So Called "Safe" Sex.
Quirk
Sex is dangerous by nature -- vulnerability, intimacy, passion and the
entire lexicon of expectations, unspoken assumptions -- sex is a risk. It
must be. We want it to be.
The thrill of the unknown, the shared mystery -- when two people attract
each other they frequently are engrossed in a mutual projection, each
person becomes the silver screen that holds the shadow of each others
expectations. The actor blends with the character as each player throws
themselves in to the deliberate progression of movements, signals,
gestures, glances -- each step is taken haphazardly as the events move the
couple closer and closer to sex. Reservation, defenses, inhibitions are
slowly cast aside with the discarded articles of clothing as the pair is
possessed by the choreography of touches, kisses, embraces. The gentle
strokes, the brutish clutches, the wildly delirious rush of emotions. Sex
has changed lives, started lives, ended lives -- it is the most powerful
suppressant of reason and self-control in human existence.
Safe sex -- the idea that sex can be inconsequential -- is a violation of
the human spirit. Sex is always dangerous. The hazards are many -- ecstasy,
depression, rejection, obsession -- these are the volatile compounds that
make up the explosive world of human passions. Sex can always blow up in a
fury of unforeseen circumstances, causing profound damage to the
participants.
Every form of tyranny our race has invented has attempt to subvert sex to
exploit and control our society -- all churches, all governments have
recognized the potentially incendiary nature of sex. All have tried to tame
it. Sex is free. Sex is universally available. Sex is uniting. Sex is
dividing.
Now the global corporate machine is taking its turn at the subversion of
sex -- they want sex to be first of all safe -- second of all profitable.
Safe sex, inconsequential sex -- as inert as an injection molded household
ornament. As exiting as a risqué joke gift. Safe enough to discuss in
boardrooms and infomercials. Devoid of danger, devoid of mystery, they want
sex to be a giddy triviality they can market with cutesy innuendoes and
childish mantras. Condoms are the ultimate weapon of the corporate state.
They amount to a per instance user fee -- they've got a way to charge you
for every sexual venture -- a price tag on each orgasm. Brilliant.
Sexual transmitted diseases are the main component of the sales machine.
Condoms can reduce the chance of getting these diseases -- use one and you
will be safe. Safe sex. What a joke. What percentage of the misery on the
planet is caused by sexually transmitted diseases? As one of the plights of
life -- it represents a minor one. Death, illness, discomfort -- the
sources of these things are too numerous to imagine.
Our lives and our well being are constantly at risk -- the world is a
hazardous place.
Sex is giving one's self over to another -- opening yourself to harm
voluntarily -- the drive to put your life -- perhaps briefly -- into the
hands of another. This is part of the bonding nature of sex. The couple
become partners in crime -- partners in risk -- surviving the experience
unharmed builds trust. Briefly creating a private, intimate world,
completely dependent on both people for it's continuum. Intensely personal,
intensely physical, intensely visceral. Ultimately becoming the
unrestricted joining of body, of flesh.
To bring a mass produced latex gizmo -- packaged with entire the pantheon
of copyrights, trademarks, corporate logos, all sorts of specious messages
from the world of mass media market conscious product design into the
gentle and savage and very human delirium of sex is dehumanizing. To trap
the dangerous secretions of human sexuality into a petroleum byproduct
sundry and create landfill mountains, violating the planet with the our
cast off pieces of factory made garbage filled with the fluids of our
intimacy, is a hideously degrading testimony to the intimacy that these
useless pieces of latex were an alien part of.
When you next look at a condom package -- see the ominous eyes of the
transdemonic corporate empire staring right back at you -- laughing at the
profits they are making while defiling the planet with latex waste --
laughing at the idea that you now feel safe. Admire your choice in semen
catchers. Is it a wacky rebellious concept condom? Is it a fun and naughty
pleasure enhancening hi tech condom? Is it a smart and sensible plain
condom that prides itself on sensitivity and fabled reliability? Make your
choice -- then go ahead -- enjoy your safe sex like the good little
consumers you see on TV -- you've earned it -- you're playing it smart --
playing it safe.
Quirk.
Quirk
Mark Allen Opheim
dmy...@lglobal.com (Quirk) wrote:
> [snip-o-rama]
>When you next look at a condom package -- see the ominous eyes of the
>transdemonic corporate empire staring right back at you -- laughing at the
>profits they are making while defiling the planet with latex waste --
>laughing at the idea that you now feel safe. Admire your choice in semen
>catchers. Is it a wacky rebellious concept condom? Is it a fun and naughty
>pleasure enhancening hi tech condom? Is it a smart and sensible plain
>condom that prides itself on sensitivity and fabled reliability? Make your
>choice -- then go ahead -- enjoy your safe sex like the good little
>consumers you see on TV -- you've earned it -- you're playing it smart --
>playing it safe.
i prefer non-ziplock plastic sandwich bags... those freezer ziplock
bags are just too stiff but for those thrifty people out there, they
can be reused.
>Quirk.
yes.
mao
<mark_...@usa.net>
www.angelfire.com/ca/lost (updated!)
David F Lynch
Quirk (dmy...@lglobal.com) wrote:
:
: Sex is dangerous by nature -- vulnerability, intimacy, passion and the
: entire lexicon of expectations, unspoken assumptions -- sex is a risk. It
: must be. We want it to be.
[and goes on to rant about the evils of birth control]
CONDOMS, man! REPRESSION, man!
Dave
(who still gets nightmares thinking about Comedy Central)
--
Dave (not David) Lynch/(.)(.)/Eligible Mutant Bachelor Uebergeek at large
dfly...@homer.louisville.edu/FILLER/Founder, First Church of Eternal Man
ObObsoleteHomepage:http://www.rlabs.com/lynch **** Please email followups
Derek Brown
Mark Allen Opheim (mark_...@usa.net) wrote:
: dmy...@lglobal.com (Quirk) wrote:
: >Quirk.
: yes.
: mao
: <mark_...@usa.net>
: www.angelfire.com/ca/lost (updated!)
Don't you think they are a trifle short? try quikke the twist tie ones,
they're a little longer.
or
playtex living gloves they don't call them living for nothing.
;-)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
| One planet Earth, One Human Race. |
| Have a nice peace (not pIEce ) T cq...@torfree.net |
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
TheCharlie
Derek Brown wrote:
>
> Mark Allen Opheim (mark_...@usa.net) wrote:
> : dmy...@lglobal.com (Quirk) wrote:
>
> : > [snip-o-rama]
> : >When you next look at a condom package -- see the ominous eyes of the
> : >transdemonic corporate empire staring right back at you -- laughing at the
> : >profits they are making while defiling the planet with latex waste --
> : >laughing at the idea that you now feel safe. Admire your choice in semen
> : >catchers. Is it a wacky rebellious concept condom? Is it a fun and naughty
> : >pleasure enhancening hi tech condom? Is it a smart and sensible plain
> : >condom that prides itself on sensitivity and fabled reliability? Make your
> : >choice -- then go ahead -- enjoy your safe sex like the good little
> : >consumers you see on TV -- you've earned it -- you're playing it smart --
> : >playing it safe.
>
> : i prefer non-ziplock plastic sandwich bags... those freezer ziplock
> : bags are just too stiff but for those thrifty people out there, they
> : can be reused.
> Don't you think they are a trifle short? try quikke the twist tie ones,
> they're a little longer.
I use the Alligator bags. They're ribbed, for HER pleasure.
Elf Sternberg
In article <32e29b95...@news.alt.net>
dmy...@lglobal.com (Quirk) writes:
>Sex is dangerous by nature -- vulnerability, intimacy, passion and the
>entire lexicon of expectations, unspoken assumptions -- sex is a risk. It
>must be. We want it to be.
[ Long pseudo-creed about how "safer sex" is somehow
"created" by the mass marketers of the world, and how the sex act is
somehow lessened by a little common sense... deleted ]
Let's try this again, shall we?
Jumping out of an airplane is dangerous by nature. The wind,
the sky, the sheer thrill of it as the whole Earth is spread out
before you to be seen and enjoyed. It must me. We want it to be.
So called 'parachutes' come between us and the thrill... they
slow us down long before we can truly appreciate the power of gravity.
Gravity is always dangerous, and if we're going to play with it, we
should take in the hazards of it to the fullest. Therein lies *true*
skydiving.
>Safe sex -- the idea that sex can be inconsequential -- is a violation of
>the human spirit. Sex is always dangerous. The hazards are many -- ecstasy,
>depression, rejection, obsession -- these are the volatile compounds that
>make up the explosive world of human passions. Sex can always blow up in a
>fury of unforeseen circumstances, causing profound damage to the
>participants.
It's funny that I don't see you chatting aimiably about the
Pill, or Norplant, or any of the other hundreds of contraceptive
methods out there. Somehow, you're not too rabid about getting
baby-prevention devices off the market (as so many Catholic creeds
decry) because they 'come between' a man, a woman, and the reproductive
potential.
Yeah, sex is dangerous. The hazards you mention in the
above paragraph-- ecstacy, depression, rejection, obsession, have
nothing to do with a piece of latex, a moment of common sense.
They have a lot to do with the souls of the people making love, not
the physical parts coming together. You can put tab 'A' into slot
'B' all your life and never make a connection of souls, or ever
want too. Too many people are hawking that kind of sex to make it
a rare occurrence.
Sex is dangerous enough without the added risk of bringing
a new person into the world, death by an unseen and unknown guest,
or both. Safer sex is no more a creation of the corporate world
than a paratchute, a seatbelt, or brushing your teeth every night.
Once upon a time companies used lust to sell things; these days they
use fear. They'll use whatever's at hand and works.
So have sex. Have joyous, wonderful sex full of the risks
that comes when you open your heart to another human being. But
just as you try to get to know the person a little before you jump
into bed, just to make sure he or she's not completely psycho and
gonna kill you, try to use a little common sense in bed and protect
yourself from the unwelcome invaders.
Elf !!!
--
Elf Sternberg Balkanize Usenet!
e...@halcyon.com
Public key available http://www.halcyon.com/elf/index.html
Quirk
<< posted & mailed >>
[ Elf: this contains variation from earlier emailed response ]
On 22 Jan 1997 19:34:30 GMT, Elf Sternberg wrote:
+ In article <32e29b95...@news.alt.net>
+ dmy...@lglobal.com (Quirk) writes:
+
+ >Sex is dangerous by nature -- vulnerability, intimacy, passion and the
+ >entire lexicon of expectations, unspoken assumptions -- sex is a risk. It
+ >must be. We want it to be.
