident that the sexual promiscuity found in the gay community in San Francisco prior to the closing of the bath houses and the large number of intravenous drug users in that locality resulted in the wider distribution of AIDS. So, don’t hold it against the heterosexual population for being concerned about any change to the laws that govern homosexual behavior. Again, there is nothing irrational about such concerns.
As I’ve blogged previously I support same-sex marriage if it doesn’t raise my taxes because I think my tax dollars are already being misused to pay for the results of what I call government sponsored “sex for dollars” to pay to raise children being born out-of-wedlock. I also support gay/same-sex/homosexual marriage if it means monogamy and a decrease of certain STD’s being spread due to sexual promiscuity, which again was the reason bath houses were closed in San Francisco at the onset of the arrival of AIDS in The United States. First, there were only a few cases, then there were hundreds, do primarily to the promiscuity of homosexuals interacting in the bath houses, and then it got into the heterosexual population through blood transfusions and intravenous drug users. It started off as a few, deadly cases in The United States. Now it is everywhere. Just take a look at this map, AIDSVu
There have been cases of infected victims sticking people with contaminated needles. Infected people have been known to deliberately sleep with unwitting partners merely to infect them. Law enforcement personnel have become infected during searches by being stuck by the needles of drug users. Medical personnel have been stuck and infected or have been infected by blood spatters during surgical procedures. There are also statistics now that indicate the method of transmission in certain cases is unknown and unidentifiable. Has the disease mutated?
The concerns are real. They are not irrational. They are not phobias. They are valid.
So, not to make homosexuals appear like outcasts, but the concern coming from certain segments of society about any change to the laws governing homosexual marriage is real and genuine and justified. The concern is not the result of an irrational fear or phobia. I add that it is my opinion that driving such sexual behavior as homosexuality into the closet may have brought the plague of AIDS upon society to a certain extent to begin with. Maybe not. Perhaps social acceptance of homosexuals earlier on may have prevented the situation the world faces now.
So, to wrap this up, I favor homosexual marriage if it means monogamy and prevents the spread of disease. Just take a look at that map once again AIDSVu. In some counties on the eastern seaboard as many as five percent of the population are infected and the number is still growing! It was and still is an epidemic.
AIDS, once confined to a small section of the country, is now everywhere. I think the map tells enough of the story to reach a conclusion that there is nothing irrational about “homophobia,” even if it is used incorrectly.
I would not wish AIDS on anyone. Perhaps the gay community shouldn’t either.
Copyright © William Thien 2014
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.
The Same-SEX Marriage Debate: How to Deal with The High Cost of Political Morality Play
Posted on: May 4, 2013
One of the big debates going on at the state level in many states right now involves the decision to legalize “same-SEX marriage.” One side thinks legalization of “same-SEX marriage” is only fair for those who choose an alternative lifestyle and the other says it is immoral or against religious values. Then of course there are those who really had no opinion on the matter, which is where I resided until something occurred to me.
If you read my essays and observations regularly or have signed up to receive my updates, you will have concluded by now that I am a conservative, more conservative than that political party which often attempts to ally itself with conservative measure but is frequently no more conservative than the other side of the aisle in the comparison of many nowadays. Many conservatives believe that same-sex marriage should not be legal. That is not my sentiment, even though many believe my political or belief system falls within the realm of “true conservatism.”
Instead, I approach the subject of “same-SEX marriage” from the same perspective as I approach that of abortion, which I believe as a “true conservative” should be legal. “What?” You inquire? “How can that be, “same-sex marriage” and abortion are not even closely related?” Well, it is not that they are closely related, which as you will see later that they are in a way very closely related, it is that I view “same-SEX marriage” and abortion using the same method I use to view whether or not I believe as a “true conservative” that abortion should be legal, something many in the conservative hall are opposed to with vigor.
I believe that abortion should be legal because a woman can’t raise a child on her own unless she is independently wealthy or has government support, with government support being money from taxpayers, which by default means larger government and more taxes, something to which a “true conservative” is opposed, particularly now when taxes are approaching all time high levels and more people receive government entitlements than ever before.
“OK, so you are for legal abortion because you believe it helps to keep the size of government in check, what’s that have to do with “same-SEX marriage?”” You are asking.
Well, instead of approaching the subject of same-sex marriage from the perspective of whether it is a moral issue, I believe we should apply a certain approach to the subject that merely asks the question, “Will “same-SEX marriage” raise taxes for the taxpayer?” If the legalization of same-sex marriage results in an increase in taxes to the taxpayer, then perhaps it should be reconsidered. But if the legalization of same-sex marriage will result in a decrease in taxes, then perhaps it should be considered. You see, like abortion, you have to examine the behavior. The two, “same-SEX marriage” and abortion are indeed very closely related because they involve the subject of “SEX” and the product of “SEX!” In the case of “same-SEX marriage,” the subject of discussion is the subject of “SEX,” sex by people of the same “SEX!” And if legalization of “same-SEX marriage” results in an increase in taxes to pay for the legalization of a type of sexual activity, or “SEX,” then by the definition of any conservative, not just a “true conservative,” it should probably not be considered for legalization. Just like abortion, which deals with the result of “SEX,” or a fetus, “same-SEX marriage” deals with the subject of “SEX!” And in America we are already dealing with the substantial cost of “SEX” from unwed pregnancies at an alarming rate. Just in 2011 forty-one percent of children born were born to out-of-wedlock mothers who almost all certainly obtained a substantial amount of support from the taxpayer to enable such sexual inequity.
It is by the same method then that I believe we should approach the subject of “same-SEX marriage” as that of outlawing abortion, asking the question, how will it affect the burden of taxation upon the taxpayer? If legalization of same-sex marriage increases taxes for the taxpayers, then perhaps it should not be legalized as it is believed that outlawing abortion would increase taxes, substantially.
I think this same method, asking the question, “What burden will it place upon the taxpayer?” should be applied to all such similar circumstances, particularly those involving sexual behaviors. They are consensual behaviors generally and don’t harm anyone until they become issues which affect taxation when then they directly impact the taxpayer. I think the method I discuss here is an excellent way to deal with the political morality play, the political theater and misrepresentation that goes on with such matters of consensual behavior. And though I recognize the biblical origin and position of religious leadership on the matter of “same-SEX marriage,” I don’t think it is as much of a religious matter as it is an economic issue.
Why?
Because it is time American taxpayers should be free from having to pay for others to have sex on a bed made of taxpayers’ dollars.
Copyright © William Thien 2013
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.
In an observation on eliminating tax deductions I brought up the subject of “tax surrogacy” in The United States. My position is that childless taxpayers are merely “tax surrogates” for a parasitic tax code that allows taxpayers with children to obtain a child tax credit or deduction for each child they are raising and the funds for such deductions are available because childless taxpayers are not eligible. In other words, childless taxpayers are paying to raise the children of those with children because the childless taxpayer does not receive the deduction. I elaborate further on that perspective in America’s Unfair Tax Code and The Brown Headed Cowbird.
But the more I consider the concept of “tax surrogacy” the more I see it applies to a wider breadth of the country’s population. Not only are childless taxpayers tax surrogates for those with children, the middle class taxpayer is a tax surrogate for both the poor and the very wealthy. That relationship is enabled through clever manipulation of the public’s perception of the poor and of wealthy taxpayers, to which within the scope of the definition of “wealthy taxpayers” I will include corporations, because ultimately what I am writing about here is welfare by favorable taxation, and corporations benefit quite obviously the most from the tax code.
