"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." Friedrich Nietzche

"Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property or directly and immediately endangers same, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, and that is done in private, especially on private property, is the inalienable right of all adults. In a truly free and liberty-loving society, ruled by a secular government, no laws should be passed to prohibit such behavior. Any laws now existing that are contrary to the above definition of inalienable rights are violations of the rights of adults and should be made null and void." D. M. Mitchell (from The Myth of Inalienable Rights, at: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/)

Friday, October 26, 2012


"I never gargled, I never gambled, I never smoked at all. Until I met my two good amigos, Nick Teen and Al K. Hall." So goes the opening lyrics of an old Rolf Harris song. It's a humorous song, of course, but there is little that is truly humorous about alcohol for the approximately 14 million Americans who are alcohol abusers or alcoholics.

Alcohol is a true narcotic drug. It's use and abuse causes more harm, damage, disease, and death than all the presently illegal drugs combined.

We are fighting a multi-billion dollar war on other drugs, ones that cause less harm than legal alcohol. If the government has the legitimate power to save us from ourselves--to dictate what we can or cannot smoke, drink, inject, snort, or otherwise use in our own bodies--why then is the government not fighting a war on alcohol also?

Conversely, if it is legal for adults to use or abuse alcohol (where they do not violate the rights of others), then the presently illegal drugs should be legalized because their mere use is demonstrably less harmful than the use of alcohol.

Do your government representatives--local, state, or federal--preach for the continuation of the futile and wasteful war on drugs? Do they drink alcohol, the number one violence-causing drug? If so, then they are complete and absolute hypocrites and should be voted out of office. They are not tough on drugs. They are tough on the drugs that they don't like. Drugs that are less harmful, overall, than the drug they use.

It is a fact that nearly all of the violence associated with the presently illegal drugs is caused, not by the use of the drugs, but their illegal status. If you want to reduce drug-related violence, then they must be relegalized to consenting adults. After all, if a person truly owns the property of his or her body, then that person has a right to use his or her body anyway they wish just so long as they do not violated the rights of others. That's called inalienable rights.

In conclusion, it seems quite obvious, that alcohol should be considered drug enemy number one. Of course, we fought that war once, with disastrous results. Now, we are doing the same with other, less liked, drugs, but with no less disastrous results.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

There Are Only Three Objectively Bad Things about Sex

Sex is such a wonderful thing, or it should be. If it wasn’t so wonderful we wouldn’t have seven billion people on this planet now.

There are really only two reasons to have sex: 1) to make babies and, 2) because it feels good. It’s the second reason that has led to what some people say is overpopulation—although I think human ingenuity will allow for an even greater population without massive and widespread famine. But I digress.

If sex doesn’t feel good, then you’re probably doing it wrong. That usually applies to women, not that women do it wrong on purpose. And that brings up a third reason for sex, control and domination. Many men don’t give a damn if the women they have sex with like it or not, just as long as they, the men, get off on it. That sentiment is probably more typical than many people might think. And, in my personal experience, I have met many women whose former boyfriends or husbands really didn’t care if their woman enjoyed the sexual experience or not. In fact, some men felt threatened if their wives enjoyed it too much.

But again, I digress. The title of this post is “There Are Only Three Objectively Bad Things about Sex.” So let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that we are talking about men who want to please their women sexually and are as concerned with doing so as with pleasing themselves, and vice versa.

Here’s the list of the three objectively bad things about sex: 1) Non-consensual sex, 2) unwanted pregnancies, 3) sexually transmissible diseases.

Objectively bad thing number one, non-consensual sex, means that the two (or more) people coming together for a pleasurable sexual experience are of sufficient age and mental maturity that they know what they want and can consent to have sex and do so, otherwise it would be non-consensual. That’s pretty simple, right? In the United States that usually means the people involved must have reached the age of eighteen.

On that subject, I ask you this: Why can’t a female of seventeen years and 364 days consent to have sex, but one day later she can? It is magic? Is her brain unable to understand the mechanics and emotional involvement of having sex before she turns eighteen? It is a puzzlement.

Also, most teens can drive at age sixteen. That is a much more dangerous proposition for both the teen driver, any passengers they have, and anyone else on the road. A teen-age girl hiking her skirt up, peeling off her panties and spreading her legs pales in comparison to the dangers of a teen-age girl, or boy, driving on our streets, roads, and highways. Still, there has to be some cut-off point, like in Denmark, where a girl can consent to have sex at age fifteen, as can girls in Sweden, France, and Greece, among other nations. And, of course, it is not straightforward. If an adult, over 21, uses coercion or special circumstances, say homelessness, to have sex, then the adult can be prosecuted.

Consensual sex also includes the kind of sex involved. Let’s face it, if a forty-five year old man forces his forty-five year old wife to have sex when she doesn’t want it, that’s non-consensual sex and that’s rape. Also, if he wants to have anal sex and she doesn’t, then, if he’s a nice guy, he can’t go there. If he does, again, that’s rape. Same with oral sex or group sex. All decisions to have sex, any kind of sex, with one or more persons has to be consensual between all parties to make it consensual sex.

Then there’s unwanted pregnancies. I don’t get it. In today’s modern world there is no reason why a woman should get pregnant when she doesn’t want to … except for the occasional accident, which does happen. Is it just plain ignorance or the belief that “just this once” it can’t hurt? Oh yeah. There is the alcohol issue, with the more you drink the stupider you become. Good guys should never take advantage of a drunk women. Of course, if the guy drinks too much, he gets just as stupid, possibly causing a serious lapse of judgement.

Whatever it is that is causing most of the unwanted pregnancies, they don't have to happen with a little foresight and a little planning. But, of course, that means taking responsibility for your desires and actions, which many people just don't want to do. And, in my opinion, it’s not just the woman’s decision. An honorable and well-meaning man should avoid getting a woman pregnant if 1) she doesn’t want to get pregnant and, 2) he’s not willing to accept his responsibility in supporting and nurturing the child.

There are many different kinds of birth control available to women. Some good, some not so good. Some are a bit of a hassle, some not so much. Then, for those women, and men, who decide that they really don't want children, or who have one or more child and don't want any more, there are two permanent options of birth control. One for women and one for men. For a woman, she can have her tubes tied. No more eggs coming down the fallopian tubes. No more pregnancies. For a man, he can get a vasectomy, the male version of having the tubes tied because, well, the tubes bringing sperm from his testicles are cut and tied, or in some way sealed. Ergo, no more sperm in the semen and he can't get a woman pregnant.

But there is one simple birth control method available to both men and women: the condom. Properly used, it is at least 98% effective. And it’s so simple to use. Here’s how it works boys and girls. Have the guy put the condom on his “willy” before slipping his willy into the gals “do-dah,” and leave it on until the guy pulls his willy out when he’s all done.

Other no-no’s regarding condoms. Guys, don’t carry it around in your wallet where it might get pinched and worn and wear a tiny, tiny, teeny small hole in it and thereby leak some of your “seed” where it shouldn’t be leaked. Don’t use old condoms. The latex can become fragile and break or tear. Women don’t bite on the condom when it is on your guy’s willy—although why a women would do that is beyond me. Treat the condom with respect and it will protect you from unwanted pregnancies.

A condom will also protect you—both guys and gals, but mostly gals—from our third bad thing about sex: sexually transmissible diseases.

If you are not 100% sure that your partner is “safe” and disease-free—either man or woman—then a condom is called for. I can’t tell you how to be 100% sure. You’ll have to figure that out all on your own. But it is better to be safe than sorry. HIV is not something you want, nor, syphilis, gonorrhea, Chlamydia, or a host of other nasty but lesser diseases like herpes.

See how wonderful the condom is? It can prevent pregnancies and diseases. That’s two birds with one stone, so to speak. (How much would it cost Sandra Fluke to buy condoms? Would she need taxpayers to pay for them?)

So there we are gang the three objectively bad things about sex: 1) Non-consensual sex, 2) unwanted pregnancies and 3) sexually transmissible diseases. Take care of those three things then anything goes, right?

Well, only for the more sexually liberated among us. Those who base their behaviors on logic rather than emotion, who know that sex should and can feel good and want to experience as much sexual pleasure as possible and can make room for in their busy lives.

There are, of course, hundreds, if not thousands of subjective reasons to not have sex. Religious belief is the leading cause of sexual guilt and subjective teachings about not having sex unless it is with the right person (husband or wife) at the right time (after you’re married) in the right place (your bedroom—door closed, locked and lights out) and doing it (the sex act) in the right manner (him on top and no sodomy—that means oral, as well as anal sex). If that’s your hang-up, so be it. It’s your life.

For the rest of us, just remember to avoid the three objectively bad things about sex, then have fun, experiment, and experience all that you want to experience. However, remember, there will be times that you will suffer emotional pain. Not everything will go according to plan, vis-à-vis, a particular relationship. It will hurt but you will get over it, hopefully wiser and more careful. And between those times you may find that you will have some really good, really great, really fun and fantastic sex … with one or more other consenting adults, without unwanted pregnancies, and without sexually transmissible diseases.

In any case, I hope so, because sex should be fun and enjoyable. Humans are, after all, the most sexual animals on Earth. But that is a subject for another time.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Moderate Muslims No Help

Muslim apologizers try to convince us that only the militant and extremist muslims are a danger. The Taliban is a member group of the militant and extremist Muslims who would like to take the whole world back to the dark ages. The apologizers say that the moderate Muslims are okay and they out number the extremists. I believe the moderate Muslims will be of no help in stopping the extremist. (This is a rather long article. You can scroll down to "Muslim Beliefs," and begin there.)

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012, a fourteen-year-old schoolgirl was shot and seriously wounded in an assasination attempt by the Taliban. The girl, Malala Yousufzai, had gained notice for speaking out against the Taliban and militant Muslim groups, for which she gained both national and international attention.

Malala lived in the Swat Valley of Pakistan, according to Reuters. In 2009 the Taliban had control of the Swat and set up courts, executed residents and closed girls' schools, including the one that Malala attended.

Lataer, in 2009, the Pakistani government took back that area. But Malala received several death threats. Tuesday, the Taliban tried to make good on its threats. The young girl was shot in the neck and the head. Two other girls with her were also wounded.

Sharia Law, which is what the Taliban and Muslims around the world would like to see installed in all nations, globablly, is Dark Ages mentality. Under it, women are to be kept barefoot, pregnant, and uneducated. Women under Shariah Law are literally property. Moderate Muslims accept Shariah Law also.

The extremist Muslim attitude is this: If you believe differently than me, will not accept the Muslim religion and Sharia Law, and will not change, then I will kill you, as they tried to do to one brave little girl who just wanted to live her own life without harming others. (Malala had said in a documentary that she wanted to be a doctor.)

So where is the moderate Muslim outrage about this cowardly deed? Where is the news coverage in the mainstream media, pointing out the evils of this religion that, at base, is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of murder if you dare to disagree with their extremist leaders.

There is no moderate Muslim outrage for one reason and one reason only. Any Muslim who would dare to speak out, and strongly, against this attempted assasination of a fourteen-year-old schoolgirl would become a target himself.

Sharia Law already has a toehold in America and a strong grip in the United Kingdom and European Union. Incidents like this should make all freedom- and liberty-loving Americans write to, or otherwise contact their government representatives and tell them in no uncertain words that we will not tolerate Shariah Law in the United States. The extreme Muslim position and Sharia Law does not tolerate free-will, free-thinking, free-acting people and it makes actual slaves of women.

Ironically, I will quote a saying from the Middle East: If you let the nose of the camel under the tent, soon the whole camel will be in the tent. The nose of the camel is pushing to get under tent in America. We must stop it now and forever.

Monday, October 01, 2012


Whore, prostitute, call girl, escort, they're all the same. They are people who get paid to have sex with other people. And, while there are some male prostitutes and escorts, most are women. To most adults in America prostitutes are considered to be terrible women. Oh my God! Having sex for money. How disgusting and degrading and, and ... and just wrong! But why is it wrong?

What's wrong with sex? Well, I can think of three things right off the top of my head: unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmissible diseases, and non-consensual sex. Non-consensual sex is rape, and a child under a certain age--usually 18 in most states--is presumed not able to know enough to make a consensual decision to have sex. I won't argue that point with anyone under the age of 15, but how is it that a girl who is 17 years, 364 days old is unable to consent to sex, but the next day, on her 18th birthday, she is? That is a puzzlement.

As to the issues of disease and pregnancies, the simplest answer is the condom. Properly used it prevents both unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmissible diseases. Assuming that a women is sure that her sex partner has no such diseases and he prefers not to use a condom--for the greater sensation going condom free provides him--then there are several options for birth control a woman can use. Still, the condom is the cheapest and simplest birth control method with about a 98% effectiveness if properly used.

We have sex for two reasons and two reasons only: to make babies, and because it feels good. If sex doesn't feel good then you're probably doing it wrong. Of course some men don't really care if it feels good for the woman just as long as it feels good for them. My advice to women with such men is to run, do not walk, away from them. There are a lot of good men out there who want you to be able to enjoy sex also.

If sex didn't feel good, especially for the men, then we wouldn't have 7 billion people on this planet. Hell, we may have died out as a species if sex didn't feel good. Which brings us back to whores.

Whores do not have sex with men (the typical such encounter) for the pleasure they derive from the sex act, although they certainly could enjoy it. No, they are in business. It's a way to make money and if they are good enough at it they can make a lot of money.

A women could have sex with a man and not get paid and the legal system could care less. One girlfriend I had and stayed with for nearly eight years, told me shortly after meeting and going to bed, that she had already had sex with over 100 men. She was 24 at the time. We went on to connect with various other people, married couples or boyfriend and girlfriend, for sex. We were "swingers." All consensual adult behavior without the worry of going to jail for it ... and a whole lot of yummy sex.

But way back when, in Merry Old England and, I imagine, in the early American Colonies, back in the bad old days, an unmarried women who had sex and got pregnant and no father was found or came forth, that women could be thrown in prison for one year. Also, the "bastard" child was to be considered on the level of a prostitute, thief, or beggar. (Same link as above.)

As a society we've gotten over the need to punish a women with jail time for having a baby out of wedlock, although I am sure there are many who still would like to do that. But why haven't we gotten over issue of sex for hire? Many men don't have a women with which to have sex on a regular basis. Many married men don't get all the sex they desire. The sex drive is a natural human behavior and it is quite strong--more so in some people than in others and even women can have strong libidoes. (However, a woman wanting to have sex can usually and quite easily find a man or several of them who will gladly help her out. Not so with the average man.)

When I talk about whores and prostitutes (whore seems to have a much harsher conotation, does it not?) I am not talking about teen-agers who run away then get forced into, quite often, drug-induced prostitution. I am most definitely not talking about sex slavery. The out-and-out slaver and the pimps who hold their "girls" in virtually slavery, are extremely evil people and are a danger to all in society. I consider them to be the same as mass murderers. But there are some prostitutes that are independent or working for a pimp or madam that treats them with kindness, respect, and dignity, and who don't mind having sex with  a variety of men.

Does prostitution threaten family life? If a married man goes to a prostitute does that mean he's going to leave his wife? Hardly. He goes to a prostitute for one of three reasons: the experience of having sex with a women other than his wife; or he feels he doesn't get enough sex from his wife; or he can have the prostitute do things that he's always wanted to experience, but his wife won't do them.

But here's the thing, with all the "hook-up" dating sites on the internet, a married man, if he wanted to, could hook-up with like-minded women to have sex. That, I believe, would be a threat to his marriage. Paying a prostitute to give him "head" and swallow, or to have anal sex, is not likely to be a threat to his marriage. He knows he's paying for it. The whore isn't going to run away with him and start a new life. He gets an experience that he wants but his wife, for whatever reasons, doesn't provide.

Besides, a man might love his wife, his family, love coming home at the end of the day to spend time with them, but still desire more or different sex than his wife wants to provide. Going to a prostitute would probably help that man and, thereby, help his relationship with his wife and family.

The fact is that the laws against prostitution are based on religious beliefs and are, in fact, violative of the principle of inalienable rights. This behavior is immoral, therefore it should be illegal. But, as pointed out above, once it was legal to put unwed mothers in prison, but we got over it. Now it is time to stop the criminalization of consensual adult sex for hire.

Like the criminal justice problem associated with the presently illegal drugs, most of the criminal justice problem associated with prostitution is caused by its illegality. If prostitution were legal and disputes between prostitutes and customers were able to be taken to open court, then the need for pimps would diminish, maybe go away altogether. More independent prostitutes could advertise and make a living without having to give up a substantial portion of her earnings to the pimp or worry about going to jail. More "madams" like the D.C. Madam, Deborah Jane Palfrey, who looked for strong, independent, educated women and, evidently, treated them well, would be able to exist.

And, as mentioned above, there is the religious element to the anti-prostitution laws and to all but church sanctioned types of sexual expression. Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad in their book The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power, states it like this:
Religions all want everyone's major emotional bond to be with whatever god figure the religion presents. If the most important thing is salvation--whether of one's soul as in the West, or progressing along the reincarnative chain as in the East--then anything that distracts from this is looked upon as detrimental. This is one reason why sexuality is often regarded as low, carnal, animal, even dirty; for sexuality, if left unfettered, risks putting people out of control--and more importantly, out of religion's control. (North Atlantic Books, Frog Ltd., 1993, pg. 91.)
All in all, prostitution is just about commerce, supply and demand. Women have what most men want.
Some of those women are willing to sell it. If it is a legitimate job for a woman to give a man a non-sexual massage, rubbing her hands and massaging his body all over, except for the genitals, then why isn't it a legitimate job for a women to continue on into the sexual area. This is skin on skin, personal, intimate contact. (I'm talking about the non-sexual massage.)

Prostitution is consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property. And, If both people involved, under the principle of inalieanable rights, fully and completely own the property of their bodies and their minds, then such sexual behavior would be their inalienable right and no law could be passed to prohibit it.

However, since prostitution, as well as certain mind-altering drugs, are still illegal, I say that the concept of inalienable rights is a myth.  Yes,we are free in America ... free to do whatever the government allows us to.