May 18th, 2009
Spurred on by a conversation I had the day before, I was thinking yesterday about artificial insemination. Now, I’ve heard moral teaching about why the procdedure is immoral using dry, philosophical language. But yesterday, I looked at the procedure, and came to a realization that startled me.
Artificial insemination is morally equivalent* to prostitution.
If I lived in Nevada (outside of Las Vegas), it would be legal for me, in order to satisfy certain selfish desires, to do the following:
- visit an establishment that brokers sexual services (a brothel)
- choose an anonymous woman without forming a relationship with her
- purchase that woman’s sexual services through the agency of the establishment
- use those sexual services to satisfy my desire
Throughout the U.S., it is legal for a woman, in order to satisfy her selfish desire to have a child outside of wedlock to do the following:
Artificial insemination and prostitution are moral equivalents. So why, in this hypocritical American society, is one accepted and one scorned? Is it simply because one is new and the other age-old? Or is because men’s sexuality is icky, while a woman’s is always pure and uncorrupted? Either accept prostitution, and legalize it throughout the nation, or ban artificial insemination in the same states prostitution is banned. They should be treated the same, from a moral standpoint.
*Aside from morality, there are, of course, certain legal differences. One such is in the area of privacy. A prostitute’s privacy is protected. She has legal protections against her client if she did not want him contacting her. On the other hand, in Florida, a sperm-donor’s right to privacy has been deemed by the courts as being trumped by the right of the mother to receive child support for her offspring.
Posted in MGTOW | No Comments »
March 8th, 2009
You know, I’d like to post a rant right now, but my level of irritation is just at that level where, when I try to think about it, I’m reduced to near incoherence. I’m not in a good mood right now. I’m just feeling a smidgen edfairked.
I am a great guy. I’ve got my act together. I’m easy to get along with, got a good sense of humor. I’ve got a job, I’m good with kids, I’m smart, I’m educated, I’m a hard worker, I’ve got a nice home, I’ve got a nice car, I’ve got a whole lot of interests, I’m relatively good-looking. So why am I still single? After careful consideration, I’ve come to the conclusion, that it’s not me! It boils down to just this: WOMEN ARE STUPID. They don’t know what they want, wouldn’t recognize what’s good for them if it came up and bit them, and couldn’t go after something good in order to save their lives.
Put simply, women aren’t worth my while. They’re beneath me, and they don’t f*cking deserve someone as great as I am.
Posted in Rants | 2 Comments »
January 27th, 2009
Posted in Miscellaneous | No Comments »
January 21st, 2009
Rob Case at One Man’s Kingdom posted a very remarkable piece of writing. Go read it. It’s that good.
Posted in Justice, MGTOW, Rants | No Comments »
January 4th, 2009
Posted in Humor | No Comments »
December 12th, 2008
I went to my little nephew’s Christmas program at his school yesterday evening. It was a nice, cute little affair. But the kids sang one song that saddened me as much as if they had been forced to act in an Everyone Loves Raymond episode.
It was a song about Dad putting up lights on the rooftop. And the kids were expressing concern – hoping that he wouldn’t fall off and get hurt. Of course to set up those sentimental thoughts, the song had to portray dad as an imbecilic Homer Simpson-type who would decide not to take any safety precautions, and would choose to decorate on the day where the rooftops were covered in ice.
My brother and I both noticed this.
Yes, I know there are bigger injustices to fight about, but it bothered me that the school’s music teacher saw fit to teach this song, with it’s male-desparaging attitudes to young children in kindergarten and primary grades. This indoctrination simply reinforces attitudes that lead to those larger injustices.
Posted in Rants | No Comments »
November 11th, 2008
I’d like to start off my series of posts on political philosophy with an odd side-excursion to a topic that, on the surface, seems to be completely unrelated to politics. That topic is sex. Yes, there are sexual scandals that can bring down a politician, but I’m not referring to specific instances of sex. I’m referring instead to attitudes toward sex which underlie and inform political philosophies and positions.
Specifically, I’m concerned with how people answer the following question: What is sex for?
There are, of course, two answers to that question. And yet, in the attitudes and actions people display in their lives it is obvious that one of the answers for them is primary and the other secondary. But for other people, the one is merely secondary and the other is primary. And I’m sure that people have been coming down on both sides of the divide for as long as people have known where babies come from.
What is sex for? For procreation. This is the position of one side.
What is sex for? For pleasure. This is the position of the other side.
The procreation side believes that the purpose of sex is to make babies – to bring new life into the world. Sexual urges are there in order to encourage people to procreate, as is the pleasure one feels when having sex. They help us to want to procreate. These believers in the natural law view sex, then, as a grave responsibility which should be supported by cultural institutions in order to maximize the success of the getting and rearing of children. The primary institution for this is marriage. Governmental support for the married at the expense of single people (such as in the tax code) is for the benefit of the children.
The pleasure side holds that one has sex for the pleasure it gives. The begetting of children may or may not be a biological consequence of the action, but pleasure is the reason for it. What’s marriage for then? Well, obviously, it is an institutional means of having a regular sex partner.
In part two of the epistemology of sex, I will attempt to take a look at some of the implications of each of these two belief systems.
Posted in Politics | No Comments »
November 7th, 2008
The sheer number of times women decide to flake out is simply astounding.
Posted in Rants | No Comments »
September 26th, 2008
Overheard a skank at work saying the following:
I haven’t been mean to him yet! I’m saving that for another day.
And she wonders why she can’t keep a boyfriend.
Posted in Miscellaneous | No Comments »
September 21st, 2008
I think one thing that irritates me quite a bit about wimmen is their tendency to flake out. They don’t just flake out on guys, they flake out on other women too.
Last night, I had a party, and invited a group of people I work with. The married couples all came. This one single girl whom I invited had RSVP’d, and also confirmed again only two days before, that she was still planning on coming to the party. She had also planned, in advance, to ride with another female coworker to the party. So, in effect, she flaked out on both of us. We each tried to call her, but there was no response.
I think it’s irresponsible in the extreme to do this sort of thing. Yes, emergencies sometimes crop up and force plans to change, but common courtesy would dictate that you call to inform the other party that you have to cancel your plans.
The only women who have this courtesy are older than me. I have yet to see a woman younger than me even think of doing this.
It’s poor breeding. I blame their parents. Actually, no. I don’t. They’re adults now. I blame them.
Posted in Rants | No Comments »