In fact certain corporations support that party which offers multiple layers of welfare to the poor because those corporations then benefit from that relationship. Either the poor are at home watching television and buying products advertised by those corporations on television or congress is lobbied to provide favorable taxation to those corporations simply because a corporation is defined as “a person” in the eyes of the law and in legislative terms and so it is argued, lobbied, that since certain citizens are eligible for various types of what is essentially welfare, so then should corporations be eligible as well, corporations which again are viewed as people by the law, something Romney attempted to elaborate on earlier in the year and everyone who hasn’t a clue about such law squawked about it! Oh yes, this is how tax law is created that governs corporations. Corporations are seen as “people” by the law. Hence, tax code is created to govern corporate profits as if they were indeed personal income. Clever, isn’t it.
This is one reason why I do not favor all sorts of social programs designed to help the poor. Nothing wrong with helping the poor. But due to the parasitic tax code in this country there are other beneficiaries, corporations for example, of the tax code who may not need those benefits. Now I believe favorable taxes must be in place for corporations, lower taxes even, but the problem with the current tax code is that the money for the tax welfare has to come from somewhere. And in the way the current tax code is structured, it comes from the middle classes. All welfare, whether it be food stamps, a social program, a medical program for the poor, or corporate welfare, is paid for in The United States by the middle classes. The poor do not contribute and the wealthy escape participation through the tax code. The middle classes are effectively “tax surrogates” paying at both ends, to the poor and the wealthy. And if you are a single taxpayer with no children, you pay even more. That is of course totally unfair tax policy. I myself am single with no children. When all is said and done I take home about two-thirds of my pay yet am ineligible for any social or medical programs because I have no children. If I had children, I would be eligible for free medical care in the state I reside (children make you eligible for social programs and welfare and basically change the government structure for you to a communist government structure and this is why many poor have children, because they know it will then make them eligible for welfare which they would not receive otherwise).
I receive a tax refund but it is a paltry sum when I compare it to a co-worker’s who has children he declares on his taxes. I am a “tax surrogate” in the purist, strictest sense of the term.
America’s tax code is unfair. Tax surrogacy is nothing more than a crime really, perpetrated on the taxpayer, in particular the middle class taxpayer. It may not be a crime as defined by the law, but it is a sort of “social” or implied crime. The middle classes are not flush with cash and able to give it to everyone. Many are instead at the edge of their income bracket, now more than ever.
I don’t know if at this point in the country’s history we can change the law. But I felt before we could change the law I had to give the condition from which the middle class taxpayer suffers a name. I call it “tax surrogacy.” Someone may have already thought of it. That’s great.
Let this then simply be my explanation of what is happening in this country with regard to taxes and why I believe something needs to be done about it.
Copyright © William Thien 2012
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address
In July of 2010 I added an essay to this site titled “Who is really behind The Sexual Revolution? What it is…” I conclude in the essay that the most recent and significant moment in the feminist drive for equality occurred as a result of a corporate desire to see the woman leave the house. Why? So American corporations could sell more products, gasoline, cars, auto insurance, to name a few of the more profitable products to be sold to women now going in to work instead of staying at home.
I will add that this argument is not designed nor has it ever been designed to center on which of the sexes is “better,” men or women, just to observe that men and women are different, which means logically that they are not equal. Books have been written on the matter with cute, pandering titles naming the different sexes after different planets and all sorts of animals have been assigned sexual characteristics, but nobody really has ever had the intestinal fortitude to approach the matter as is being done here in the present.
With that said, something occurred to me earlier today as well that you probably don’t hear much about and that is that the government has a serious desire as well to see women leave the house. The government has by design been instrumental in the redefinition/destruction of the American family. The government has done so for a reason, twice the income taxes. Now, the government can collect income taxes from two workers in every household instead of one. The feminist movement was bolstered during the sixties and seventies heavily by the government because the government was desirous of more income taxes.
Nothing wrong with women wanting to go to work, to get out of the house. In fact, from my perspective there are many benefits. But let’s not get confused about the true motivations of all of the other interested parties in seeing to the organized redefinition/destruction of the American family and the adherence to a falsehood almost to the point of brainwashing the American public about equality between the sexes.