+
+ [ Long pseudo-creed about how "safer sex" is somehow
+ "created" by the mass marketers of the world, and how the sex act is
+ somehow lessened by a little common sense... deleted ]
Well, obviously this is a simplification, but you've also trivialized
a lot of important and taboo points that I made regarding the
insidious nature of the propaganda machine behind the *IMMACULATE AND
HOLY* use of condoms.
+ Let's try this again, shall we?
Sure.
+ Jumping out of an airplane is dangerous by nature. The wind,
+ the sky, the sheer thrill of it as the whole Earth is spread out
+ before you to be seen and enjoyed. It must me. We want it to be.
So now you're comparing sex without out a condom to jumping out of an
airplane? Do you think this is a relevant analogy?
Jumping out of airplane is basically suicide, the chances of death are
about 100%.
Only 3360 people died in the States in 1994 from AIDS acquired through
heterosexual intercourse, divide that by the billions of times people
got laid by a new partner and you have your approximate risk factor.
You really think your analogy holds up?
+ So called 'parachutes' come between us and the thrill... they
+ slow us down long before we can truly appreciate the power of gravity.
+ Gravity is always dangerous, and if we're going to play with it, we
+ should take in the hazards of it to the fullest. Therein lies *true*
+ skydiving.
Well, if in fact that is the conviction that "true" skydivers hold,
all the best to them, it hardly has anything to do with my article
though.
+ >Safe sex -- the idea that sex can be inconsequential -- is a violation of
+ >the human spirit. Sex is always dangerous. The hazards are many --
+ >ecstasy, depression, rejection, obsession -- these are the volatile
+ >compounds that make up the explosive world of human passions. Sex can
+ >always blow up in a fury of unforeseen circumstances, causing profound
+ >damage to the participants.
+ It's funny that I don't see you chatting aimiably about the
+ Pill, or Norplant, or any of the other hundreds of contraceptive
+ methods out there. Somehow, you're not too rabid about getting
+ baby-prevention devices off the market (as so many Catholic creeds
+ decry) because they 'come between' a man, a woman, and the reproductive
+ potential.
I don't want to get anything off of the market, please indicate where
I gave you the idea that I promote banning anything or advocate
removing stuff from shelves.
I have no problem with the Pill, Norplant I find kinda creepy (but
that's just my taste).
And there are Natural techniques, based on cycles, temperature and
stuff that even the Pope approves of.
My personal favourite of the bunch is Depo Preverva (sp?) -- Easy,
effective, not interfering. Still has to be taken by the female
though, although if a similar product where developed for males, I'd
be first in line.
I don't think that condoms are wrong or should be banned either, my
article basically says that are also many reasons NOT to use them, a
highly "unpolitically correct" (tm) point of view that needed saying.
It's just the insidious impact and unfettered profiteering that
condoms and the propaganda machine behind them have intoduced to our
our culture and sexual attitudes that I'm commenting on, please read
the article again without taking the angle that I'm some kind of
totalitarian.
+ Yeah, sex is dangerous. The hazards you mention in the
+ above paragraph-- ecstacy, depression, rejection, obsession, have
+ nothing to do with a piece of latex, a moment of common sense.
+ They have a lot to do with the souls of the people making love, not
+ the physical parts coming together.
Did you read my article? You are agreeing with what I said, that is
why I mock the idea of "safe" sex. Start looking at the condom
commercials, start reading the "safe" sex propaganda, I think you'll
see what I mean.
They are trying to make condom-less sex seem deviant and wrong,
because *IT IS* deviant and wrong from the point of view of the
transdemonic corporate empire. You get off with out a penny going into
their pockets -- what could be worse?
+ You can put tab 'A' into slot 'B' all your life and never make a
+ connection of souls, or ever want too. Too many people are hawking that
+ kind of sex to make it a rare occurrence.
I completely agree.
+ Sex is dangerous enough without the added risk of bringing
+ a new person into the world, death by an unseen and unknown guest,
+ or both. Safer sex is no more a creation of the corporate world
+ than a paratchute, a seatbelt, or brushing your teeth every night.
+ Once upon a time companies used lust to sell things; these days they
+ use fear. They'll use whatever's at hand and works.
Once again, I agree.
+ So have sex. Have joyous, wonderful sex full of the risks
+ that comes when you open your heart to another human being. But
+ just as you try to get to know the person a little before you jump
+ into bed, just to make sure he or she's not completely psycho and
+ gonna kill you, try to use a little common sense in bed and protect
+ yourself from the unwelcome invaders.
And yet again, I agree.
If you feel that you are refuting my position then I think you've
missed the point of my article.
Much of what you have said supports it.
Cheers,
+++
Dmytri Kleiner -- Quirk
"Gravity lets
P.S. Oh, Nevermind. you down"
<< http://www.lglobal.com/~dmytrik >>
** Keep in mind that this transmission
just might be a malicious forgery.
Copyright 1997 Idiosyntactix, Toronto.
Sister Pammy of the Soil
Quirk wrote:
Beginning of a passionate, reasonably well-written but DUMB rant snipped
to get to the really bad parts.
>
> Now the global corporate machine is taking its turn at the subversion of
> sex -- they want sex to be first of all safe -- second of all profitable.
> Safe sex, inconsequential sex -- as inert as an injection molded household
> ornament. As exiting as a risqué joke gift. Safe enough to discuss in
> boardrooms and infomercials. Devoid of danger, devoid of mystery, they want
> sex to be a giddy triviality they can market with cutesy innuendoes and
> childish mantras. Condoms are the ultimate weapon of the corporate state.
> They amount to a per instance user fee -- they've got a way to charge you
> for every sexual venture -- a price tag on each orgasm. Brilliant.
>
> Sexual transmitted diseases are the main component of the sales machine.
> Condoms can reduce the chance of getting these diseases -- use one and you
> will be safe. Safe sex. What a joke. What percentage of the misery on the
> planet is caused by sexually transmitted diseases? As one of the plights of
> life -- it represents a minor one. Death, illness, discomfort -- the
> sources of these things are too numerous to imagine.
> Our lives and our well being are constantly at risk -- the world is a
> hazardous place.
Personally, I want to marry ALL of Trojan's corporate execs and employees
and repeatedly fuck their lights out in undying gratitude--safely, through
a thin, inconsequential piece of latex that gets in the way of NOBODY'S
fun! (Where's Dyna to perform the services??)
Can you spell pregnancy, Quirk? Can you say MULTIPLE pregnancies,
miscarriages, stillborn babies and women dead in childbirth? By my ripe
old age, I could expect to have maybe ten live kids, five miscarriages,
three or four dead babies, no teeth, weak bones, saggy boobs, and not an
ounce of energy left for fun or creativity. IF I'm lucky. Probably I'd
have long since bled to death in childbirth, leaving my oldest daughters
to raise my babies before they start the cycle for themselves.
I thank Trojan on my knees every time I think about what my life would
have been like a mere hundred years ago! I get to be a full-time artist
instead of a mama, and I get to have sex whenever I have a handy Trojan
within reach. A hundred years ago women who chose sex automatically chose
babies, like it or not.
You want to talk about a CON, motherfucker??? Convincing women to use
birth control pills that fuck with their body chemistry so that you don't
have to use a rubber and can get your dick good and wet--now that's a CON!
> When you next look at a condom package -- see the ominous eyes of the
> transdemonic corporate empire staring right back at you -- laughing at the
> profits they are making while defiling the planet with latex waste --
> laughing at the idea that you now feel safe. Admire your choice in semen
> catchers. Is it a wacky rebellious concept condom? Is it a fun and naughty
> pleasure enhancening hi tech condom? Is it a smart and sensible plain
> condom that prides itself on sensitivity and fabled reliability? Make your
> choice -- then go ahead -- enjoy your safe sex like the good little
> consumers you see on TV -- you've earned it -- you're playing it smart --
> playing it safe.
Like the good Woodpecker with his pack of Camels, when I look at a pack of
condoms, no matter what the wrapping, I see the word "CHOICE".
Sister Pammy of the Fucking Soil--"I've used thousands and I've yet to see
one break."
Sister Pammy of the Soil
Quirk wrote:
> Only 3360 people died in the States in 1994 from AIDS acquired through
> heterosexual intercourse, divide that by the billions of times people
> got laid by a new partner and you have your approximate risk factor.
Do I have to kill you AGAIN, Quirk??? If you're going to quote
statistics, a REVELANT one might be how many people got INFECTED with
HIV in the last year. The people who died in 1994 could have acquired
the virus as much as ten years ago, when it was less common than it is
today. Divide the number of CARRIERS by the number of times people got
laid and you might get a risk factor. The people who died in 1994 are
the LEAST significant population to consider, given that they probably
felt too crummy to fuck, and then they died and couldn't.
> I have no problem with the Pill, Norplant I find kinda creepy (but
> that's just my taste).
>
> And there are Natural techniques, based on cycles, temperature and
> stuff that even the Pope approves of.
NATURAL TECHNIQUES THAT EVEN THE POPE APPROVES OF??? So there's
nothing intrusive about having to take your temp all the time like some
goddamn turkey that you have to check to see if it's done? With the
temperature method, the forbidden days for fucking are the very one when
your hormones are screaming "fuck me" the loudest.
Sister Pammy of the Soil--untouched by scandal since 1996
Mark Allen Opheim
>Sister Pammy of the Fucking Soil--"I've used thousands and I've yet to see
>one break."
now THAT is the kind of statistics I can live with. field
motherfuckin' tested... yes'um
Soil, i worship the ground you walk on... hmmm?
i see this as 1 vote for Trojan Brand. Next.
The Oxymoron of the Day: down escalator
<mark_...@usa.net> www.angelfire.com/ca/lost (java & PowWow updated!)
John Lauzon
Quirk (dmy...@lglobal.com) wrote:
: Sexual transmitted diseases are the main component of the sales machine.
: Condoms can reduce the chance of getting these diseases -- use one and you
: will be safe. Safe sex. What a joke. What percentage of the misery on the
: planet is caused by sexually transmitted diseases? As one of the plights of
: life -- it represents a minor one. Death, illness, discomfort -- the
: sources of these things are too numerous to imagine.
: Our lives and our well being are constantly at risk -- the world is a
: hazardous place.
When a doctor discovers his patient is Hiv positive, does he always tell
the patient?
John
--
\ [P] / o<<<<<>>>>> "PRAY THE HOLY ROSARY" <<<<<>>>>>o \ [P] /
-- [[[R]]] -- I extend to you who is reading this .sig the -- [[[R]]] --
/ [A] \ "SPECIAL BLESSING" of the "QUEEN OF PEACE" / [A] \
/ [Y] \ o<<<<<>>>>>"Our Lady of Medjugorje"<<<<<>>>>>o / [Y] \
jo...@uwplatt.edu
In article <32e29b7d...@news.alt.net>, Dmytri Kleiner -- Quirk
<dmy...@lglobal.com> wrote:
> Safe sex -- the idea that sex can be inconsequential -- is a violation of
> depression, rejection, obsession -- these are the volatile compounds that
> make up the explosive world of human passions. Sex can always blow up in a
> fury of unforeseen circumstances, causing profound damage to the
> participants.
Yeah right, I could be fucking the mailperson in fifteen minuets and
still not be able to pronounce her name, all sex has ever been and
geneticly was ever meant to be is a hormonaly overloaded body-rubbing of
mind boggling strangeness, I mean if it's so NATURAL, than why does our
body have to dope us out on a smorgasbord of hormones and stimulants just
to get us interested? Face it, it's WIERD and oversentimentaliation is
just another trick the old 'Common Decency' folks are allways shilling
out, oh yes sex is a wonderful, loveing eperience that should only be
experienced in certain socialy acceptable ways.
SEX is NOTHING, if it has a great emotional impact on you and your
partner(s) then great! have a ball! don't go nuts and kill someone though
and keep in mind that IT'S ALL IN YOUR HEAD.
Also, THINK WHACHER' SAYIN I have friends who are HIV+ and I have been
there waiting for the results myself and it FUCKIN SUCKS, DEATH FUCKIN SUCKS
SUCKS SUCKS, it is the END of all slack (probably). Oh, but then you are
totaly trusting your partner of course, THEY don't know, YOU don't know NOBODY
KNOWS that's why you MUST BE SAFE. Ok, enough caps.
Am I to infer from your opposition to condoms that you think some other
form of contraception would be more appropriate or con-free? Like what? Lets
see, which male contraceptive could we use.. hmm.. WAIT! there arn't any! Well,
jee I guess we'll just have to leave that up to the little lady then, us men
should be able to just fuckin shoot off whenever and wherever we feel like and
let our lovers deal with the realities of the situation so we can be 'closer'
or more natural, BULLSHIT brotha, BULLSHIT.
And if yer not going towards an alternate, then all I can say is that
unless they're positively subs, I'm not feeding all those kids.
> When you next look at a condom package -- see the ominous eyes of the
> transdemonic corporate empire staring right back at you -- laughing at the
> profits they are making while defiling the planet with latex waste --
> laughing at the idea that you now feel safe. Admire your choice in semen
> catchers. Is it a wacky rebellious concept condom? Is it a fun and naughty
> pleasure enhancening hi tech condom? Is it a smart and sensible plain
> condom that prides itself on sensitivity and fabled reliability? Make your
> choice -- then go ahead -- enjoy your safe sex like the good little
> consumers you see on TV -- you've earned it -- you're playing it smart --
> playing it safe.
Ok, so some rouge sub. is out there selling condomos to the hoy-paloy of
scenesters and jocks with flashy ads and appeals to bland, plastic sex.
GOOD! Do you really want all these wankers BREEDING??? Fer christ sake,
there ain't enough frap to go around now.
Brother Johnson
ps. *story time* once upon a younger day I had an exceptionaly 'frigid'
girlfriend, she was a sociopath and sex was ONLY another tool and if she
started enjoying herself she lost power to manipulate me (hey, I was a kid, I
knew no better ok?) anyway, the only thing that aroused her was unprotected
sex, not because it was 'closer' or more intimate, but because SHE WAS A SELF
DESTRUCTIVE FREAK and I was almost a father at 16 (I know it was my decision
too, but like I said, I was a kid and she had me controlled like you wouldent
believe) So I say ALL HAIL CONDOMS, if ya don't like how their sold make yer
own or sumtin.. if there's a lot of yall out there you can probably fill a
niche selling 'close and intimate' condoms to be used for properly romantic
fornication only.
pps. You wanna know the REAL conspiracy? Just look at what is available, how
many new male contraceptives have come out in the last 100 years in america?
The Indians have been testing everything from temperary on/off vasectomies to
male hormone treatments and NONE of this research has been okd by the FDA and
all the US pharm-tech-bio companies say that there isn't a market so they won't
do R&D. BULLSHIT. I couldent name a friend who wouldent loooooove an on/off
vasectomy.
I should design a set of valves you can twiddle with a remote control..
have to make damn sure the garage opener dosn't set it off accidentaly tho.
Adolph Bile
Sister Pammy whines;
>You want to talk about a CON, motherfucker??? Convincing women to use
>birth control pills that fuck with their body chemistry so that you don't
>have to use a rubber and can get your dick good and wet--now that's a CON!
Hey, shuddup. My ex's body chemistry was so fucked up to begin with that the
pill was the only way to regulate her menstral cycle - and yeah, I like
getting my dick wet, so what? Don't like it? Don't eat it.
Besides, women NEED to be regulated. I prefer thumb cuffs and a riding crop,
but if estrogen and valium do the trick just as well, why leave marks?
Seriously, if your period comes in one day with no blood one month, and 10
days with fucking gushers the next, and the pill takes care of that while
giving benefit to your partner, who are you going to listen to - your body,
or some delusional paranoid freak who says not to use the pill because of
some CON????
Bile
Lou Duchez
[tor.general snipped]
In article <32E6CD...@cphl.mindspring.com>,
Sister Pammy of the Soil <toxi...@cphl.mindspring.com> wrote:
> Quirk wrote:
> > Only 3360 people died in the States in 1994 from AIDS acquired through
> > heterosexual intercourse, divide that by the billions of times people
> > got laid by a new partner and you have your approximate risk factor.
> Do I have to kill you AGAIN, Quirk??? If you're going to quote
> statistics, a REVELANT one might be how many people got INFECTED with
> HIV in the last year. The people who died in 1994 could have acquired
> the virus as much as ten years ago, when it was less common than it is
> today. Divide the number of CARRIERS by the number of times people got
> laid and you might get a risk factor. The people who died in 1994 are
> the LEAST significant population to consider, given that they probably
> felt too crummy to fuck, and then they died and couldn't.
And -- topic mutation imminent -- oxygen therapy can prove extremely
effective in reducing AIDS to a chronic, treatable condition with
minimal impact on quality of life. Oxygen therapy is likewise
effective against a very wide assortment of cancers, virii, and
bacteria. Check out my Web page for links on oxygen therapy:
http://www.en.com/users/ljduchez
Lou Duchez
[tor.general snipped]
In article <5c743l$i...@andromeda.peganet.net>,
cat...@peganet.com (Adolph Bile) vomited like an ulcer-ridden drunken whore:
> Sister Pammy whines;
> >You want to talk about a CON, motherfucker??? Convincing women to use
> >birth control pills that fuck with their body chemistry so that you don't
> >have to use a rubber and can get your dick good and wet--now that's a CON!
> Seriously, if your period comes in one day with no blood one month, and 10
> days with fucking gushers the next, and the pill takes care of that while
> giving benefit to your partner, who are you going to listen to - your body,
> or some delusional paranoid freak who says not to use the pill because of
> some CON????
I think it's pretty obvious that your woman is in a different boat here,
where the pill has definite health benefits. I wasn't aware that you
needed Pammy's approval to make sensible choices for yourself.
Pammy, next time, be sure to compose a complete list of circumstances
where the pill (or whatever) is a truly useful, Slack-bringing tool that
qualifying SubGenii should use guilt-free. It seems you wield more
opinion-shaping power here than you ever imagined.
Quirk
<< posted & mailed >>
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:52:42 -0500, Sister Pammy of the Soil wrote:
+ Quirk wrote:
+
+ Beginning of a passionate, reasonably well-written but DUMB rant snipped
+ to get to the really bad parts.
Seeing as you concede that my rant is passionate and well-written it
is clear that by "dumb" you that you'd don't agree. Or do you think
that stupid people compose well written and passionate writings by
accident. Am I the 1000th monkey?
Although the phenomenon of people labelling position they don't agree
with "dumb" is not unusual, it generally doesn't bode well for there
level of objectivity.
+ > Now the global corporate machine is taking its turn at the subversion of
+ > sex -- they want sex to be first of all safe -- second of all
+ > profitable.
+ Personally, I want to marry ALL of Trojan's corporate execs and employees
+ and repeatedly fuck their lights out in undying gratitude--safely, through
+ a thin, inconsequential piece of latex that gets in the way of NOBODY'S
+ fun! (Where's Dyna to perform the services??)
Well, since you seem to have a rather peculiar method of choosing your
bed mates and are very ambitious in the numbers of partners you hope
to pursue ("ALL of Trojan's corporate execs and employees") your
lifestyle and my lifestyle are substantially different.
Given that I take care in choosing my lovers, and never use sex as
reward for favourable corporate behaviour (they'd probably prefer
profit sharing anyway) my risk factors and your risk factors are
completely different. This is reflected in the choices we make, the
risks we take, and our rection to media paradigms.
+ Can you spell pregnancy, Quirk?
No, please spell it for me... I've already admitted to being an awful
speller.
+ Can you say MULTIPLE pregnancies, miscarriages, stillborn babies and women
+ dead in childbirth? By my ripe old age, I could expect to have maybe ten
+ live kids, five miscarriages, three or four dead babies, no teeth, weak
+ bones, saggy boobs, and not an ounce of energy left for fun or creativity.
+ IF I'm lucky. Probably I'd have long since bled to death in childbirth,
+ leaving my oldest daughters to raise my babies before they start the cycle
+ for themselves.
There are many other forms of Birth control.
+ I thank Trojan on my knees every time I think about what my life would
+ have been like a mere hundred years ago! I get to be a full-time artist
+ instead of a mama, and I get to have sex whenever I have a handy Trojan
+ within reach. A hundred years ago women who chose sex automatically chose
+ babies, like it or not.
Listen, I'm not questioning your choices, your analysis of risks or
your methods of prevention, I'm merely stating an opposite point of
view.
But my point of view directly contradictd the politically correct
attitudes of the day, so it irks you that I dare to speak in favour of
the perverse desire to have sex without condoms. How weird.
In an age of almost limitless sexual and lifetyle license, sex without
condoms is taboo.
+ You want to talk about a CON, motherfucker??? Convincing women to use
+ birth control pills that fuck with their body chemistry so that you don't
+ have to use a rubber and can get your dick good and wet--now that's a CON!
This may be how you feel, but please give other women the privileged
of deciding for themselves how they want to deal with birth control,
there are many facets to this issue.
+ > When you next look at a condom package -- see the ominous eyes of the
+ > transdemonic corporate empire staring right back at you -- laughing at
+ > the profits they are making while defiling the planet with latex waste
+ > laughing at the idea that you now feel safe. Admire your choice in semen
+ > catchers
+ Like the good Woodpecker with his pack of Camels, when I look at a pack of
+ condoms, no matter what the wrapping, I see the word "CHOICE".
I'm not advocating removing anybodies ability to chose, simply stating
and celebrating an opposing and equally valid point of view.
A point of view you that many seem to think is immoral to have,
interesting how many people are concerned about the morality of events
between consenting adults. I guess the obvious parallels are lost on
you.
Quirk
<< posted & mailed >>
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:33:14 -0500, Sister Pammy of the Soil wrote:
+ Quirk wrote:
+
+ > Only 3360 people died in the States in 1994 from AIDS acquired through
+ > heterosexual intercourse, divide that by the billions of times people
+ > got laid by a new partner and you have your approximate risk factor.
+ Do I have to kill you AGAIN, Quirk??? If you're going to quote
+ statistics, a REVELANT one might be how many people got INFECTED with
+ HIV in the last year. The people who died in 1994 could have acquired
+ the virus as much as ten years ago, when it was less common than it is
+ today. Divide the number of CARRIERS by the number of times people got
+ laid and you might get a risk factor. The people who died in 1994 are
+ the LEAST significant population to consider, given that they probably
+ felt too crummy to fuck, and then they died and couldn't.
Please... do you think that if you evoke self righteous indignation
that your point is somehow immediately rendered true?
Surely, if you really fee this sort of nitpicking is usefull, you
could have figured out that you can extrapolate the statistic you are
looking for with the above information and a clever guess on the
average amount of time it takes to die from aids.
So let's guess that the missing variable is five years... if you're
looking for the approximate per instance risk factor for
heterosexually transmitted aids then my figure of 3360 applies to the
year 1989 instead of 1994. If you disagree with my figure of 5 years,
then plug in your own number and follow the same simple math and you
have the figure you want, the only thing that changes is the year
which that number represents. Hardly discrediting my use of the
statistic as an indication of the approximate risk factor.
+ > I have no problem with the Pill, Norplant I find kinda creepy (but
+ > that's just my taste).
+ > And there are Natural techniques, based on cycles, temperature and
+ > stuff that even the Pope approves of.
+ NATURAL TECHNIQUES THAT EVEN THE POPE APPROVES OF??? So there's
+ nothing intrusive about having to take your temp all the time like some
+ goddamn turkey that you have to check to see if it's done? With the
+ temperature method, the forbidden days for fucking are the very one when
+ your hormones are screaming "fuck me" the loudest.
This may be so. That is why we all prioritise what is important to us
and look at the rewards we want and the risks we are wiling to take in
making our decisions. So? We all make our own choices. Do you really
feel you have refuted any of my arguments?
David F Lynch
Quirk (dmy...@lglobal.com) wrote:
:
: Seeing as you concede that my rant is passionate and well-written it
: is clear that by "dumb" you that you'd don't agree.
What ISN'T clear is what the $#%# you're trying to say in this sentence.
: Or do you think
: that stupid people compose well written and passionate writings by
: accident. Am I the 1000th monkey?
No, Quirk, you're the five billionth monkey.
: Although the phenomenon of people labelling position they don't agree
: with "dumb" is not unusual, it generally doesn't bode well for there
: level of objectivity.
I think she must have been kidding about the "well-written" part.
: Well, since you seem to have a rather peculiar method of choosing your
: bed mates and are very ambitious in the numbers of partners you hope
: to pursue ("ALL of Trojan's corporate execs and employees") your
: lifestyle and my lifestyle are substantially different.
Peculiar? That's what life's ABOUT, Quirk.
: Given that I take care in choosing my lovers, and never use sex as
: reward for favourable corporate behaviour (they'd probably prefer
: profit sharing anyway) my risk factors and your risk factors are
: completely different. This is reflected in the choices we make, the
: risks we take, and our rection to media paradigms.
Quirk. Quirk. She was just saying she LIKES CONDOMS, Quirk. OK?
She's not REALLY going to fuck each and every condom plant employee-
Dobbs knows most of those execs probably couldn't get it up anyway.
: There are many other forms of Birth control.
So? Condoms are easy, quick, safe, effective, and, aside from a slight
reduction in sensation, without side effects.
: But my point of view directly contradictd the politically correct
: attitudes of the day, so it irks you that I dare to speak in favour of
: the perverse desire to have sex without condoms. How weird.
Quirk, you were not simply expressing a desire. You were ranting and
decrying the use of condoms as the product of a corporate oligarchy, blah
blah woof woof, and should you encounter a partner who insists on them
I think your attitudes will very quickly change. Just like in that stupid
stinking commercial. So don't play this "HELP! HELP! I'm BEING SUPPRESSED!
THEY'RE TAKING AWAY MY FREE SPEECH!" bullshit, OK?
It has come to my attention that some of you (such as Nenslo and Dad
Townsend) have too much good taste and sense to watch television,
and are thus unfamiliar with the condom commercial I have made snide
reference to. Frankly, I can think of no worse insult to Mr. Quirk's
ridiculous bitching than to compare it to this avatar of horror, the
"Sheik" condom ad. As every Subgenius should be in constant contact
with profound pain and suffering, and in an attempt to relieve some of
the sickening burden the knowledge of this odious thing has placed on
my, I shall attempt to relate it to you.
The commercial begins with an extremely greasy and unattractive young
man- clearly a "slacker"- clad in flannel standing on what looks to be
the steps of a courthouse or some such thing, ranting about something or
other in a diatribe that begins, "CONDOMS, man! REPRESSION, man!" This
continues for about twenty-five seconds or so- the longest twenty-five
seconds of my life- at which point an equally unattractive young woman,
of the type who makes Courtney Love look like a regular starlet, walks
up to the man, presents him with a condom, and intones, "Use one or get
none." At which point the extremely clever slogan is intoned by a
Don-Pardo type announcer: "Sheik. Get some."
It is hard for me to say what exactly I find so completely nauseating
about this commercial. Perhaps it is the fact that the protagonists are
clearly actors who, in normal life, probably do not look greasy at all
and thus have the scary Pink-type "beauty" which I find horrifically
offensive combined with an attempt to look greasy and unattractive which
renders them even more revoluting. Perhaps it is simply the
commercialization of sex which Quirk is deploring in his nonstop
bitch-fest (though I doubt this; that is more likely to make me laugh
bitterly.) Perhaps it is the college-style insouciance with which it is
presented, it's pseudo-trendy attitude common to much "Generation X"
marketing. In any case, it is a landmark of its type. I would prefer
to watch a commercial for feminine hygiene products than watch this ad;
this is how truly frightening this advertisement is.
That is all.
: In an age of almost limitless sexual and lifetyle license, sex without
: condoms is taboo.
Excuse me, but there are quite a number of happy, vasectomied men around
here who don't ever worry about that sort of thing.
--
Dave (not David) Lynch/(.)(.)/Eligible Mutant Bachelor Uebergeek at large
dfly...@homer.louisville.edu/FILLER/Founder, First Church of Eternal Man
ObObsoleteHomepage:http://www.rlabs.com/lynch **** Please email followups
PERFECT SLACK FOREVER
Popess Lilith von Fraumench
In article <Alz5ygiG...@en.com>, ljdu...@en.com (Lou Duchez)
<5c743l$i...@andromeda.peganet.net> wrote:
>
>It seems you wield more
>opinion-shaping power here than you ever imagined.
That's true of all SubGenii, actually---witness Odool.
P-Lil
--
| Popess Lilith von Fraumench | Fools' Press |
| Hangnail Of the Stark Fist | 1122 E Pike St, #769 |
| Sadomasticist At Large | Seattle, WA 98122-3934 |
|"Spiting the Gods since 1989"| mitc...@interserv.com |
| http://www.rlabs.com/utopium/ |
Rev. Random the Other
On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:39:09 GMT, dmy...@lglobal.com (Quirk) wrote:
>
>On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:52:42 -0500, Sister Pammy of the Soil wrote:
>
>+ Quirk wrote:
>+
>+ Beginning of a passionate, reasonably well-written but DUMB rant snipped
>+ to get to the really bad parts.
>
>Seeing as you concede that my rant is passionate and well-written it
>is clear that by "dumb" you that you'd don't agree.
Hell, I've seen Church tracts that were passionate, well written AND
dumb but I agreed with them!
>Or do you think
>that stupid people compose well written and passionate writings by
>accident. Am I the 1000th monkey?
Sometimes stupid people compose well written and passionate writings
when they REALLY apply themselves to communicating their feelings. I
don't know if you are a monkey, but even apes can do this. Coco the
gorilla was taught to speak in sign language...and I read an interview
with Coco where Coco described a Pomegranite as "Red Juice Corn." And
the trainer told how just the other day Coco had been given a new
kitten, and told for the first time that her first kitten had been
killed by a car. And do you know what Coco did? Coco cried for
nearly an hour, and signed "Sad. Friend dead. Red, red blood/car.
Coco sad. Coco MISS friend. Red sad dead dead car friend. Coco sad.
Dead."
Now, you must keep in mind that American Sign Language does NOT follow
the conventions of the English Language. There is NO strict adherance
to the usual sentence construction noun-verb-noun sort of thing. The
trainer went on to say that Coco had finally quit crying and took an
interest in the box of kittens that was offered (Coco likes to pick
out his OWN kittens). Coco picked one up, held it to his face, and
announced "THIS is my new kitten. I'm Naming her Lippy."
"Why Lippy?," the trainer asked. "Because she Lipped me." The kitten
had bitten Coco on the lip!
I'm not sure whether Coco would disgard the Females by smashing them
against the wall when he was done Playing with them, but 'I' never do
that.
>Although the phenomenon of people labelling position they don't agree
>with "dumb" is not unusual, it generally doesn't bode well for there
>level of objectivity.
>
Often times, dumb people are not Objective either
>+ > Now the global corporate machine is taking its turn at the subversion of
>+ > sex -- they want sex to be first of all safe -- second of all
>+ > profitable.
>
There is something ominous in the way you refer to the Global
Corporate Machine. Do you not accept that Thousands of people,
including really Caring people, worked to develop the condom out of
Concern for issues of YOUR health, YOUR freedom of lifestyle, and to
keep YOU from having to LOOK at all those fucked out, saggy, toothless
swaybacks and gross stillborn gummy fetuses laying all around?
Thousands of Doctors, Researchers, Materials Engineers, Scientists,
Polsters, etc. etc. got up Every Morning and WORKED to make life
BETTER. Are you not Satisfied? Do you not Appreciate their Effort?
This is not to mention the MILLIONS of Societies PARTICIPANTS who
built the Roads and Computers and Buildings used to sustain this
mighty effort.
And, as you point out, they got Paid. Do you have some problem with
the Trojan corporate executives working to keep the company
economically healthy? Or are they being paid too much for their
services? I mean, Trojan still funds Research to continually improve
condoms -the latest polyethelene is thinner, more comfortable, as well
as stronger, AND has smaller interstitial gaps to exclude viral
pathogens. Is the real attitude here against Trojan Corporation, or
against the idea of corporations in general, or against money itself?
You appear to believe in the operation of Morals, yet you seem to
think it evil that the Corporate Machine wants to make a profit every
time you protect yourself against disease. And not just AIDS, but
Herpes, Syphilis, Gonorreah, Clam-idia, and lots of other STD's that
used to KILL and are still around. But oh, I don't hear you complain
when you catch the scruzz and go get a shot of Penicilin to clear it
up. Oh NO. Of course, the Global Corporate Machine gets those
profits too, since thousands and thousands of people worked to develop
the treatment. So, maybe it's not the idea of one company coordinating
the work of many to produce goods like penicilin that is evil. Do you
think that love of money is the root of all evil? Or money itself?
Have you ever considered what is the root of all money? Money is a
medium of exchange, and cannot exist unless there are goods produced
and people willing to produce them. Money is the symbol of the
Principle that people who wish to deal with one another - to help one
another, to improve the world - must deal by trade and give value for
value. Not by force shall we take from others, but by mutual
agreement. When you accept money in payment for your efforts, you
expect to trade it for the product of the effort of others. But
behind this is the expectation that all people will exchange and not
just Take. This is applied morality - the entire lexicon of
expectations, unspoken assumptions, risk.
Money will always be just a tool, and although it is the product of
the Principle of Trust and the spirt of cooperation and the rarely
understood belief in virtue, money will not give you virtue. When
money ceases to be the tool people use to deal freely, then PEOPLE
become the tool of people and wealth will be produced by the labor of
slaves. You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the
greatest productive civilization ever and you COMPLAIN that people who
labor in YOUR behalf want monetary compensation? Money has set free
your efforts and your MIND to participate in your society as YOU
choose, not as a slave. Thousands of people participate, are aware of
their participation, are aware of it's benefits. Perhaps you are
dissatisfied with your participation; perhaps THAT is the root of your
consternation. If so, you need to Repent! Repent of YOUR CHOICE to
see but NOT appreciate the Principle whereby people help others.
Repent of YOUR decision to stay in an unfulfilling JOB that stifles
your Participation. Do you think those who labored as Chemists and
Machinists ALL hated their Jobs, ALL were FORCED to be creative in the
ways that led to Polyethelene and Penicilin? Do YOU think you are
FORCED to continue to waste your creative talent in a JOB that Steals
your Slack?
Well, my friend, there is no one forcing you or ANYONE on these
newsgroups to STAY in such a wretched state. All you need to do is
Quit! That's Right. Quit Your Job, and Slack Off. You WILL find the
Best inside you, that which you value the Most. And you may just want
to Share this Best, knowing that YOU can create benefit for others,
knowing that YOU are objectively Participating, actively aware of the
unspoken Principle of all moral basis for exchange with others,
actively aware of the shared Understanding of this moral Principle
with others with whom you deal.
And, as often is the case, if you Repent, and Quit Your JOB, and SLACK
OFF, you may find providence ITSELF bends to your favour, and That
which you really MOST want to do, if you but Believed that it was
Worth the Risk - THAT thing you would devote yourself to out of Pure
Slack - MAY turn out to be $really$ lucrative!
>+ Personally, I want to marry ALL of Trojan's corporate execs and employees
>+ and repeatedly fuck their lights out in undying gratitude--safely, through
>+ a thin, inconsequential piece of latex that gets in the way of NOBODY'S
>+ fun! (Where's Dyna to perform the services??)
>
>Well, since you seem to have a rather peculiar method of choosing your
>bed mates and are very ambitious in the numbers of partners you hope
>to pursue ("ALL of Trojan's corporate execs and employees") your
>lifestyle and my lifestyle are substantially different.
>
Well, we ALL have peculiar methods of choosing bed mates, no? I know
a guy that only fucks chicks that don't like rubbers. And I saw this
one chick, she fucked EVERYONE at this really big party once, and
there were ALOT of people there, and she really liked doing us all.
Of course, she also stole alot of wallets...after all, she WAS a
SubGenius.
>Given that I take care in choosing my lovers,
And NEVER doubting that they MIGHT just be in denial about some past
misadventure, probably fueled by alcohol so it MIGHT not REALLY have
happened, and have some small undetectable DICK-SHRIVELING DISEASE
lurking in those rarely frequented places. Besides, they are NICE
GIRLS and you TRUST them.
>and never use sex as
>reward for favourable corporate behaviour (they'd probably prefer
>profit sharing anyway)
No, they are Just Like You. They probably are kind generous people
who have families and want their daughters safe and care about the
world alot, and who maybe are not living up to their integrity in alot
of ways but struggle to do what they THINK is best for their loved
ones, and who might be better off actively pursuing their dreams and
Practicing applying their Honesty in ALL areas of their lives, perhaps
in the recognition that they can provide for their loved ones and be
of Greater Benefit for All if they but followed their Slack.
Totally Integrated Integrity, THAT'S the Ticket.
Are they REALLY so dehumanized that you cannot see them as sharing
life's basic struggles? Or are you overriding your OWN integrity to
present them as such to others?
>my risk factors and your risk factors are
>completely different.
Well, you seem to depend on the Woman for birth control. Seems taking
some responsibility for that and for disease prevention would make one
feel at LESS risk.
>This is reflected in the choices we make, the
>risks we take, and our rection to media paradigms.
Well, I think THAT was the point. If you think in terms of your
pleasure and don't mind alot of saggy old groats and bloated fetii
about...I mean, they can't really struggle much, right? And
toothless...now THAT has potential!
>+ Can you spell pregnancy, Quirk?
>
>No, please spell it for me... I've already admitted to being an awful
>speller.
>
>+ Can you say MULTIPLE pregnancies, miscarriages, stillborn babies and women
>+ dead in childbirth? By my ripe old age, I could expect to have maybe ten
>+ live kids, five miscarriages, three or four dead babies, no teeth, weak
>+ bones, saggy boobs, and not an ounce of energy left for fun or creativity.
>+ IF I'm lucky. Probably I'd have long since bled to death in childbirth,
>+ leaving my oldest daughters to raise my babies before they start the cycle
>+ for themselves.
>
>There are many other forms of Birth control.
The Technical term for women who use the Rhythym Method is: MOTHERS!
And didn't President George Washington die of syphilis? Or was that
somebody else? Hmmm, I can't remember.
>
>+ I thank Trojan on my knees every time I think about what my life would
>+ have been like a mere hundred years ago! I get to be a full-time artist
>+ instead of a mama, and I get to have sex whenever I have a handy Trojan
>+ within reach. A hundred years ago women who chose sex automatically chose
>+ babies, like it or not.
>
>Listen, I'm not questioning your choices, your analysis of risks or
>your methods of prevention, I'm merely stating an opposite point of
>view.
>
But really - don't dehumanize others. Participate. Celebrate the
shared morality behind the exchange of value. Actively strive to
integrate your integrity in your words and actions. If you are not
following your Slack, then Repent, Quit Your Job, and SLACK OFF until
you see how important the Slack is, and how you need not sacrifice
THAT.
>But my point of view directly contradictd the politically correct
>attitudes of the day, so it irks you that I dare to speak in favour of
>the perverse desire to have sex without condoms. How weird.
>
>In an age of almost limitless sexual and lifetyle license, sex without
>condoms is taboo.
>
In an age of almost limitless sexual and lifestyle license, refusal to
take responsibility while depending on OTHERS to take responsibility
is taboo. How weird.
>+ You want to talk about a CON, motherfucker??? Convincing women to use
>+ birth control pills that fuck with their body chemistry so that you don't
>+ have to use a rubber and can get your dick good and wet--now that's a CON!
>
>This may be how you feel, but please give other women the privileged
>of deciding for themselves how they want to deal with birth control,
>there are many facets to this issue.
>
Well, OF COURSE! After all, it IS their responsibility. And if they
don't want to risk disease, well, they can...um...And if they Remember
to always take their Pill, they can probably also be trained to do
Other Things. And the guy wouldn't have to get CUT or nothin'.
>+ > When you next look at a condom package -- see the ominous eyes of the
>+ > transdemonic corporate empire staring right back at you -- laughing at
>+ > the profits they are making while defiling the planet with latex waste
>+ > laughing at the idea that you now feel safe. Admire your choice in semen
>+ > catchers
>
>+ Like the good Woodpecker with his pack of Camels, when I look at a pack of
>+ condoms, no matter what the wrapping, I see the word "CHOICE".
>
>I'm not advocating removing anybodies ability to chose, simply stating
>and celebrating an opposing and equally valid point of view.
>
>A point of view you that many seem to think is immoral to have,
>interesting how many people are concerned about the morality of events
>between consenting adults. I guess the obvious parallels are lost on
>you.
>
Equally interesting are the number of people who don't appreciate the
value of others' labors until they choose to labor at something they
value.
Rev. Random the Other
> P.S. Oh, Nevermind.
Damn, I should have read this first. Well OK then. Bye.
> Copyright 1997 Idiosyntactix, Toronto.
Evil Corporation? Or just a troll?
James Kenny
Adolph Bile wrote:
>
> Sister Pammy whines;
>
> >You want to talk about a CON, motherfucker??? Convincing women to use
>
> pill was the only way to regulate her menstral cycle - and yeah, I like
> getting my dick wet, so what? Don't like it? Don't eat it.
A girl in Northridge just had a stroke, attributed to the pill; she
can't
talk, can't move the right side of her body, and she's 24.
--
For more information on this hopelessly
ignorant user: http://www.csun.edu/~jrk29838/
TarlaStar
cat...@peganet.com (Adolph Bile) wrote:
>Sister Pammy whines;
>>You want to talk about a CON, motherfucker??? Convincing women to use
>>birth control pills that fuck with their body chemistry so that you don't
>>have to use a rubber and can get your dick good and wet--now that's a CON!
>Hey, shuddup. My ex's body chemistry was so fucked up to begin with that the
>pill was the only way to regulate her menstral cycle - and yeah, I like
>getting my dick wet, so what? Don't like it? Don't eat it.
>Besides, women NEED to be regulated. I prefer thumb cuffs and a riding crop,
>but if estrogen and valium do the trick just as well, why leave marks?
>Seriously, if your period comes in one day with no blood one month, and 10
>days with fucking gushers the next, and the pill takes care of that while
>giving benefit to your partner, who are you going to listen to - your body,
>or some delusional paranoid freak who says not to use the pill because of
>some CON????
Oh fer chrissakes! Who the hell was talking about freaks of nature?
Did anyone say that if you have a medical problem that is corrected by
estrogen and progesterone that you should NOT take the pill? No, they
didn't. She was talking about normally functioning organs which do not
need a chemical infusion, when a little piece of latex will do the
same trick.
Next you'll have every pregant woman hooked up to a fetal monitor in
some hospital just because 5% of the women in the world have a
difficult birth.
Tarla
***
Reverend Mutha Tarla Star of the Little Sisters of the Perpetually
Juicy; a Proud jism schism of the Church of the SubGenius.
Worshipping Juicy Retardo and "Connie" Dobbs since 1986.
Adolph Bile
In article <5cah1n$f...@ionews.ionet.net>, bmy...@ionet.net writes;
Oh . . . ah, sorry . . . I just assumed that my response would be read,
mostly, by the above-mentioned freaks of nature . . . had no idea there would
be any normality amongst the readership . . . but no, I'm against these
so-called "fetal monitors". They cost up the wazoo and do nothing that a
trampoline and a radar gun can't do just as well, and much more cheaply.
Bile
Rev. Myrkury
David F Lynch <dfly...@homer.louisville.edu> wrote:
>
> So? Condoms are easy, quick, safe, effective, and, aside from a slight
> reduction in sensation, without side effects.
>
Uh, coals to Newcastle? nope, Have your cake and eat it too? nope, Glass
houses? close but no cigar, Pot calling the kettle black? nope, damn I
know there's a cliche for this type of irony. I just can't remember it
very well.
--
Rev. Myrkury, Bishop of Buzzcuts
Steel Toad Temple
Traditional Heterodoxy
(Original Schism)
Rev. Myrkury
James Kenny <ke...@courier8.aero.org> wrote:
> A girl in Northridge just had a stroke, attributed to the pill; she
> can't
> talk, can't move the right side of her body, and she's 24.
Wellbutrin is a great anti-anxiety medication. The effective dose varies
arbitrarily between individuals withing the 100-500mg a day range. Eat
enough of this stuff and it causes seizures, really really bad ones. So
when a doctor prescribes it for a patient they start at a dosage below the
thereputic level and slowly ramp up the dosage while carefully monitoring
the patient.
This is of course unrelated, but a bit of advice from my wife and her
gynecologist: If you wan't to be on the pill for a while you should work
with your gynecologist to determine the estrogen/progesterone/etc. dosages
and combinations that have the minimum effect on your body as measured by
BLOOD TESTS. Most health care providors are too cheap and lazy to do this
making alot of women suffer unnessary and dangerous side effects. And if
you smoke ciggarettes forget about it, my wife's gynecologist won't even
give the pill to smokers. There are always risks inherent in any
medication but the pill, properly managed ain't as bad as it seems to be.
Also as a guy I don't expect my opinion to count for much and my one
experience with being pumped full of artificial hormones makes me believe
that it really can have drastic mental and physical consequences to fuck
with hormones. Whatever.
Rev. Myrkury
Rev. Random the Other and several others wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:39:09 GMT, dmy...@lglobal.com (Quirk) wrote:
Quirk said that he is upset because condom manufacturers thought direct
media and sponsored health programs have portrayed the descision to use a
condom or not as an ethical one. I agree completely with him on this
point. I also agree with him that this portrayal is inherently a bad
thing the condom manufacturers and misguided people are doing.
It is a good and ethical thing to deal with the realities of pregnancy
and disease. One of the best ways of dealing with this is by using a
condom. Using a condom to prevent pregnancy is good. Using a condom to
prevent disease is good. Using a condom is itself neither good nor bad.
Given that the parties in a sexual encounter have chosen other ways of
making the right descision about preventing pregnancy and disease, using a
condom is silly (unless it turns you on) and a waste of $0.25 or whatever
they cost these days.
In opposition to Quirk's statement are a number of polemics which skirt
around the simple fact that while circumstances can lend moral weight to
using a condom, using one in and of itself is neither a good nor a bad
act. Now this might seem quite trivial, I may seem even more of a detail
obsessed nitpicker than those I am criticizing, but for nature of the
opposing argument. It is the Pharisee who misplaces the morality of an
action into the mechanics. By buying into the profit driven thesis that
sex with a condom is good and sex without condoms is bad, we allow moral
laziness by forgetting to tell people that the actual good/bad dichotomy
lies in the sex partners understanding the risks of sex in a given
circumstance and taking what are to them satisfactory measures to deal
with disease or pregnancy.
To allow morality to be recast to serve the sales groth of condom
manufacturers is inherently bad.
more below the quote.
> Sometimes stupid people compose well written and passionate writings
> when they REALLY apply themselves to communicating their feelings. I
> don't know if you are a monkey, but even apes can do this. Coco the
> gorilla was taught to speak in sign language...and I read an interview
> with Coco where Coco described a Pomegranite as "Red Juice Corn." And
> the trainer told how just the other day Coco had been given a new
> kitten, and told for the first time that her first kitten had been
> killed by a car. And do you know what Coco did? Coco cried for
> nearly an hour, and signed "Sad. Friend dead. Red, red blood/car.
> Coco sad. Coco MISS friend. Red sad dead dead car friend. Coco sad.
> Dead."
>
> Now, you must keep in mind that American Sign Language does NOT follow
> the conventions of the English Language. There is NO strict adherance
> to the usual sentence construction noun-verb-noun sort of thing. The
> trainer went on to say that Coco had finally quit crying and took an
> interest in the box of kittens that was offered (Coco likes to pick
> out his OWN kittens). Coco picked one up, held it to his face, and
> announced "THIS is my new kitten. I'm Naming her Lippy."
> "Why Lippy?," the trainer asked. "Because she Lipped me." The kitten
> had bitten Coco on the lip!
I don't know why but I was hoping you would go on to describe how Coco
brutally sodomized the entire box of kittens and then make fingerpaintings
on the wall with the blood/semen/guts slop that exploded from the kittens
as they ruptured with the force of the mighty gorrila's ejaculate.
Quirk
<< posted & mailed >>
On 25 Jan 1997 00:02:54 GMT, Rev. Myrkury wrote:
+ By buying into the profit driven thesis that
+ sex with a condom is good and sex without condoms is bad, we allow moral
+ laziness by forgetting to tell people that the actual good/bad dichotomy
+ lies in the sex partners understanding the risks of sex in a given
+ circumstance and taking what are to them satisfactory measures to deal
+ with disease or pregnancy.
The main thrust of my argument also explains that the dangers and moral
responsibilities involved in sex are far more that just pregnancy and
disease and that this is being trivialized by the "safe" sex cash machine.
Cheers,
+++
Dmytri Kleiner -- Quirk
"Gravity lets
P.S. Oh, Nevermind. you down"
<< http://www.lglobal.com/~dmytrik >>
** Keep in mind that this transmission
just might be a malicious forgery.
Copyright 1996 Idiosyntactix, Toronto.
Rev. Myrkury
TarlaStar <bmy...@ionet.net> wrote:
>
> Next you'll have every pregant woman hooked up to a fetal monitor in
> some hospital just because 5% of the women in the world have a
> difficult birth.
Uh, don't look Tarla, your nightmare has already come true. "..on the
basis of court descisions allowing involuntary hospitalization of pregnant
women for drug and alcohol use, a number of providors are using sanctions
or the threat thereof to discourage clients from engaging in possible
behavioral causes of foetal damage..." Basically your foetus can be
placed in "foster care" while he's still in your belly..of course that
means YOU have to go into foster care too...
A day late and a dollar short, we're all far more fucked than it seems.
Mark Allen Opheim
On 25 Jan 1997 00:02:54 GMT, "Rev. Myrkury" <My...@VOICENET.com> wrote:
>I don't know why but I was hoping you would go on to describe how Coco
>brutally sodomized the entire box of kittens and then make fingerpaintings
>on the wall with the blood/semen/guts slop that exploded from the kittens
>as they ruptured with the force of the mighty gorrila's ejaculate.
>
>--
>Rev. Myrkury, Bishop of Buzzcuts
>Steel Toad Temple
>Traditional Heterodoxy
>(Original Schism)
Rev, do they let you out on the weekends too?
if so. i'd like the institutes name and number... maybe _i_ can get a
transfer...
oh, and on the subject of kittens and gorillas, I just don't see a
problem with the playful behavioral antics you so thoughtfully
described for us. IMHO that is.
The Oxymoron of the Day: standard deviation
<mark_...@usa.net> www.angelfire.com/ca/lost (java, PowWow and ShockWave updated!)
Quirk
<< posted & mailed >>
On 25 Jan 1997 00:02:54 GMT, Rev. Myrkury wrote:
+ Rev. Random the Other and several others wrote:
+ > On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:39:09 GMT, dmy...@lglobal.com (Quirk) wrote:
+
+ Quirk said that he is upset because condom manufacturers thought direct
+ media and sponsored health programs have portrayed the descision to use a
+ condom or not as an ethical one. I agree completely with him on this
+ point. I also agree with him that this portrayal is inherently a bad
+ thing the condom manufacturers and misguided people are doing.
Thank you. Well said. Although any impression that I'm "upset" is false.
I'm actively working to dismantle the mass media and corperate empire....
it may take me several decades, but the days of the transdemonic corperate
empire are numbered.
Find the truth at www.happyclown.com
Cheers....
jo...@uwplatt.edu
Ok Quirk, you post some sentemental garbage promoteing something that has many
negative results, none of which you go into, and when several understandably
frustraited individuals point out the DANGEROUS lack of common sence in yuor
writings you fail to rebutt any points they make except to say that they are
all just 'politically correct' and really, very FEW people die of aids so FUCK
AWAY.. if you knew anything of the subject you would know that infection from
heterosexual intercourse is a lot more likely to infect the woman than the man,
and that is why straight women are teh largest growing group in the HIV+
community, could it be Mr. Quirk that you use this 'anti PC' psuedo backlash to
promote your misogynistic misconceptions. Also, I will right now VERIFY that I
am not, in any way shape of form attempting to be politically correct, I am
trying to just be CORRECT to save my fucking LIFE you asshole.
Of course there is the fact that you seem to be just trolling in your
anal-retentive, dumb way so I say FUCK YOU, suck my fucking cock DEEP and long
if you want to ever make up for this, ready your buttery asshole to get the
HELL FUCKED OUT OF IT YOU IDIOTIC WEENIE!!! oh yeah, this one'll be BAREBACK
honey..
Rev. Jones (avengeing sodomite)
DAVID BAKER
TarlaStar wrote:
>
> cat...@peganet.com (Adolph Bile) wrote:
>
> >Sister Pammy whines;
>
> >>You want to talk about a CON, motherfucker??? Convincing women to use
> >>birth control pills that fuck with their body chemistry so that you don't
> >>have to use a rubber and can get your dick good and wet--now that's a CON!
>
> >Hey, shuddup. My ex's body chemistry was so fucked up to begin with that the
> >pill was the only way to regulate her menstral cycle - and yeah, I like
> >getting my dick wet, so what? Don't like it? Don't eat it.
>
> >Besides, women NEED to be regulated. I prefer thumb cuffs and a riding crop,
> >but if estrogen and valium do the trick just as well, why leave marks?
>
> >Seriously, if your period comes in one day with no blood one month, and 10
> >days with fucking gushers the next, and the pill takes care of that while
> >giving benefit to your partner, who are you going to listen to - your body,
> >or some delusional paranoid freak who says not to use the pill because of
> >some CON????
>
> Oh fer chrissakes! Who the hell was talking about freaks of nature?
> Did anyone say that if you have a medical problem that is corrected by
> estrogen and progesterone that you should NOT take the pill? No, they
> didn't. She was talking about normally functioning organs which do not
> need a chemical infusion, when a little piece of latex will do the
> same trick.
>
> some hospital just because 5% of the women in the world have a
> difficult birth.
>
>
> ***
> Reverend Mutha Tarla Star of the Little Sisters of the Perpetually
> Juicy; a Proud jism schism of the Church of the SubGenius.
Harfs Ynuder
>In article <01b66eab$0f7a3ec0$c410...@myrk.voicenet.com> "Rev. Myrkury" <My...@VOICENET.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>David F Lynch <dfly...@homer.louisville.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> So? Condoms are easy, quick, safe, effective, and, aside from a slight
>>> reduction in sensation, without side effects.
>>>
>>Uh, coals to Newcastle? nope, Have your cake and eat it too? nope, Glass
>>houses? close but no cigar, Pot calling the kettle black? nope, damn I
>>know there's a cliche for this type of irony. I just can't remember it
>>very well.
"Let 'em eat cock."
lurch
Rev. Random the Other
Rev. Myrkury wrote:
>
> Rev. Random the Other and several others wrote:
I bet it was real well written too. I never saw it; it wasn't what 'I' responded
to. He seemed to be taking the position that was that the Global Corporate
Machine was subverting sex by Profiting from it. He began with some dubious
logic, and followed with demonizing the condom manufacturers as purposly
overstating the effectiveness of condoms at disease/pregnancy prevention, AND
holding the environment as more important than the inhabitants...
Of course, this was just the way I interpreted "When you next look at a condom
package -- see the ominous eyes of the transdemonic corporate empire staring
right back at you -- laughing at the profits they are making while defiling the
planet with latex waste laughing at the idea that you now feel safe." I gather
there was more to his original post; I also see that I misinterpreted his intent
in the this statement.
> It is a good and ethical thing to deal with the realities of pregnancy
> and disease. One of the best ways of dealing with this is by using a
> condom. Using a condom to prevent pregnancy is good. Using a condom to
> prevent disease is good. Using a condom is itself neither good nor bad.
OK, I follow this.
> Given that the parties in a sexual encounter have chosen other ways of
> making the right descision about preventing pregnancy and disease, using a
> condom is silly (unless it turns you on) and a waste of $0.25 or whatever
> they cost these days.
Ok, I follow THIS
> In opposition to Quirk's statement are a number of polemics which skirt
> around the simple fact that while circumstances can lend moral weight to
> using a condom, using one in and of itself is neither a good nor a bad
> act. Now this might seem quite trivial, I may seem even more of a detail
> obsessed nitpicker than those I am criticizing, but for nature of the
> opposing argument.
OK, I follow this too.
> It is the Pharisee who misplaces the morality of an
> action into the mechanics. By buying into the profit driven thesis that
> sex with a condom is good and sex without condoms is bad, we allow moral
> laziness by forgetting to tell people that the actual good/bad dichotomy
> lies in the sex partners understanding the risks of sex in a given
> circumstance and taking what are to them satisfactory measures to deal
> with disease or pregnancy.
Now THIS I don't really follow. My impulse is to ask just why you lump ALL
Pharisees, who NO DOUBT included some really kind and generous people, into a
single catagory. To steriotype an entire People as hypocrites seems to allow
moral laziness by blah blah blah. But let's skip that, shall we? You were
probably just being allegorical.
To avoid this "sin by ommission," if I may, implies some responsibility to be
not only consistant in one's integrity, but also responsibility to view all
actions in terms of underlying, INHERENT goodness/badness. That notion seems
also to imply that in the complicated, hi-tech world we live in, where the
simplest deodorant product may have VAST social, economic, political, and
biological effects, we must remember to keep making INFORMED decisions as to
the central good/bad dichotomy of EVERYTHING in order to avoid being morally
deficient. AND align our actions accordingly.
When you say that by NOT illuminating the actual underlying dichotomy (even
unintentionally, as forgetfulness implies) in our thoughts and actions is to
allow moral laziness and thereby (implied) become hypocrites (Pharasees) seems a
bit harsh. I thought the problem with Pharasees was that they held strict
public obedience to the Law while knowingly violating the Spirit of the Law.
> To allow morality to be recast to serve the sales growth of condom
> manufacturers is inherently bad.
Why? I mean, you make a definite statement uttered with sincerity, and it
sounds plausible...but is it Truth? Why BAD and not just "IS." I point out
that your forum is associated with the CotSG. To allow morality to be recast to
serve the $ales Growth of the SubGenius Foundation is INHERENTLY BAD.
THAT IS WHAT WE DO HERE! At least, it seems to me. And believe me, I do NOT
have your philosophical background (I know, it's obvious - cheap shot!) but I
can see that ANY adherance to a SINGLE system of underlying good/bad judgement
leads to hypocrisy (or at least lack of Humor.) If allowing morality to be
recast to serve the sales growth of the SubGenius Foundation is inherently bad,
WHY do you CHOOSE to participate? We are LIARS here. We serve the BAD so
OPENLY, and hide the GOOD so thouroughly, that the EXCUSE that "the Church helps
people think for themselves" seems like a Pharasee's wet dream.
Perhaps we choose to allow morality to be recast because we feel like it.
Perhaps it is not good or bad. Perhaps corporations blur the distinctions of
morality, and this has many effects, and many judgements can apply - none being
the One True Judgement.
That's part of the reason that I find humor in ranting about Totally Integrated
Integrity. I have no clue whether others see this as humorous. I sure do.
Because what I say about it is usually presented as the ONE truth - by a
SubGenius, no less. Not to say that it is NOT THE TRUTH!! The humor (to me) is
in the presentation as the One True Answer.
I know some Jehovah's Witnesses who visit occasionally to walk in our garden.
They are nice enough people, and long ago quit trying to convert us. But when
they walk around, amazed, they continually view the surroundings through eyes
still in the past: Isaiah had a garden...Jeremiah had fruit trees like this...
Amos would eat in the vinyards... Very consistant, but their view seemed
somewhat one dimensional. I think that ultimately they cannot fully accept the
beauty in life as it IS because of the conflict with how it Should be.
Likewise, I think that being concerned about the hypocrisy which stems from
failure to actively view and/or promote our actions always in terms of good and
bad would lead to dissatisfaction with a hell of alot of the world - a
dissatisfaction that is WAY TOO LIMITED :)
I've just re-read what I have written so far, and see a need to state that I am
writing here in good will - that I could be completely off base with my
argument, (and I don't know shit about Pharasees), and I view this as an
opportunity to Learn. I am NOT preaching here that this is how it IS. I am
hoping to have my views changed, cuz I LOVE when that happens...Life is Change,
Change is Life! I appreciate your clarification regarding the intent of
Quirk's post; I STILL enjoyed nitpicking the post that I responded to.
I recognise the error of misplacing the morality of an action into the mechanics.
I enjoyed recognising my disquiet with YOUR statement and then analyzing what it
was that I disagreed with. And it beats working. Sometimes I'm so happy I
think I'll BUST!
> > Coco picked one up, held it to his face, and
> > announced "THIS is my new kitten. I'm Naming her Lippy."
> > "Why Lippy?," the trainer asked. "Because she Lipped me." The kitten
> > had bitten Coco on the lip!
>
> I don't know why but I was hoping you would go on to describe how Coco
> brutally sodomized the entire box of kittens and then make fingerpaintings
> on the wall with the blood/semen/guts slop that exploded from the kittens
> as they ruptured with the force of the mighty gorrila's ejaculate.
>
I hate to disappoint you, but I was wrong when I wrote that Coco was a him.
Coco is a her. This STILL probably worked out for the best - your response
might have described how Coco masturbated using the helpless kittens and then
made paintings on the wall with the blood and guts after mercilessly Fingering
them to death. And in terms of sheer pathetic imagery there is nothing
more pitiful looking than a wet kitten.
> --
> Rev. Myrkury, Bishop of Buzzcuts
> Steel Toad Temple
> Traditional Heterodoxy
> (Original Schism)
Rev. Random the Other
Toad Temple Pilots
NEW Coco puffs
(now with Pussy Whip)
Elf Sternberg
In article <hgW6ycEb...@YGRI.net>
Dyna...@YGRI.net (Doktor DynaSoar) writes:
>e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) sent bitwaves which read:
>}
>} Let's try this again, shall we?
>
>Not unless you can demonstrate sufficient progress. So far there's been
>nothing but a face to face opinional masturbation war.
>You have no intention of ever doing anything else, do you.
Oh, puh-leeze. That's all this is anyway, isn't it? Quirk has
an opinion on condoms, and I have one. After that, all is rhetoric.
Elf !!!
--
Elf Sternberg Balkanize Usenet!
e...@halcyon.com
Public key available http://www.halcyon.com/elf/index.html
Sophia Anifantakis
: Quirk (dmy...@lglobal.com) wrote:
: :
: : Sex is dangerous by nature -- vulnerability, intimacy, passion and the
: : entire lexicon of expectations, unspoken assumptions -- sex is a risk. It
: : must be. We want it to be.
Just throwing in another two cents...I don't agree with your statement
(big deal right?) I don't think sex *must* be a risk and that we want it
to be. I don't want it to be or think is it. Not with someone you love
and you trust.
Rev. Myrkury
Rev. Random the Other <cmc...@nt.com> wrote a rather exhaustive statement
that basically covered all the bases.
POO POO HED! MEANIE NASTY POO POO HED! That, and you confuse rhetorical
use of observation. Hyperbole does not invalidate underlying assertions.
POO POO HED! MEANIE NASTY POO POO HED!
Peter Hipwell
"Counting your chickens before they've hatched".
--
"I Came, I Saw, I Conga'd" -- Edmundo Ros.
Rev. Myrkury
Doktor DynaSoar <Dyna...@YGRI.net> wrote:
> Our wildest kook-rant dreams can't begin to consider scratching the
> suface of the evil idiocy of the "civilization" of CONvenience.
>
Nor yours, for that matter.
Rev. Myrkury
Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote
> Dyna...@YGRI.net (Doktor DynaSoar) writes:
> >e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) sent bitwaves which read:
> >} Let's try this again, shall we?
> >Not unless you can demonstrate sufficient progress. So far there's been
> >nothing but a face to face opinional masturbation war.
> >You have no intention of ever doing anything else, do you.
> Oh, puh-leeze. That's all this is anyway, isn't it? Quirk has
> an opinion on condoms, and I have one. After that, all is rhetoric.
No Elf, some opinions are better than others. Rhetoric is the means by
which we attempt to establish an opinion as truth. You are to blame.
Rev. Random the Other
On 27 Jan 1997 18:24:59 GMT, "Rev. Myrkury" <My...@VOICENET.com> wrote:
>POO POO HED! MEANIE NASTY POO POO HED! That, and you confuse rhetorical
>use of observation. Hyperbole does not invalidate underlying assertions.
>POO POO HED! MEANIE NASTY POO POO HED!
>
Well KILL ME! At least it's a relief to find out we are Pure then,
*whew*!
Rev. Random
"learning was never this much fun in school!"
ps - Thank You.
Jayne Kulikauskas
Sister Pammy of the Soil <toxi...@cphl.mindspring.com> writes:
> NATURAL TECHNIQUES THAT EVEN THE POPE APPROVES OF??? So there's
> nothing intrusive about having to take your temp all the time like some
> goddamn turkey that you have to check to see if it's done? With the
> temperature method, the forbidden days for fucking are the very one when
> your hormones are screaming "fuck me" the loudest.
Not all natural techniques involve taking one's temperature. The
Ovulation Method simply requires observing changes in cervical mucus.
It's true that this involves abstaining at the point of highest
libido, but sex is so great all through the cycle that this is not
such an awful thing.
I agree with your assessment of methods based on synthetic hormones.
I get the creeps thinking of messing with my body that way. I
disagree however with one of your comments about condoms. You implied
that only men find sex more pleasurable without them, wishing to "get
their dicks wet". Some women, myself included, also find that condoms
interfere. I like wet feelings too, and not just the ones from my
orgasms. All methods have advantages and disadvantages.
You sound like you've found the method you're most comfortable with and
that's great. I have too and its different from yours. That's what
choice is about.
Jayne
Sister Pammy of the Soil
Just got back after a week in Jawjah. Did anybody miss me? Looks like I
missed alot of fun in this thread. Nothing like throwing a bomb and
skipping out before you get to see who explodes. From what I gather,
alot of this "corporate control of sex" bullshit is based on TV
commercials and other advertising. Television is mind control for pinks;
I don't allow it around me. I also don't feel much concern for the
people who watch it rather than find some less numbing entertainment.
And anyone who lets a magazine ad do their thinking for them deserves
the kind of life they build because of it.
I don't see what's to get upset about. OF COURSE the CON will use fear
of HIV to try and control sex. Churches do most of their business by
controlling sexuality; it's no surprise that the corporate CON is trying
to own a little piece of the market.
Sis Pam-lots of work to catch up on, see you guys this weekend
just because
JOHN OGAN
In alt.slack Sister Pammy of the Soil <toxi...@cphl.mindspring.com> wrote:
: Just got back after a week in Jawjah. Did anybody miss me? Looks like I
Like what the Christians are saying on late night AM Radio--that a
horrible lie is being spread about condoms, and that they don't do shit
about HIV because the virus is so small it can penetrate the latex...
I can see that this might be the typical Christian reaction to anything
that seems can upset their morals. Truth is, they fear condoms, because
the wicked can use them to have pleasure. They want the guilt to be kept
in sex, they see the profit lay out before them. And so to keep the fear
of sex (the fear of AIDS) alive, they push rumors about condoms not
working to the public. By making it all out to be some terrible
conspiracy, it also can attract listeners to their show and contribution
cash. They also increase their belief that they are doing good for the
world by keeping illicit sex down, since the Bi states that there can be
no sex out of marriage, and perhaps God will "reward" them in the next
world for encouraging people not to fuck fuck fuck.
ICEKNIFE
If fact, there's no such thing as sex at all.
Now go to your room and jerk off.
Rev. Myrkury
JOHN OGAN <jo...@umr.edu> wrote:
> Like what the Christians are saying on late night AM Radio--that a
> horrible lie is being spread about condoms, and that they don't do shit
> about HIV because the virus is so small it can penetrate the latex...
>
> I can see that this might be the typical Christian reaction to anything
> that seems can upset their morals. Truth is, they fear condoms, because
> the wicked can use them to have pleasure. They want the guilt to be
kept
> in sex, they see the profit lay out before them. And so to keep the
fear
> of sex (the fear of AIDS) alive, they push rumors about condoms not
> working to the public. By making it all out to be some terrible
> conspiracy, it also can attract listeners to their show and contribution
> cash. They also increase their belief that they are doing good for the
> world by keeping illicit sex down, since the Bi states that there can be
> no sex out of marriage, and perhaps God will "reward" them in the next
> world for encouraging people not to fuck fuck fuck.
>
1. Abortion causes breast cancer.
2. Masturbation leads to prostate cancer.
3. Studies demonstrating that a daily glass of wine reduces the risk of
heart didsease are a Papist/European Communist campaign of lies to get
people hooked on demon rum.
4. Dirty pictures make you rape people.
5. Violent pictures make you kill people.
Seems to me the only vice they approve of is tobbacco. Probably because:
1. It gives no pleasure, only pain.
2. It kills you.
3. The tobbacco industry gives money to Jesse Helms.
So basically tobacco is indistinguishable from xtianity.
Thaddeus R. Navarone Gunn
In article <01b67655$9e176b60$6c1f...@myrk.voicenet.com>, "Rev. Myrkury"
<My...@VOICENET.com> wrote:
>
> So basically tobacco is indistinguishable from xtianity.
>
Lemme tell ya something Looseee:
Having been dosed on Christian theology every day, and then doing a
great deal of studying on my own, I've never found a correlation between
modern xtianity and the teachings of Yeshua bin Miriam - y'know, that
wacky Jewish guy who got nailed by the Romans about two thousand years
ago. (Xtianity being a religion that was invented by St. Paul - the PT
Barnum of his day - probably a hundred years after J died). It's my
opinion that if he showed up tomorrow and saw the things that were being
done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.
Sure, I go to church every friggin' Sunday. Twice sometimes. I dig
the liturgy. I loves a big ass pipe organ, loads of incense and a 200dB
choir. Ha-lay-fuckin'loo-yah. Every once in a while I get cornered by a
parishioner who says "You go to church every sunday and yet you write
about paranormal phenomena - what gives?" And I tell 'em "Look, you got
four guys up there who are supposedly ordained by God who are going to
turn bread and wine into the body and blood of a prohpet who died a
millenium ago. NOW IF THAT'S NOT PARANORMAL PHENOMENA, I DON'T KNOW WHAT
IS MONKEYSHINE! Now get me some onion dip for these bland-ass Necco
wafers you've been handing out."
Incidentally, judging by the looks of some of the congregation, I'd say
that xtianity DOES cause cancer. And the only cure is BOB.
Gotta go. Them damn stigmata are oozing again.
TRG
Tourists - the other white meat.