August 26, 2007

SERIOUS QUESTION

Asked by blogdaughter Machelle of Quality Weenie in the comments to this post:

Why is it that teenage/early adult males can not handle a gay man being around them?

Do they fear "catching" it?
Does it make them feel less of a male?
Does it make them feel that uncomfortable that they just don't want to deal with it?

I've mulled this over, and I'm not really sure myself. About the only thing I can think of is "they're insecure about their manhood".

Which sounds like a cliche, but this is what I mean - teen males know that they're expected to act "manly", but they don't yet understand what all that would entail (they're probably a little fuzzy on the honesty, integrity & discipline aspects of manhood at that point - hopefully they'll figure out that those are the REAL keys). What they DO understand about manhood at this point is the concept of penile-vaginal copulation. That's the one aspect of manhood they're certain about. So, when placed in a situation of uncertainty, they fall back on what they can count on to demonstrate their manhood - defending their love of vagina.

That's my theory. Others are welcome in the comments.

Posted by: Harvey at 10:38 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

August 16, 2007

Here's Your Answer

(cross-posted from IMAO)

In a terribly off-topic comment to a John Edwards post, anonymous commenter with no contact information Yak asks:

Exactly why is the U.S. deployed in Iraq, according to you?

Fine.

Let's stop mincing words.

We're in Iraq because Muslims have stated over and over and over that their only goal is to kill all non-Muslims.

After 9/11, we started taking them at their word, and since we didn't want to be killed, our only choice was to start killing Muslims before they killed us.

Iraq had Muslims in it, so it was as good a place to start as any. In fact, better than most, because it was in the heart of Muslim country, and having troops there gives us a credible force-projection threat throughout the entire putrid, corrupt, murderous Muslim region. It's easier to kill Muslims in other countries from Iraq than it is from Kuwait.

And now Muslims have two choices:

They can reform their vicious, degenerate religion so that it allows for peaceful co-existence with other religions and - after embracing this enlightened, live-and-let-live philosophy whole-heartedly - they can become productive members of the civilized world, much like post-WWII Germany and Japan.

OR

They can be exterminated like vermin.

All the rest of this crap about WMD's, and mass graves, and liberation, and oil fields, and insurgents is just so much political window-dressing. America is fighting for its life against an insidious, deadly ideology. The people who cling to that sick, 7th-century belief system must either change their minds or be killed.

I wish with all my heart that we had enough manpower to conquer every damn last Muslim nation on earth and root this virus out once and for all, but we don't. So we'll start in Iraq, dragging these barbarians kicking and screaming into the 21st century. After that, hopefully the rest of the Muslim world will get the point. If not, there will be further examples, nation by nation, until they do.

Then, when the Muslim world is either civilized or dead, the war will be over.

I hope that answers your question.

Posted by: Harvey at 06:13 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
27kb generated in CPU 0.022, elapsed 0.1044 seconds.
70 queries taking 0.0901 seconds, 181 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.