Guns good, sex toys bad

[Aeridus]

Virginia may be for lovers but they sure keep all the smut stores very well hidden...

Actually, Virginia is for Haters.

...how true that is, sadly... though we do have a fraternity/sorority on campus that is open to people of non-mainstream sexuality...

One other point... why in general does the government have more of a problem with sex than violence? *stares at extremely violent games peddled to kids and yet games with a slightly sexual theme but very good plots are not even available at all in most stores*

[Honor]

Well, if things get so bad that differently-minded people have to move to another country to avoid being persecuted for their sexuality, the US will lose half of its population. And that'll kill the economy. I'm sure eventually someone will figure out that persecuting sexuality is not the brightest idea. Going after murderers and people that really harm society should be the focus, not people who make other people feel a little uncomfortable in their sexuality.

Sadly, there is a significant portion of the population of the United States who would agree without hesitation that losing half the population (that particular half, anyway) and crashing the economy would be a small price to pay for bringing the country into line with the religious oligarchal ideal they have in their minds.

[Indigo Violent]

Move to Canada...you know you want to...

[Honor]

Move to Canada...you know you want to...

The thought has crossed my mind. Buy, like Evey's dad, I usually end up thinking "if we leave, then they win." Things get to a certain point, though, and fuck it, they can win. I'll go expatriate in a minnit.

[Gible]

Every so often I get to musing about doing a world trip and visiting people, including those in the US, but frankly, its getting scary. The number of places in the US I'd get arrested in is getting silly. I always knew I'd have to leave my drugs at home, but my sextoys? fer crissakes.

[Sweet or Sour]

While it is certain that a portion of the united states [the social right portion] would, maybe not happily, endure complete collapse if they thought it brought about a cleansing of the morals of the country [morals of course being defined by those who would prefer the cleansing in this fashion], what portion is this exactly? In terms of quantity, as opposed to volume of speech [since these people are often willing to yell their opinions louder and for longer than anyone else]. Though my family is largely conservative, I live in a region that is actually very much free. But even in this sort of area I’m starting to see the creep of “moral righteousness” slither in to daily affairs, and places that were very much sanctuaries of free speech and expression are facing public opposition now. Those in favor of these freedoms still seem in the vast majority here, but is it like this everywhere? It seems here that those who are interested in maintaining their lifestyles are fracturing, into simply having intentions of protecting their own immediate interests, as opposed to banding together for a cause, while those who have interest in oppressing others, seem to burn with zeal, despite their vast minority. Is it like this everywhere in the united states? Or are these people truly the majority? It seems absolutely amazing that these people are able to effectively fight every issue at the same time, and win. Do social conservatives even sleep?! Do they even take breaths between their yells!?

Perhaps a better focus of conversation is what can be done about it, since it is reasonable to assert that those here likely hold a certain personal interest in preventing this spread. I do wonder, however, how long a time would pass after this movement purges the united states of those who are their current targets, and turns inward with an accusing look, or turn their eyes to another country.

[Lowky]

While it is certain that a portion of the united states [the social right portion] would, maybe not happily, endure complete collapse if they thought it brought about a cleansing of the morals of the country [morals of course being defined by those who would prefer the cleansing in this fashion], what portion is this exactly? In terms of quantity, as opposed to volume of speech [since these people are often willing to yell their opinions louder and for longer than anyone else]. Though my family is largely conservative, I live in a region that is actually very much free. But even in this sort of area I’m starting to see the creep of “moral righteousness” slither in to daily affairs, and places that were very much sanctuaries of free speech and expression are facing public opposition now. Those in favor of these freedoms still seem in the vast majority here, but is it like this everywhere? It seems here that those who are interested in maintaining their lifestyles are fracturing, into simply having intentions of protecting their own immediate interests, as opposed to banding together for a cause, while those who have interest in oppressing others, seem to burn with zeal, despite their vast minority. Is it like this everywhere in the united states? Or are these people truly the majority? It seems absolutely amazing that these people are able to effectively fight every issue at the same time, and win. Do social conservatives even sleep?! Do they even take breaths between their yells!?

Perhaps a better focus of conversation is what can be done about it, since it is reasonable to assert that those here likely hold a certain personal interest in preventing this spread. I do wonder, however, how long a time would pass after this movement purges the united states of those who are their current targets, and turns inward with an accusing look, or turn their eyes to another country.

Vote, become politically active, try to show those starting to isolate how if they work with other groups being marginalized for similar if different reasons, they can work to stop the marginalization. And when push comes to shove start voting with the pocketbook. Don't purchase items from people/organizations/companies who tend to support things you don't support.

[Gealachtine]

Americans have been spoiled, protected by our constitutional rights. We have begun the slippery slope of understanding what true freedom means and many are caught between the usual liberal passivist response and wanting to become as zealous as the religious right to put a stop to the tyranny at hand. The thing is, even the most liberal blanch at those things they don't comprehend.

When even the liberals of a country are not able to see their personal prejudices as wrong and think they have the right to tell someone they are a bad person because their preferences are outside of the bounds they are used to - will we ever be able to find total freedom? I don't think it's within human nature to be non-judgemental and passive on all accounts. We are still too warlike. Our porn and sports speak volumes.

In a country founded on freedoms of religion and speech, we are extremely backwards. We have traveled a long way down that road only to come to a place saying - "you are free to that liberty only if it doesn't upset the most sensitive citizen's sensabilities." (say that 10x's really fast)
At least we have places of extremes like Mississippi and California, where examples of different levels of freedom are expressed publicly on a daily bases. From these examples we can choose which works best for the individual - move to the state of your political tastes and choosing, just don't bring the ideals from the one you're leaving with you.

It's why I live in Colorado and not Missouri. Though Canada is looking more and more appealling as time goes on.

[Aeridus]

When I visited Canada, I brought some sextoys for my girlfriend and the airport had to do a deeper scan of my bags... thank goodness they didn't have to do a full search.

"Please turn the device on and demonstrate."
"Um, ok! *fucks a random woman with one of the vibrators*"

[Gealachtine]

"Please turn the device on and demonstrate."
"Um, ok! *fucks a random woman with one of the vibrators*"

Bwahahahahahahaha!

Well, if the time ever came to demonstrate, you might get away with it if you sing "O Canada!" during the random vibrator usage. Either that or the Hockey song...

[Squidflakes]

Move to Canada...you know you want to...

Yes.. actually.

[Aeridus]

Cake Toppers anyone?

[Chiropteran]

OMG! Flem is back! So much happy webcomic goodness in my life right now!

with one of the dissenters now gone

And was that dissenter replaced by a liberal? No. And O'Connor is gone too. As for Clarence "Uncle" Thomas, he voted with the extremists once and he will again on a majority Christofascist (which is like Islamofascist in its aims, only with different religious symbols) court like the one we have now. He is one of the most extremely right-wing justices on there.

But I said the current supreme court was cause for concern so everything must be A-OK .

[Tellner]

These guys don't care about social or economic collapse. In fact, they welcome it because it will get rid of the evil secular culture and allow them to replace it with a Reconstructionist/Dispensationalist/Witch-Burning Theocratic Christian Republic. They really don't care about the long term, because they're convinced we are living in the End Times, and G-d will blow the whistle and end the world some time really soon now.

The most dangerous variety believes that it is the US's destiny to usher in this new age by becoming a Right Wing theocracy and conquering the rest of the world. They have the ear, and perhaps the brain, of the President and at least one or two members of the Supreme Court, the RNC and other important people.

Move to Canada? Love to. But "If Mundberg falls whither shall we flee the Shadow?" Toronto isn't nearly far enough.

[Chaszmyr Mae'Val]

No offence but what America needs right now is a visit from a loveable anarchist in a Guy Fawkes costume

I want to move to Canada - yes I know I live on a island a couple of thousand miles away, but I'm fed up of being Bush's Bitch too.

[FreedomsPaladin]

The good news/stupid news is that last time I checked, they're legal for sale as long as they're "novelties" that claim to not be for actual use. It's only when you tell someone how to use it that you become a criminal. For once, I understand Bunny Boy's point of view... You can give them toys but you can't tell them how to use them? WTF?

[Ce6]

The good news/stupid news is that last time I checked, they're legal for sale as long as they're "novelties" that claim to not be for actual use. It's only when you tell someone how to use it that you become a criminal. For once, I understand Bunny Boy's point of view... You can give them toys but you can't tell them how to use them? WTF?

Keep in mind these laws come from the same kind of minds that think "abstinance-only sex education" is the proper way to instruct confused and horny teenagers in how to tend to the carnal desires of their bodies. Many of these teenagers probably being the results of undereducated parents who weren't quite sure how they came about either.
Ignorance is a virus which unfortunately tends to breed itself in favorable cultures built upon the foundations of ignorance.

[Squidflakes]

I'll have to dig up the results to give accurate numbers, but there was a long term study done among jr. high, high school, and college kids over 10 years that showed abstinence only education resulted in MORE sex and MORE pregnancy than any other form of sex education.

[Jackalope]

Yup. Look up the statistics on Lubbock, TX in particular. The home of "abstinence only" sex education has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and STDs in the country.

[Chiropteran]

If I recall correctly (and I'm not 100% sure I do), some abstinence-only educations can delay the onset of sexual activity for a short time--and then they ALL result in astronomically higher rates of STDs, HIV, and unplanned pregnancy.

But take it from the experts, not me:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/po ... cation.xml

Abstinence-only education is, quite simply, telling kids lies that get quite a few of them killed. It's absolutely unconscionable.

My opinion on teens' sexual activities is as follows:

I believe that you should wait a lot longer than most of you say that you do (and most of you do wait longer than you say that you do.) I think most of you should wait longer than you probably actually do. I think you should not throw your "virginity" away because I don't think you should throw away what can be a truly beautiful experience, or allow it to become a traumatic nightmare. I think that you should be in a serious relationship for a long time first, and I think that you should talk about it at great length. I think that if you're both not absolutely 100% sure, you should wait until you are. You have plenty of time and this is one of those things that it matters you do it right. I'm not going to tell you that it's dirty and sinful but I'm not going to tell you it's just a biological function either. It's a very powerful experience and not to be taken lightly.

So, although my sexual mores are fairly liberal (that is to say, rationally rather than religiously based), I absolutely don't approve of teens just diving willy-nilly into sexual activity because they think it's cool, or without giving it sufficient thought.

I am, however, aware that some teenagers are going to behave in ways that I disapprove of. However, unlike Bush et al, I don't want them to die for it, so damn well read this:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/po ... D8AE0794A6[/url]