You know, in almost nine years of incarceration, I thought I'd seen it all. Seriously, I've seen female cops get busted for getting freaky with male inmates. I've seen suicides. I've seen stabbings over $20 dope deals and riots for the most idiotic reasons known to mankind. There are great friends I've lost and people I can't seem to shake.
Recently, after returning from a visit1, I sat in our dayroom awaiting the next unlock, and watching a maintenance crew install a prophylactic dispenser. I know what you are thinking but, no, it isn't the 50¢ gas station restroom variety. These are free for the taking.
I thought it was a joke so, after they left, I had to go inspect it. The clear plastic container was filled with a myriad of colored condom packages and there was a memo affixed to the front of the case promoting "safe sex." Are you friggen serious?!?!
I gotta say, this one takes the cake. This is wrong on so many levels and bothers the crap outa me. Gee whiz, where do I start?
Inmates are banned from watching "R" rated movies, unless the movies have been edited to the point of butchery and no longer make any sense. We are forbidden from subscribing to or possessing pornography. The list of restrictions and prohibitions is extensive. But, and this is the crazy part, some men choose to become transgender, get shots to make their tits grow, and wear bra's like it's the thing to do. Such a man is then allowed to point the sexual discrimination finger at another man who ogles (his) boobs, crotch, or ass. Such men get special partitions in the shower to keep wandering eyes from checkin' 'em out.
Please don't get me wrong. I have no problems with the homos. To each his own and all that. Whatever floats your boat or, in this case, blows your skirt up. Just don't try to include me in your weirdo, freaky shit. And, if you call me "she", I'm gonna crack your ass.
The total mindfuck in this whole scenario, in my opinion is, now, it seems that in spite of all those restrictions and prohibitions, guys screwing guys is not only condoned but the box of free condoms on the wall encourages it. I can not even fathom what kind of whack-a-doodle crap will be next. Perhaps they will include a glow-in-the-dark variety or, God forbid, different flavors. I gotta ask myself, just what is this world coming to?
God Bless All.
Man Up Cave Woman
Sam Aurelius Milam III
For decades, women demanded unconditional equality with men, whether or not it made any sense. Given that, I don't have any sympathy for women who don't deal with men as equals, and who complain about being victims of men. Women demanded equality with men. Now, they need to "man up". Women who don't want to live in the world that women demanded, who won't "take it like a man", should join convents. Or, they could just forget the sexual equality crap and try to be women. Sadly, a quick glance at the past suggests that even that wouldn't solve any problems.
More than 2,300 years and, so far as I can tell, women haven't changed at all. Maybe they haven't changed since the days of the cave men. Oops. Cave persons. Sorry, ladies.
A White Man's Notes
|Cura Te Ipsum
Sam Aurelius Milam III
A while back, I was watching an episode of Last Man Standing and Eve (one of the daughters) was reprimanded at school for referring to one of the other students as homosexual. Something about that bothered me.
Here's what bothered me. For decades, if not longer, the homosexuals have been insisting that there isn't anything wrong with homosexuality. So, if there isn't anything wrong with it, then why would the school reprimand Eve for referring to another student as homosexual? If the homosexuals really believe that there isn't anything wrong with being homosexual, then why would they be offended? Do they feel like there's something wrong with it after all? They need to make up their minds. Otherwise, I might start to get suspicious.
Suspicious of what? I might start to wonder if maybe the homosexuals are doing the same thing that the feminists did. Maybe they're demanding equal treatment when it's advantageous to them and, otherwise, insisting that everybody must behave toward them with a very special sensitivity and reserve. Maybe some of them are marching around, flaunting their homosexuality, while others of them are condemning anybody who even mentions it. That's the kind of thing that the feminists did. See my article Penultimate Straw, on page 2 of the April 1995 issue. Why would the homosexuals do such a thing? Maybe they took a lesson from the feminists. Maybe they're not trying to achieve approval. Maybe they're trying to exert control, like the feminists did.
What might the homosexuals be trying to control? They might be trying to control other people's attitudes and behavior. People with the reformer mind-set, even homosexuals, will use any hint of real or imagined bigotry (sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, racism, or anything else) as an excuse to control other people. For such reformers, it isn't the specific prejudice that matters. It's the opportunity for control. Using the homosexual example, I have as much right to be homophobic as the homosexuals have to be homosexual. Whether or not my attitudes are bigoted isn't the point. Disapproving of homosexuals isn't any worse than disapproving of homophobes. Either way, the disapproval is the same in principle.
The real problem is that the reformers-cum-enforcers won't allow any opinion but their own. Anybody who "has a problem with it" will be attacked, one way or another. In their efforts to enforce their view of good behavior, the reformers become as bigoted as the bigots. In spite of their alleged worthy cause, such behavior control is just as bad as bigotry. Eventually, it becomes much worse. Throughout history, the efforts of morality enforcers have caused more death and brutality than most other causes combined. The claim of a worthy cause doesn't justify the results. Remember, Hitler claimed that his cause was worthy.
People have been disapproving of one another, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for bad ones, for as long as our species has existed. Disapproval isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some people deserve it. In my opinion, we should all be free to disapprove of others, and to express our disapproval. The catch is that any freedom is more likely to endure if it's exercised with a little discretion and restraint. We don't have to approve of something in order to tolerate it. Indeed, it's the things of which we disapprove the most that ask of us the greatest attention to such virtues as tolerance and courtesy. If something actually causes provable harm, then we can act accordingly but mere differences of custom, preference, appearance, or belief should be tolerated, if possible, rather than punished.
Good behavior cannot be safely enforced because the likelihood of an Inquisition is everpresent. Good behavior can only be encouraged. Anybody who wants to improve society is well advised to avoid meddling, evangelism, legislation, and punishment. He should try, first, to improve his own behavior, and leave everybody else alone. The resolution of one's own faults is usually a sufficient challenge.
My thanks to the following: SantaClara Bob; my mother; Betty; Eric, of Ione, California; Lady Jan the Voluptuous; and Robert, of Ione, California.
Man Jokes, Not for Women
Availability — Assuming the availability of sufficient funds, subscriptions to this newsletter in print, copies of past issues in print, and copies of the website on CDs are available upon request. All past issues are available at http://frontiersman.org.uk/. Contributions are welcome.
Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving printed copies of this newsletter, then return your copy unopened. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription.
Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other sources. For that permission, you must apply to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.
Submissions — I consider letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece.
Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you want to make a voluntary contribution, then I prefer cash or U.S. postage stamps. For checks or money orders, please inquire. For PayPal payments, use firstname.lastname@example.org. In case anybody's curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I don't accept anything that requires me to provide ID to receive it.
— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor