Sunday, February 23, 2014

Dear Abby: "I Enjoy Having Sexual Hookups With My Bisexual Boyfriend But When I See Him With His 'Baby Momma' And The Baby I Get Jealous" - Do I Have To Wait Till Society 'Progresses' And Removes The 'Hetero-Normative' Pressure ?

Dear Abby - Philadelphia Daily News - Feb 24, 2014

Q: I'M a gay man who recently met a guy on Jack'd (a gay social app). At first, it was nothing serious. It was just for sex. I'm a strict top. He's a bottom.
But last month, I saw him out with his daughter (he's bisexual), and I found myself looking at him in a different way. I think he did the same with me once he saw me all dressed up in business clothes.
What concerns me is that he says he still has urges for women. We've been seeing each other for the last couple of weeks, and I'm wondering if things could ever work out between us.

Mia: It's possible. But before you start worrying about tomorrow, why not slow your roll and concentrate on today? You two barely know each other. Take your time.
Peel the layers back on this guy's personality while he does the same with yours. Enjoy the process. Tomorrow will take care of itself.

Steve: Whether he's bi or gay won't determine his loyalty to you. The quality of your relationship will.

Q: My girlfriend and I practice safe sex, except for when it comes to oral sex. I don't even know where to find a dental dam. She never says anything when she does me, so I don't bring it up.
In the back of my mind, I wonder if we're being stupid? We broke up a while ago but got back together about a month ago.

Mia: Did you know you can make a dental dam? Just cut the tip off an unlubricated condom and cut down one side. You'll wind up with a flat piece of latex. The next time you have a date night, make a couple in advance.
To protect your girlfriend during oral sex, stock up on flavored condoms. Also, you really should get tested so that you both know your HIV status. Limiting the number of sex partners either of you has also reduces your risk.

Steve: Getting tested for HIV is step one. Kudos to you for being concerned about safe sex.


First off - the #1 most guilty body regarding the matter that I am about to speak of is the "Heterosexual Community" (a self-inclusive statement) and their choice to violate most of the key measures of "Institutional Integrity" that would allow the mantle of traditions and that which can be surmised by the intrinsic physiological differences and complimentary condition between man and woman.

Believe it or not - despite the seemingly frequent references to same sex relationships on this particular blog (the social/cultural strategy blog - diluted of politics as much as possible) I cannot bring myself to make use of GOVERNMENT FORCE to induce two or more consenting adults to do or not do what I believe is "right".

Instead this blog takes the position that such a society, in aggregate must accept that it alone has the RESPONSIBILITY to order and enforce the behaviors and norms of the people in line with the "directed outcomes" that it seeks as a society.

With this cry of "liberty" and "freedom" - such a society must prepare itself to accept the functional outcomes that are produced.

The choice to have more causal male/female - baby producing relationships is as damaging to the society than the notion of the culture that propagandizes the "normalization" of same sex relationships using the common progressive disarmament words of "equality", "rights" and "justice" and the correlated attacks upon those who stand for a more traditional read on both homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

The advice given to both sets of letters amount to "non-judgmental junk science".

The one "strictly dickly" male who feels a bit of jealousy upon seeing his "f#*k buddy" paired up with the female through which he bore a child is merely a permutation of the "serial baby daddy" figures inside of a close circle of a community by which the various females are likely to bump into each other and see the respective "half brothers and sisters" of their own children.

LESS than I care to focus upon the "homosexual relationship' is the attempt at WRECKING THE ORDER OF OUR SOCIETY AND CULTURE.

We are long past the debate on the content of the "Dear Abby" columns - where the circa 1965 edition would have been forced by the journalistic code book to use analogies (birds and the bees) rather than straight up language such as "oral sex" and "gay sex buddies".

My problem with this (supposedly) enlightened set of operatives is that they are actually cowards.  They have no plans what so ever to take ownership for the "baby that they are birthing".  There are still enough "right-wing oppressive cultural traditions" for them to fight against and take down before the dust settles and their disciples take a look at where they stand in relationship to the grand promise.

The columnist states that the "quality of the relationship" between the two gay males will define the bisexual man's propensity to remain gay and faithful with him.

Logically - from this "problem" we will see claims that it is the fault of the "Hetero-Normative" society that is putting pressure on this chap to "be a family man" rather than remain as the "Bottom Boy" in the sexual relationship.

In "peeling back" the onion on each of their personalities - "Dear Mia and Steve" never addressed the TRUTH about the one man's totality as a man.

Maybe his desire to produce a child and be a father extends beyond his SEXUAL APPETITE and that IT IS THEY (Mia and Steve) who are seeking to reduce his complexity for the advancement of their own agenda.

If I as a heterosexual male - who is sitting at his computer on a weekend evening COULD express my own sexual appetite by heading up to some gentleman's club and putting out enough money to become "a trusted friend" with a dancer who then gives me her number - is this draw away from my family a "discovery of myself" OR should I consider the consequences to my long term married relationship and my children and household that I have built up?

Ultimate "Mia and Steve" and others have a world view that will never comport with so many the order of relationships that are PROVEN to have a greater chance of producing the "well balanced and free" American citizens that we all claim to favor.

Saturday, February 15, 2014

The "Homosexual Media Lobby" And The Propagandizing Of "The New Normal"

MTv - True Life - "My Boyfriend Embarrasses Me - When He Becomes A Drag Queen Diva"

I am dating a bisexual man who is also a drag queen.
The PROBLEM IS NOT with this intrinsically problematic situation as he claims that he is monogamous with whomever he is in a relationship with.

I just can't stand when he becomes an INTOLERABLE DIVA and then I HAVE TO WEAR THE PANTS in the relationship in order to MAINTAIN ORDER.  

I am not sure how long I can take this.

AGAIN - We are asked to believe that this is just a NORMAL DAY IN THE LIFE IN AMERICA.

We are being propagandized with he notion that GENDER ROLES are just happenstance.  
Our open minded media is merely today just opening a WIDER LENS upon America and that WE as consumers need to be more tolerant. 

Russia's Gay Night Club - A Refuge In A Sea Of Violence
The trajectory of the debate is predictable:

"How Can You CLAIM To Repudiate The Violence Against Homosexuals In Russia And Uganda Yet You Support The 'Anti-Sodomy Laws' Which Lead To Jail Time For Those Who Seek To Freely Express Who They Are?"

The goal is to generate pro-Gay activism but mostly to silence in the face of the clear media propagandism in support of the current run up of "Gay Rights" by those who are seeking to define "The NEW NORMAL" and who feign outrage that EVERYONE has not yet gotten the memo.

Try and focus on the issue of A FRAMEWORK OF SOCIETAL STABILITY where, like it or not THERE ARE STRONG GENDER ROLES that are both enforced by society and UNDERSTOOD based upon the messaging that is carried out throughout society.

What type of stability can be had from these two scenes where GAY MALES IN DRAG are considered "NORMAL AND FREE" - as ABC News called it during their advocacy?

If there is such a thing as "Establishment Power Repudiation" in which those who have given birth to such a society per their activism against "The Machine", yet when they get into power and are now in control over the "Commanding Heights" and are forced to produce the society benefits that they attacked the previous establishment for failing to do so because of BIGOTRY - this new school promises to fail to develop even more people yet deny their hand in the matter.

The common talking points of "Freedom", "Equality" and "Discrimination-Free Society" are the key DISARMING WORDS by which we all are asked to "LIVE UP TO".   Yet this equation fails to include the DAMAGE that is suffered by individuals who live in a society that ultimately fails to provide a sufficient infrastructure upon which people are developed within the ecosystem which has certain issues that have plagued man throughout the millennium settled into a stable operating base.


The woman in the first frame should not be surprised to see that there is no future in her relationship with an off the wall "diva".   And, heaven forbid, if she is exposed to the HIV virus as "her man" chooses to engage in "The Life" - add this as yet another set of risks that she chose to look past.

The Russian situation is more complex.  ME PERSONALLY chooses to look at the chaotic condition in Central Africa in which there is societal breakdown in violence and terrorism - concluding that while the gay minority has it bad in the face of violent thugs seeking to enforce anti-Sodomy - the larger population of Africans in the center of the continent suffer from a far more indiscriminate amount of terror.

YOU HELP ME FIX CENTRAL AFRICA FIRST and then I'll help you fight Homophobia in Russia.

We tried that one before.