Men and women are different. Different means different, different does not mean equal. Therefore men and women are not equal. Why is it so important to note that? I think the impression that society has of women has fallen dramatically since the feminist movement’s latest significant strides of the sixties and seventies. Crime against women is up, way up since the sixties and seventies at tremendous cost to the taxpayer. I hear people addressing women in all disrespectful manners publicly now in comparison to before. Birth defects are up, way up, also at great cost to the taxpayer (Something I hope to get a chance to comment on in a later essay). Mental defects among adolescents are up, way up. Childhood poverty is up. Childhood obesity is up. Clearly there are significantly negative and costly social aspects to the public equalization of the sexes as the feminists have cast off family bonds in a social, lock-stop, all included movement, granting and consequently surrendering to corporations and the government more control of the family.
I add that I am not responsible for any of this, thank goodness.
So, we know that it’s profitable for business and government to ensure the sexes are perceived as equal. As an aside, during the sixties it was believed, or suggested, that the feminist movement was the result of communist efforts. This in my opinion couldn’t be further from the truth as communists benefited very little from the feminist movement. No, it was profiteers and the government that profited the most from the feminist movement, outside of the realm of the feminists themselves.
Finally, I’m not trying to throw the timeline in reverse on the subject of sexual equality, I’m just examining the true motivations of interested parties other than the feminists themselves so we can get a bearing on what can be done to improve the negative social ramifications that have resulted from that part of the feminist movement that isn’t really “the feminist movement.”
To do that, we need to examine the feminist movement for what it really is.
The feminist movement is not just purely a sexual revolution in its entirety, it’s a business plan, too, and it’s a revenue device.
For your convenience here is a link to the first essay on the matter https://williamthien.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/who-is-really-behind-the-sexual-revolution-what-it-is/
Copyright © William Thien 2012
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never give your contact information to anyone.
William Thien 
Contemporary feminism is uncivilized
Posted by: William Thien on: August 30, 2019
I believe there is a valid form and history to the feminist movement but that there is a flaw in contemporary feminism. From my perspective and experiences, contemporary feminism is uncivilized.
Contemporary feminism is uncivilized because contemporary feminism does not police itself.
Today feminism is an uncontrolled form of media-incited mass hysteria.
Contemporary feminism is reactionary.
The objective of contemporary feminism is to lash out.
Almost all of my experiences lead me to conclude that there is a mantra in contemporary feminism. All that I see on display in the media, in news stories involving feminism of any extent is that there is indeed a mantra.
That mantra is: use what you got to get what you want. It is use what you got to get what you want followed by the common but perhaps silent affirmation, “You go girl!”
It does not matter whose life is destroyed. No man is safe from the hysteria. It is often unity for the sake of gain, not for the sake of what is right. False accusations are tools of advancement. Political parties parade contemporary feminists in front of the camera to get votes. The entire country must endure every trial and tribulation in the mass media of contemporary feminism. Mole hills are turned into mountains. Contemporary feminism is, get even with any man whether he is innocent or not.
It is vengeance unchecked. Contemporary feminism IS uncivilized.
Contemporary feminism is socially destructive.
Contemporary feminism is, all men are the same.
Contemporary feminism is, we can do anything men can do and do it better, until it comes time to dig ditches under the hot sun with a hand shovel and then contemporary feminism is a Cheshire grin slinking away and suggesting “My what big biceps you men have.”
Contemporary feminism is a shrieking, raging beast cloaked in mass victimization.
Contemporary feminism is provocative.
Contemporary feminism is explicit displays of femininity.
Contemporary feminism is the temptress who then claims to be the victim.
Contemporary feminism is a fashion statement.
Contemporary feminism is a shrewd corporate marketing campaign.
Contemporary feminism is good for ratings.
Contemporary feminism is a right of passage.
Contemporary feminism is, I’m daddy’s little girl, even though I’m 30 and I ought to know better.
Contemporary feminism is often a cleverly designed trap.
Contemporary feminism is a poisonous militancy.
Contemporary feminism is, shout all at once and let no man be heard above it and defend himself from the common rage of womanhood. And make sure there are cameras there.
Contemporary feminism is guilty until proven innocent.
Contemporary feminism is totalitarian.
Ultimately to me though the reason contemporary feminism is uncivilized is because contemporary feminism does not police itself. It refuses.
When I discuss why I think contemporary feminism is uncivilized with an avowed feminist, though of a different generation, she agrees with me. And she tells me her definitions of what a true feminist is. They are different than that of a contemporary feminist. I am made to know that.
But when I say I believe feminism is in danger of delegitimizing itself because feminism does not police itself, she raises her voice and her response is that it would be impossible!
The avowed feminist refuses, vehemently refuses to believe any attempt to police contemporary feminism by a feminist would work. She utterly refuses. This to me indicates I am correct in the matter. It is her resistance to even make any attempt to solve a problem to which she agrees exists that proves my point. I do not mean to indict her here, but there is a clear indication in her response of what I describe. It is impossible! for us to police ourselves. Impossible!
Contemporary feminism is out of control.
Contemporary feminism is a refusal of feminist leadership to control its ranks, to even make an attempt to control its ranks.
When I respond with “well what if there were a strong female in the national spotlight who recognized that the feminist movement of today was an irresponsible, anti-social and socially destructive movement and she became the standard bearer for contemporary feminism?” the avowed feminist tries to steer the conversation immediately away from the idea of such a potential feminist leader, as if such a solution would put an end to the slaughter wrought by contemporary feminism upon the national psyche, or such a woman does not and could not, must not ever exist, or were she to arrive in such a world she would immediately be exiled by contemporary feminists everywhere. Impossible! Impossible! No! The fear that such a female standard bearer of feminism could exist is evident in even the avowed feminist’s voice. Ah yes, there it is, a clearly evident and common thread in the feminism of then and contemporary feminism.
This revelation of the avowed feminist that such a solution to police contemporary feminism by feminists themselves would be “impossible!” of course would suggest to me that all feminism is illegitimate were I not to in fact believe that there is a certain legitimacy already in feminism given its historical context and objectives.
But we are talking here of “contemporary feminism,” something men are forbidden to even ruminate upon! It is forbidden! What I am doing here, it is not allowed. Even though it involves defining the behavior more often than not of men, only women can be involved in such a definition. Who dare allow men to get involved!? All the while there is an open season advertised daily in the mass media on masculinity.
So why then don’t contemporary feminists police themselves and their behavior? What is there to lose in the legitimacy of self-control?
When I say that men, though clearly not perfect (all feminists are by default perfect you are to know, by the way), men do a pretty good job of keeping themselves in check and their latitude for what once was considered masculine behavior is increasingly diminished by feminism, along with the support of a pandering mass media whose advertisers want the female’s discretionary income. Well, the feminist suggests, that is excusable.
Contemporary feminism is a plainly evident double standard.
Contemporary feminism IS indeed uncivilized. It is uncivilized because it refuses to police itself. Feminism is not a movement any longer, it is a psychological aberration en masse. It is a derivation of collectivism, sponsored by corporatism.
Contemporary feminism is a form of mass psychological transference.
Contemporary feminism is, if one woman has a feeling about something or someone, a man perhaps, all other women must share that identical feeling and all men are equally guilty by default.
Contemporary feminism is a forced thought process. It is an offshoot of socialism. It is a communist re-education camp run and populated by one sex.
Contemporary feminism is a bestial, stampeding herd.
It is unchecked sexism in the reverse, where when men often lock each other up for such anti-social transgressions, women reward themselves.
You go girl! Or you get even. It is your duty. Let no man be safe from contemporary feminism.
Contemporary feminism is uncivilized.
Copyright © William Thien 2019
Sign up to receive updates. It is easy and safe. We will never sell your contact information to anyone. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address in the “Email Subscription” box and click “Sign me up!”
Share this: