Monday, June 27, 2011

Islamic Sexuality: A Survey of Evil

Update: Ann Barnhardt just sent us this message:

Would you mind posting a request for any of your readers to forward me any good links or citations they might have on any topic relating to Islamic sexuality?

I have a bunch of data, but I’m always on the lookout for more.

So anyone who has any material on Islamic perversions should send it to Ms. Barnhardt. Her email address is posted on her website.


The Koran-burning buzzsaw Ann Barnhardt will be the keynote speaker at a Las Vegas event in September. She sent along this notice yesterday, which is also posted at her blog:

Live Event Booked — Back to Vegas

I am going to be speaking at the Center For Strategic Analysis' annual seminar in Las Vegas on Saturday, September 24th. It is a one day seminar that will have a variety of speakers from the intelligence and military communities (before they went to hell) on various topics having to do with counter-Jihad and the war against islam.

And yes, since we’re now in Bizarro World, I am going to be the keynote speaker. My speaking block is one hour and forty-five minutes. I have decided that I will use this event to roll-out my magnum opus on the systemic sexual perversion in islamic culture. This is a massive topic, and my rough outline contains no less than NINE discreet sub-topics. I think that delivering this as a speech with an associated PowerPoint slideshow including photographs and video citations will be extremely effective. My speech is entitled, “Islamic Sexuality: A Survey of Evil”.

The event is being held at a secure location in Las Vegas which will only be given to attendees AFTER they enroll and pay the tuition. There will also be extensive security on-site. It is open to civilians, bloggers, first responders, military, and law enforcement. There are also usually some muslim “crashers”, or so I’m told, so it is guaranteed to be extra-fun. Bloggers are welcome to bring cameras and recording devices, although some of the speakers reserve the right to not be photographed. Obviously, I would have no problem being photographed.

I think this could be a great “meet-up” and networking opportunity for the blogging community in addition to the insights presented at the conference itself. I also like the venue, as Las Vegas is cheap and easy to get in and out of and has plenty of dirt-cheap lodging, thus being a great choice for those on a shoestring budget. The cost is $100 per person if enrolled before July 4th, $125 before August 1st, and $150 after August 1st. Absolutely no enrollments at the door, of course.

FYI, I am receiving no honorarium or speaking fee and am paying 100% of my own travel and lodging expenses. I will make my PowerPoint presentation, citations and bibliography available for free download to all attendees.

Hope to see you there. Tell a friend!

62 comments:

remorammo88 said...

how do i sign up? Chad in Mn

Hesperado said...

Islamic sexuality is schizosexual.

It is important to note that Islamic sexuality is dualistic and self-contradictory: ostensibly, it is simultaneously

1) obsessed with a fanatical degree of puritanical propriety

and

2) a welter of Satanic depravity on all levels, including pedophilia, infantophilia, incest, orgies, homosexual sodomy, necrophilia, rape with and without torture, gang-rape; etc.

Oftentimes 1 and 2 are grotesquely combined, as when (to pick one example) Muslim men will rape a women whom they deem has been sexually "impure"; or to pick another example, the gruesome mutilation of little girls' genitalia in order to heighten the men's sexual pleasure while, of course tending to destroy (or severely impair) the girl's sexual pleasure and psychological well-being for the rest of her life. (There are further details about this that are even more ghoulishly repulsive, which I will spare the reader.)

I think it's a mistake to dismiss or minimize either one of the two facets of the paradox of Islamic sexuality. Together, they form what I term the schizosexual culture of Islam.

Malcolm Smith said...

The major problem is that Islam treats sex in two conflicting ways. First, it represses it, by allowing men to see nothing of a woman but her eyes and hands. Then it offers them 70 houris in Paradise, and tells stories about how Mohammed had sex with all his wives each night.
In other words, it clamps the lid on the pressure cooker, and then stokes the fire underneath. If it did one but not the other, the result would be partway workable.

Zenster said...

I think it is important to note that whatever passes for "love" in Islamic culture may well be a far cry from the romantic intimacy by which we define it in the West.

Way too much of Muslim sexual interaction involves subjugation, ownership, denial of vulnerability, outright force and a host of other behavioral motifs that simply defy, if not prohibit, the development of healthy attachments or constructive interpersonal bonding.

As Pat Condell has noted, Islam is a culture of rape be it hetero or homosexual. The entire practice of purdah (female confinement), is a strong driver in both male and female homosexuality while ensuring that whatever matches do occur are usually driven by political or commercial interests instead of for true love.

As a flip-side to all of this, imagine how any attempts at actually establishing a healthy romantic relationship must be done secretly and in total opposition to all social norms. The taint that this must cast upon an individual's valiant efforts to defy such abnormality can only serve to further warp the substrate of interpersonal exchange.

The whole concept of marrying off children to people they have often met briefly or not at all means that a disproportionate number of Islamic marriages are coerced and potentially loveless. To imbue something so physically and emotionally intimate as marriage with an undercurrent of detachment is not just an abomination but serves to desensitize a culture overall.

This desensitization is manifest in the way that cruelty is so commonplace and barely given a second glance. The Islamic obsession with death is another facet of this same anti-life frame of mind.

If one examines how Islam imposes the death penalty for both adultery and apostasy, it becomes readily apparent that this ideology is nothing but a spiritual and psycho-sexual gulag.

Consider these other commonplace aspects of daily Islamic life:

No dogs for children to play with and learn from about unconditional love and devotion.

Illiterate mothers who cannot read a bedtime story to their children or help them learn how to read.

No freedom of speech that permits healthy discussion and critical analysis of current events.

No freedom of religion that is so vital to a pluralistic society.

No graphic depiction of most living forms which curtails artistic creativity.

No public displays of affection that lend a romantic atmosphere to daily life.

No pork or other haram foods that widen the diet and give variety to sustenance.

No beautiful or shapely women proudly strutting their stuff on the street.

No non-liturgical music to break up the monotony of constant religious worship.

No alcohol to unwind with and enhance convivial gatherings.

No co-ed intermingling that allows young people to refine their social skills.

Now, imagine how barren and loveless such a world must be. From all indications, it would seem that healthy loving relationships would be the exception and not the rule. If one reflects upon the monumental amount of misery and human suffering that Islam has inflicted throughout its entire history, the sheer existence of this inhumane ideology becomes a blatant affront to all Western traditions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Jewel said...

Zenster, one small correction:
"No non-liturgical music to break up the monotony of constant religious worship."

Other than the muezzin's five times a day call to worship, there is no music allowed. Not even liturgical music. The nature of man to worship God, to reach out to God through music is forbidden. The traditional culture that preceded Muslim conquest is still strong, even in Muslim countries. That is because music is like breathing. It emanates from within. Even in Saudi Arabia there is still music, even though the religious police frown upon it. In Iran, the ayatollah tried to have all music banned, but settled for outlawing only women musicians. In Pakistan, the taliban often burn down stores that sell music tapes and records.
I honestly believe that our strongest weapons against these savages is through strengthening our culture. Through reclaiming the best our culture has to offer and letting the horrible parts just slide.
We must earnestly begin to inculcate good culture in our children and with that, the ability to discern good culture from evil culture. As an antidote for the sewage and filth of our own society and a weapon against the marauding invaders shipped over by the State Department.

latté island said...

Hesperado wrote:

2) a welter of Satanic depravity on all levels, including pedophilia, infantophilia, incest, orgies, homosexual sodomy, necrophilia, rape with and without torture, gang-rape; etc.

Which of these things is not like the others? In my opinion, homosexual sodomy doesn't necessarily fit the definition of Satanic depravity, if it's between consenting adults.

Can Hesperado and/or anyone else comment on the inclusion of homosexual sodomy in the list of Satanic depravity? Are homosexual sodomites welcome in the Counterjihad?

Zenster said...

Jewel: Other than the muezzin's five times a day call to worship, there is no music allowed.

My qualification was to prevent nitpickers. In reality, you have only further cemented my case. Thank you for the constructive input.

As someone who is self-taught on several instruments, performs publicly and also composes and writes lyrics in a wide variety of styles, I cannot imagine living without music.

Astonishingly enough, even cynical old Friedrich Nietzsche said:

Without music, life would be a mistake.

Hesperado said...

Zenster noted:

Consider these other commonplace aspects of daily Islamic life:

No dogs for children to play with and learn from about unconditional love and devotion.

Indeed; while the flip side of this coin is that there are plenty of feral dogs and cats in Muslim villages, towns and even cities for Muslim children and teenagers (and probably adults too) to torture for fun (and no doubt bestiality is often involved). What in Western societies is a rare behavior indicative of sociopathy (and sometimes of incipient serial killers in the making) is a common activity in Muslim societies.

Hesperado said...

Jewel & Zenster,

Often anti-Islam people exaggerate the prohibition on music in Islam. We have to treat this issue carefully, since there is massive data out there of "diverse" Muslims actually enjoying music and recording and performing it.

The point is the strong element of prohibition of music in Islamic texts; and all the indications we can find of Muslims trying to put this prohibition into practice, often with repressive means (in Indonesia, for example, why was it that the leading Ulema (Body of Clerics who rule on Islamic law) objected to, and wanted to criminalize, the rather apparently common practice of including female percussionists to perform various local music; or the famous Algerian Muslim pop music star who was murdered by his more purist brethren; or the music CDs violently confiscated by the Shababs in Somalia; etc.)

Nevertheless, even if there exist a large number of Muslims worldwide who struggle in a semi-psychotic Stockholm Syndrome way with the same Islam they co-dependently enable, and demonstrate this inner conflict by (among other things) enjoying music (and perhaps feeling guilty about that), that to me is not relevant to our #1 priority of defending our societies from all Muslims, since we have no reliable means of distinguishing dangerous Muslims from seemingly harmless Muslims (and I'm certainly not going to let a Muslim with an ipod cord around his neck and a guitar case in his hand waltz through security at an airport -- would you?).

Hesperado said...

latte island,

I probably wouldn't include homosexual sodomy as a Satanic depravity necessarily (I'm still agnostic on that question). I suspect that most gay sex among Muslims involves some kind of twisted relationship, closer on the spectrum toward the prison dom with his punk sub, than toward anything resembling a healthy relationship. At best, perhaps, and more broadly, it involves the general Stockholm-Syndrome schizophrenia that characterizes all Muslims who otherwise seem to be extricating their contorted psyches, to one degree or another, from the Islam that ensnares their existential viscera. At worst, it involves functional (when not, perhaps more commonly, outright) rape of weaker younger males.

Zenster said...

Hesperado : Nevertheless, even if there exist a large number of Muslims worldwide who struggle in a semi-psychotic Stockholm Syndrome way with the same Islam they co-dependently enable, and demonstrate this inner conflict by … enjoying music … that to me is not relevant to our #1 priority of defending our societies from all Muslims…

And your point is?

I have sought only to point out that Islam is a spiritual and psycho-sexual gulag. Knowledge and awareness of this depravity is one way of enhancing overall readiness to confront Islamic jihad, be it stealth or overt, and call it for what it really is:

GLOBAL CULTURAL GENOCIDE™

latté island said...

Hesperado, the reason for nit-picking on this issue is, if homosexual sodomy per se, not qualified as you have done in your last comment, is used as an example of something that is Satanic in Islam, that would automatically make the CJ less inclusive.

In addition, some people would wonder about heterosexual sodomy. If any consensual sexual behavior is off limits (Satanified) to the righteous of the Counterjihad, I'm afraid few would qualify, and we do want to win, don't we?

It can't be said too often, comments sections of most online newspapers are evidence that the CJ has huge popular support. But about half of those people will react the same way I do when they see any kind of "sodomy" in the list of things the non-Satanic don't do.

The CJ will never be ready for prime time, as long as religiously based sexual morality is held up as a universal Western political ideal. People can and should refrain from doing anything that isn't their bag, but that's a private matter. When anyone goes into too much detail about any consensual private behavior that just might be in the repertoire of some potential allies, why say anything? The real problem with Islamic sexuality is the violence and lack of consent, not any particular activity.

Zenster said...

latté island, without wishing to oversimplify, let's try and cut to the chase here, emkay?

First off, just like how the Christian Church needs to ally itself with other legitimate faiths including Agnostics and Atheists, so must the AIM tent find room for the GLBT crowd.

Just like feminists, all homosexuals (including the GLBT crowd), should be outraged by everything that Islam stands for. The question then presents itself, how to herd all of these cats into the same Counter-jihad corral.

Simple? Most definitely not. Critical to the cause? You can bet the farm on it. Compromised as it is by Anglicans and BDS loons, Christianity alone does not possess the demographic firepower to defeat Islam. Doing so is going to take one humongous tent and a key strategy is figuring out just how in Hell we're going to crowd everyone in there without starting a tidy little riot of our own.

Your thoughts, please.

latté island said...

Zenster, I've been doing outreach to the GLBT crowd for a while, both online and in person and I can report a definite sea change. Online, there is a great deal of outrage about Muslim persecution against gays and lesbians, as well as women in general.

The threads I start or comment on get a gratifying amount of feedback from people who get it, until the thread is derailed by the same one or two Offical Lesbian MC/PC enforcers. When things really get going, my threads tend to get deleted.

I'm every bit as encouraged by the GLBT sites as I am by mainstream newspapers. It's hard to tell unless you participate, because the censorship at the gay places is more ruthless and immediate, but in the brief time it's up, the trend is there.

This is why I'm so concerned to push this issue here. Victory has arrived, and too much puritanism in the CJ will make these people turn back, out of disgust and contempt for the sheer stupidity that's on display. When I read some of the comments from the religious right here and at VFR, I sometimes think, OK, that's it, I'm out. It's only a reflex, of course I'm in for good, but I'm just saying, what everyone needs to do is stop this obsession with the immorality of sexual minorities. It's being noticed, and it drives people away, with good reason.

A little pragmatism and inclusiveness, a la the EDL, is all that's necessary. The ordinary silent majority of queers already get it about the Muslims. The official gay leadership is a joke, and quite a lot of people are disaffected by now.

Zenster said...

latté island: It's hard to tell unless you participate, because the censorship at the gay places is more ruthless and immediate, but in the brief time it's up, the trend is there.

Considering that the entire gay agenda owes its roots to the "Free Speech" movement, WTF is it with these morons that they should so readily resort to censorship when it is exactly that which they have been protesting all these years.

We see it in the Left as well. This incredible readiness to censor or delete any and all opposing viewpoints. What in Hell do these morons think they're going to get from imitating the exact principals they have been protesting for DECADES?

If the gay community wishes to hope for an iota of acceptance, they'd damn well better start demonstrating a shred of the open-mindedness that they have so stridently demanded from the straights.

If the GLBT community cannot bring themselves to do this small (or not-so-small), thing, then they can kiss their gay marriage and every other Great Gay Hope flipping goodbye. I, for one, will no longer tolerate this sort of hypocritical nonsense. Especially not when Islam is waiting in the wings to devour us all.

Nick said...

@ latte island,
I recall reading Bruce Bawer's book 'While Europe Slept' and he got his priorities right. He remarked upon some American preacher whose name didn't register with me at the time saying he disapproved of gayness. Then he pointed out the obvious: At least he didn't want to push a wall over on top of me (said Bower) - unlike practitioners of the religion of peace.

So rather than adopt a pink position and demand that anyone critical of Islam should kowtow to your position, or else you won't play with them any more - and don't take this the wrong way - don't you think that you ought to take an anti-Islam position FIRST AND FOREMOST, and not spit your dummy out and renounce that positioin whenever you meet anyone you think just might possibly not be absolutely, totally, 100% on board with taking it up the bum. As Bawer did, focus on the people who actually want to push a wall over on top of you.

latté island said...

Zenster, there is no such thing as the gay community or the gay agenda. In a way, it's like discussing only the religious right, and ignoring the Christians one knows personally. There's a disconnect there, and it's like that with the gay community.

Gay marriage? I support it, but it amazes me how hysterical everyone is about it. To me, it's a non-issue that has become the focus of the most vocal and visible (obnoxious) people in both the so called gay community and the so called religious right.

This is a matter of cultural misunderstanding. The history of sexuality isn't what people think it is, and the gay agenda is as inorganic as New Coke, and will have as long a future.

Instead of waiting for gay leaders, who are not leaders, to make some grand pronouncement, what I'd like to see is for individuals to stop using exaggerated language that keeps people polarised.

I just read an item about how the State Department helped Lady Gaga agree to appear at a Gay Pride event in Italy. So everyone will work themselves up about this. Here is some truth: who the hell is Lady Gaga, how did she get to "represent" the "gay community," and why does Hillary Clinton think it's her job to help?

Do you see? The queers you want to talk to about Islam don't believe in this stuff. You know what I just read on a gay gossip site? Hillary got involved because she has her own gay agenda with Lady Gaga, now that Mrs. Wiener is paying more attention to her husband. This is what the "gay community" thinks. Don't draw conclusions if you haven't spent some time in the 'hood.

Nick said...

Funnily enough I was thinking the other day about Lawrence's 'Seven Pillars of Wisdom'. At the opening of that book he ties the banding together of desert warriors as they fight for their cause with them bumming one another. Women? Not for them. Fighting to the death? Yes oh Allah, bring it on. Buggery among the bedouin? Sodomy in the sand? Yes, yes please, how they longed for their brother's touch in the night! Peel back the layers of that onion, and one may very well find, as Hesperado suggests, some strange, unnatural - one might even say Satanic, if one looks at the so-called religion of Islam in a grander context - psychological motivations for same gender sex within Islam.

Nick said...

Talking of Hilary, have you been watching The Real L Word? Is Whitney going to get back with Rachel or what then?

No, no, let's not go there, let's just stop, lol ...!!!

latté island said...

Nick, indeed, I am focusing on people who want to push a wall over on me, but the best way to do that is to share with you all here, what is keeping some allies away. So we are having a little meeting about public relations, and I'm giving you a report from the field.

Taking it up the bum? This is the kind of language we don't need, and buggery isn't a gay thing, straight folks do it too.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear, so a bit of biography is in order. I do not identify as exclusively gay, I've happily dated men for my entire adult life, it's impossible for me to share the victim ideology or other bad politics of many full-time gay people, because I've always enjoyed heterosexual privilege, as my new gay homies remind me constantly, and I continue to enjoy heterosexual privilege, because I identify as sexually fluid, not "born that way," and that is a huge difference, so please don't assume or put words in my mouth, thank you very much.

Nick said...

And getting back to my previous comment, which I don't think hit the nail on the head: the underlying motivation for the desert warriors buggering one another seemed to be tied in with the jihadi mentality; apparently the Islamic version of 'band of brothers' involves giving one another a right seeing to in the middle of the desert night. So whether one takes a big-picture view of Islam as being a Satanic invention, or one simply sees it as a foul set of doctrines which destroy the human spirit, the suggestion here is that within the Islamic context, sodomy can be inextricably bound up with serving Allah, with submitting yourself to Allah's will, and as such - in the Islamic context - can be considered in the same way as FGM and so forth.

Nick said...

Oh dearie me, you don't like anyone speaking about taking it up the bum. According to you, 'we' don't need that kind of language around here, 'thank you very much'.

However, if you don't like homosexual sodomy to be described as taking it up the bum, that's of no concern to me.

Do bother to check up on the use of the word 'bum' in English. Certainly as it is used in the UK. It's a polite, non-offensive way to describe that particular body part. If you want to portray yourself as some big gay activist or expert, and you get all bent out of shape about someone saying bum, well you'll stand no chance against the jihadis.

Bum, bum, bum. Did that hurt? No? How about if someone pushes a wall over on top of you?

Man, these greeting faced ninnies crying about nothing. You really need to get a grip, dude.

And if you have any lesbian fantasies about Hilary - POST THEM!

latté island said...

Nick, this is very instructive, and the very reason why I try to help people understand how people should try to relate to allies.

It seems to me that the kind of gay baiting you're indulging in now, is hardly any different from the kind of Jew-baiting we saw the other day, much of which was deleted.

I hope the Baron will keep this thread the way it is, because it's an example of what the CJ needs to work on.

sheik yer'mami said...

Any topic relating to Islamic sexuality?

Too easy:

Ghazali:

“Ghazali, in his book, Ihya’ Ulum al-Din (Revival of Religious Learnings) writes that prayer, a big family and poverty will ensure Paradise (al-Ghazali, 1993, p. 2.28).”
"All young men who have arrived at the age of puberty should marry, for marriage prevents sins. He who cannot marry should fast."

More on Ghazali, from Abul Kasem:
“Imam Ghazali on women:


The most appalling narration of Ghazali's declaration of absolute superiority of men over women is written in this fashion: "(Prophet said - if husband would be covered with pus from head to toe, and wife would lick it, even then wife's gratitude to husband wouldn't be fulfilled."
.
The readers should note that the above translated passage of Ihya Ulum Al-Din is from the Bengali translation of the famous book of Ghazali.(Reference: Ehiya Ulum Al Deen Vol 2 / 9 page 311, Bangla: Translated by :- M. N. M. Imdadullah MMBA (Hons), MA, Publisher - Bangladesh Taj company Ltd. 8 Parydas Road Dhaka 1100).

Please note that the English version of this grand book of Islam has cleverly discarded similar passages quoted (from the Bengali translation) above. In fact, the English translator writes that he has omitted certain passages which are not relevant today. Here are a few gems (summarized) from the English translation of Ihya Ulum Al?Din. Please note that the English version is in four volumes.

Your sexual intercourse with your wife is an act of charity. If you throw your semen in lawful things (inside a vagina), you will get rewards. (p.1.236)


Muhammad said: A prison in the corner of a house is better than a childless woman. (p.2.24)

An ugly woman with children is better than a beautiful woman without children (p.2.24)


If it be known that a woman is barren, do not marry her marry lovely and child?bearing women. (p.2.32)
A good woman is one who is married early at her age, who gives birth to a child without delay and who demands a small dower. (p.2.32)”

There's heeps more, here:

http://sheikyermami.com/2006/12/19/muslim-woman/

Nick said...

Incredible - we're on a board talking about global jihad, with all that entails - acts of terrorism and murder, just to scratch the surface - we're on a thread talking about misogyny, hatred, rapes and the genital mutilation of children, and somebody gets all bent out of shape about someone using the word 'bum' to describe homosexual sodomy. Its pathetic. Putting it in context then, and reminding the 'sexually fluid' complainer of what he has already agreed to:

So rather than adopt a pink position and demand that anyone critical of Islam should kowtow to your position, or else you won't play with them any more - and don't take this the wrong way - don't you think that you ought to take an anti-Islam position FIRST AND FOREMOST, and not spit your dummy out and renounce that positioin whenever you meet anyone you think just might possibly not be absolutely, totally, 100% on board with taking it up the bum. As Bawer did, focus on the people who actually want to push a wall over on top of you.

Nick said...

It's an example of what we were talking about earlier right enough. The way people try to use loaded phrases to 'position' others when they don't want to - or can't - address what they are saying - i.e. Trevor Phillips latest comments; the way the EDL is inevitably labelled in the media as 'right wing' etc.

So it is with your 'gay baiting' remarks. And your pathetic attempts to reach out and link that non-existent event to something else to which there is no coherent link.

How long will it be until you label me a 'right wing extremist' or a 'Nazi'?

What exactly have I said that you disagree with? Be specific.

Nick said...

It really is quite instructive how you assume a morally superior position and try to dictate to other people how they should address you and lay down terms for how they should behave towards 'allies'.

Sadly for you, you have no moral or linguistic authority whatsoever and you're just going to have to accept that. If you think that people HERE (of all places) are automatically going to swallow the PC meme that demands they kowtow to every whim of someone who describes themself as 'sexually fluid' simply because they have done so, then you're sadly mistaken.

If you want to disagree with anything I've actually said, that's fine. But to quote YOU - don't put words in my mouth. Doing that after you've just told me not to just makes you look like a hypocrite.

So disagree with me if you like. That's fine. But I'm afraid you're going to have to say exactly what you disagree with - and please, be specific.

Nick said...

So let's recap: I've said that latte ought to focus on the people who really do have a problem with gay people - who as Bruce Bawer said, want to push a wall over on to him. And my sexually fluid friend agreed with that principle, and said he was doing precisely that.

I suggested that if one wishes to adopt a 'pink' position and fight that corner in this world, but one gets all bent out of shape whenever one hears the word 'bum' (oh dearie me missus - that bloke over there said 'bum'!) then obviously one will stand no chance whatsoever against the jihadis-Islamists-people who want to push a wall over on top of you. On obvious point. No response to that point from latte, so I take it he agrees with me here.

I suggested that big-picture wise, in the Islamic context (as opposed to the Western context) there may be a deep-seated connection between male sodomy and jihadist behaviour. Just at there may be a connection between other sexual behaviour and certain Islamic teachings.

I'm not really qualified to take this any further, but it's an interesting idea & I think it's worth exploring. And sexuality as it is expressed within Islam is after all THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD. No comments from latte on this point, so no one knows what he thinks about this.

Nick said...

cont ..

I fail to see how showing an interest in, and admitting to watching, a documentary series about gay women, can possibly be equated to 'gay baiting'.

I fail to see how showing an interest in Hilary kissing a girl and liking it, a notion that was introduced by latte himself as a typical subject of discussion on some other 'pink' forum he frequents, can possibly be equated to 'gay baiting'.

I put it to latte that he is engaging in typical PC behaviour by expecting other people to show him 'tolerance' by agreeing with his view of the world, simply because he describes himself as 'sexually fluid'. By insisting that anyone who he THINKS disagrees with him (an important point - latte really doesn't know where I'm coming from & he'd probably get a shock if he ever found out) is labelled in a way that leads people to discount what they have actually said. (We've all seen the 'right wing EDL' phrase used time and again in the papers in this way.) And by thinking that on the strength of his declaration of sexual fluidity alone - not on his ability to present a decent argument, or to write in an entertaining or interesting way - he's got some kind of 'right' to dictate to others what they can say and what they should think.

Nick said...

So while this is all very entertaining, and it's whiling away the morning, I really do have other things to do. So in conclusion, I'll just say, taking a bit of an overview here, that old latte has gotten himself all bent out of shape over nothing.

PC thinking won't wash here. Relying on it just won't get you very far. But hey, if latte wants people to be 'tolerant' towards him because he's 'sexually fluid' then he really ought to try to practice what he preaches when he's talking with other people who (so far as he knows!) are not, and who happen to say something to him which he doesn't like. In the real, non-PC world, it doesn't matter if latte likes something I say. That's irrelevant. Is it true? Is it accurate? Does it follow from something that's already been said? Is it well written? Does the author have a sense of humour? Et cetera ...

I suggest, latte, that you develop a thicker skin and stop worrying about getting everyone to agree with every nuance of your 'pink' position. As you've said, there is no gay 'community' or gay 'agenda' so if there's no overall agreement on a 'pink' site about gay issues, you're hardly likely to find it anywhere else either.

You seem to think there's 'gay baiting' going on around every corner but that's clearly not the case. Just because someone might have a somewhat different worldview from you - so far as you know - that doesn't mean they want to 'bait' you, let alone push a wall over on top of you.

I suggest once again, latte, that you focus on the people who definitely do want to push a wall over on top of you, and that you think about who those people are for goodness sake, & realise that if you want to deal with them, then you're going to have to toughen up a bit. Forget that PC stuff and start dealing with real people in the real world. Oh, and develop a sense of humour. That helps too.

ciao,

Nick.

Nick said...

Or to put it another way, latte ... in fact to put it the way you put it yourself: a little pragmatism and inclusiveness - on your part - will take you a long way.

Now please let's not have a serious falling out here. I'll take my own advice!

There really is no big issue here that we're both tripping over. Again I'll point out that the topic of the original article is rather unsavoury. It's just not a pleasant subject, and there's no getting away fromit. If one considers the many avenues one can explore when one looks at how sexually can be, and has been, expressed within the Islamic world, then it's rather absurd for someone to act all 'offended' (PC ALERT: 'OFFENDED' IS A KEY WORD!) by the word 'bum' - five minutes after discussing a child having her genitalia cut off by her own grandmother. Or the rape of a POW's widow by the so-caled 'prophet' of Islam. Etc. Really - don't you think?

As for giving your 'biography' well all I'll say is you don't have mine, and leave it at that.

Nick said...

And just to be clear: "Taking it up the bum? This is the kind of language we don't need, and buggery isn't a gay thing, straight folks do it too." - latte.

So according to you, and of course everyone else in the known world must acknowledge you as the ultimate authority on what language is permissible, talking about 'buggery' (your term) is perfectly fine - just A-OK - and saying that 'straight folks' (whoever they are) 'do it' is just hunky-dorey.

But saying 'bum' is just not on. So according to you then: Bum - bad. Buggery - good.

Just so we're clear.

Man, I really need to go and put the kettle on and get the dinner ready. This might be entertaining but it's pretty pointless. Eating a Rich Tea would have more point to it than discussing bum banditry on an anti-jihad site. WTF!

Nick said...

And btw if anyone wants to know what 'The Real L Word' is - Google it, lol ...

Hesperado said...

latte island,

I agree generally with the principle you are articulating. However, on the other hand, I frankly wouldn't trust a person who demonstrates an inability to make elementary distinctions.

Now, the way I put it, by listing "homosexual sodomy" in that list of "Satanic depravity" without qualification, I agree could legitimately alienate some people, and I would revise my wording accordingly.

However, I expect the people I will ally with in this war to have the basic reason and common sense to be able to tell (and respect) the difference between a puritanical zealot who wants to translate his zeal into laws (and thereby punish gays and lesbians), and the individual who may be philosophically, morally and/or emotionally opposed to homosexuality (and perhaps also certain other sexual practices between "consenting" adults) but who is just expressing an opinion and does not want to translate his right to his personal opinion into a law to coerce others. If there are people out there who can't make this elementary distinction (and respect it) after it has been sufficiently clarified, I'm not sure I trust their frail and infirm judgment to man the bastions.

Hesperado said...

Nick,

" Funnily enough I was thinking the other day about Lawrence's 'Seven Pillars of Wisdom'. At the opening of that book he ties the banding together of desert warriors as they fight for their cause with them bumming one another..."

More pertinently even, perhaps, Lawrence recounted (I'm not sure if he did so in the book you mention) that not soon after he arrived in Arabia, he was gang-raped by Muslim men himself.

Sceptic with a C said...

I think you're wasting your time with the whipped latte chap. These single-issue obsessives are never useful allies in a broad-based campaign. (Don't fall for the old "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" routine, which is palpably false.)

I'm no Bible-belt fundamentalist, but an English atheist. As far as I'm concerned, homosexuals are too small a part of the general populace to be worth genuflecting before, even if they are hugely over-represented in the mass media, the entertainment world, academe, etc. They're largely tainted by their strong association with the very political correctness that has brought so many Muslims to our countries.

allat said...

Did anybody mention that in that religion,

- any child of a woman suspected of having extra-matrital relations, is killed at birth.

-it is accept and "normal," for a man to have sexual relations with children. Both genders, and even small children.

And of course, because of this,

-STDs are passed on to the children, and are rife in those countries.

-That it is also normal and accepted to marry cousins ( in the Tribe). Therefore, since this has been done for centuries, there are many infants born deformed.

-This, together with the STD's, there must be a great deal of deformities /retardations, in the islamic countries.

-And to-date, there are Stats about the "cousin birth deformities," but no records of the abused children or children grown, that have STDs because of the sexual abuse, or who, if they live, transmit it to the next generation.

Quranreading said...

Dear malcon smith where did you get this idea of stories about prophet having sex with his wives.. i never read such kind of stories. Holy Quran just say women to be covered for their security so men never show a bad intention on her.

Nick said...

Children with STDs ... that's too depressing to even think about. Still we must respect the religion of peace, because it's practiced by millions of peace-loving people all around the world. Bush, Blair and Obama have all said so, therefore it must be true.

Nick said...

@ latte,
Please excuse me if I went off on a bit of a rant the other day. I happen to have been involved in an RTA a couple of days ago now, followed by an all-too-typical encounter with an insurance company, and after having to traipse around half the country getting my car fixed up, hire car organised, shifts at work swapped etc, I thought I'd surf the net for a while to help me to cool down. That plan didn't work out too well, lol ...

cont ...

Nick said...

However I think Hesperado has expressed this quite eloquently. You talked about pragmatism and tolerance and I think you must take a spoonful of your own medicine and accept, since this is the real world and not a PC-inspired fantasy world, that not everyone is going to consider male-on-male sodomy a desirable activity.

What does matter is that we all realise that there are people out there who really do want to push a wall over on top of gay people, as Bruce Bawer (an excellent writer btw) once put it.

And of equal importance to me at this particular moment is the question of whether Whitney and Rachel are going to get back together. And is <a href="http://youtu.be/QRcE7GoAEkA>Romi</a> going to stay sober, and will she manage to make her relationship with Kelsey work out, since Kelsey is continuing to drink? Clearly these are questions of vital importance, and I'm just disappointed that I haven't been able to see episode 5 yet ...

Nick said...

Well that link didn't work. Try again.

Nick said...

All joking aside I really am interested in how Romi's story works out. She seems to be a nice person, is trying to start a business making jewellery, and coming from an engineering background I find that interesting - how to design and construct such pieces. More to the point she's stopped drinking & also spoken a little bit about why she drank, so again coming from my background I find that especially interesting. Who'd have thought it - a documentary about gay girls in California, and you get all this interesting stuff on there! I'll be terribly disappointed if Romi falls off the wagon. I really do hope that she manages to stay sober, & get her life on track. If anyone doesn't know what the hell I'm talking about, the programme's on Showtime! Watch it and see :-)

RichardN said...

I'm really glad Nick got that off his chest, Desperado also. Nick may think that he has argued his case very well, but shouldn't be surprised that he alienates some of the very allies we'll all need as this issue grows.

We have a common concern, it's no time to shoot down a fellow traveller who's reaching out. Please reread latte's words.

You want gays to shut up and go away, we won't: we're a natural proportion of the population, we'll always be around. The Western liberal accepts that, rednecks don't. That's why gay people reject your values, they're victims of similar as they grew up. You'de be happier with the hypocrisy of the past: denial, unhappy marriages, cover-up and suicide. It suits your world view. It's almost islamic.

Learn to deal with it, we're a part of your society. Tolerate us, if you can't embrace us, we pay our taxes like you. That's the beauty of our free society, tolerance, it's not a pc concept only.

Or grow a beard and get an extra wife because that will be the future, if we're divided.

Nick said...

I wonder what would happen if a show like 'The Real L Word' aired in an Islamic country?

Nick said...

As latte herself said not too long ago, don't put words in other people's mouths. And as you have said just now, please re-read what's actually been written. You'll find that you're way off the mark.

I believe the gist of this whole episode is this: you may be used to operating in a world in which you think that if people are not with you, they're against you, & want you to (as you put it) 'shut up and go away'. Again, read what's been said: that's not the case here.

It is perfectly possible for someone to not fancy a bit of gay sex themselves, and to say that to you. At the same time, that same person will have no desire whatsoever for the state - or anyone acting independently - to persecute or (to borrow Mill's expression from 'On Liberty') visit any harm upon someone who does.

latte prescribed some pragmatism and tolerance for other people earlier on. And I don't think those meds will do anyone, myself included, any harm. I'm always up for taking some interesting meds. However, I suggest you take a dose of that medicine too, and learn how to deal with people in the group both Hesperado and I have defined in a more pragmatic and tolerant way.

Instead of 'shooting down fellow travellers' (as you put it) in this non-PC, very real, world.

Nick said...

@Richard,
I mentioned earlier how people in the press often 'position' certain people they've been told to disapprove of in their articles.

One way of doing this is to refer to 'the right wing politician Geert Wilders' and so forth. Instead of say, 'the Dutch politician Geert Wilders'.

Now when latte started trying to stick labels on me earlier, I asked her how long it would be before she called me a Nazi. Hey, if you're going ignore what's been said and just stick labels on someone, you might as well go the whole hog!

I see you've labelled me as someone who 'wants gays to shut up and go away', who wants other human beings to deny their true self, to live unhappily, to live false lives, and ultimately to kill themselves. Talk about 'positioning'!! Talk about ignoring what people say and sticking labels on them instead.

Think about this for a moment though Richard. Clearly everything you've said is untrue. As I said to latte earlier, she may have felt the need to give me her CV, but neither of you have mine. If you did, then you'd know that you really couldn't be further from the truth if you tried.

I quite believe that your life experience has led you to have such a black and white view of the world. And in the PC fantasy land, the only people who dare to speak up against anything a gay person says is immediately labelled in the way you just tried to label me.

But here in the real world, those labels of yours are just as meaningless as the ones you have apparently had aimed at you at some point in your life.

Again: take some of latte's meds. And as Hesperado suggested, try to make the NECESSARY distinction between the PC fantasy land where as a member of a minority group (PC KEYWORD ALERT - MINORITY GROUP - MINORITY GROUP!!) you think you have the right, and the intellectual and moral capability, to pass judgement on other people without even listening to what they have to say.

And the real world. Where you don't.

Hesperado said...

RichardN,

The point is, in the West there exist people who have an opinion that they don't like homosexuality but who nevertheless do not want to translate that opinion into laws to coerce gays and lesbians. Different strokes for different folks; remember? These people have the right to their opinion, just as you have the right to yours; and the inevitable clash will be on the level of discussion, not laws or vigilantism.

Now, while I am saying you have a right to your opinion, I am also saying your opinion is wrongheaded, if you lump together all those who don't like homosexuality and label all of them indiscriminately as dangerous bigots. Only the ones who want to translate their feelings/opinions into laws (or into vigilantism) are the dangerous ones.

This general issue I am sketching out isn't perfect or uncomplicated; there is the issue, for example, of public spaces. Do gays and lesbians have the right to flaunt their homosexuality in public around people (and their children) who don't like it? If so, then gays and lesbians should not complain if heterosexuals held Straight Pride Parades, or set up booths with brochures, videos and large posters explaining why they think homosexuality is wrong and/or distasteful. You can't have it both ways. Well, you can, actually, when your surrounding culture for the moment happens to be sufficiently defrormed by PC MC to be massively on your side -- using everyone's tax dollars to promote in grade schools, high schools and colleges your opinion while vilifying the opinion of those who disagree with you) and to label as "bigots" and "haters" all who have different opinions on certain matters deemed sacred by that same PC MC.

Nick said...

In short, anyone who happens to play for the pink team who demands pragmatism and tolerance from others needs to treat others as they themselves wish to be treated.

If anyone who happens to play for the pink team wants other people to listen to what they say and judge them on that, instead of relying on prejudices to define people, and immediately sticking unpleasant labels on them, then they need to start treating others as they themselves wish to be treated.

It's really been educational to see latte say she wanted to clear up what she was saying ... then proceed to give her sexual autiobiography, as if doing so would achieve that. Also Richard who says, well I know that nick put forward a jolly decent argument, but ... then proceeds to display his own prejudices (no one else's) and to 'position' someone according to some fantasy he's having about the world he lives in.

I thought Zenster's comment a while back was a bit stiff, at the time, but now I see what he was driving at.

This one-issue obsession with people taking it up the bum, or as latte refer to it, 'buggery' is both tedious and unhelpful. If players for the pink team want to yell about tolerance and pragmatism, and at the same time condemn anyone who doesn't immediately kowtow to anything and everything they say simply because they play for the pink team, then they're not going to get very far.

Not in the real world.

Nick said...

And there's no need for anyone to take this personally. I mean if I'm not bothered about being called all those nasty things by Richard, he and latte need not be concerned by the actual arguments being put forward on this little old message board either. It appears to me that latte and Richard are making a category mistake when they view certain groups of people, and while I could be wrong, if I'm not then that's a straightforward intellectual-level issue that can easily be addressed.

And if it is, in some way or another, then that'd be fine with me. After all we're not on here to be 'right' all the time (isn't that the real Bush doctrine?) but to acknowledge that there are different people involved in this whole movement (such as it is) and to find a way forward, & hopefully do something useful, at the end of the day.

If you were driving your car and your passenger told you you'd taken a wrong turning you wouldn't ignore them because they were straight (or gay). You'd see if their instructions were correct & if they actually led you to where you wanted to go. Same here, I'd say.

1389 said...

I sent her a bunch of links, including this one on Islam and incestuous marriage.

Zenster said...

The list in my original comment (#4), was from a long time ago and omits one very important thing:

Any society populated by a majority of females who have been genitally mutilated can only be one that is so devoid of sexual fairness, true mutual pleasure and anything even remotely resembling gender equality as to be permanently and irreversibly dysfunctional.

It is impossible to imagine how anyone who advocates or defends FGM (Female Genital Mutilation), can possibly talk about any sort of wholesome, functioning community.

A woman who has been subjected to FGM is essentially being raped every day of her life. Intercourse or no intercourse, fulfilling, satisfying lovemaking has been permanently denied her ― as it often is for many victims of rape ― and that is perpetual rape of a most heinous sort.

Any culture that countenances FGM cannot possibly claim to have "normal" or "healthy" sexual mores. It is a physical impossibility. A man who advocates or defends FGM is unworthy of a woman's attentions and deserves, at best, to live a solitary and involuntarily celibate life.

One of the few imaginable ways that FGM is going to be made unpopular is when women start emulating Loreena Bobbitt and begin to demonstrate their intense displeasure with any husband or father who allows his daughter to be sexually mutilated. Once Muslim men find themselves paying a similar sexually "ultimate price", they might begin to see the light of day.

Until then, Islam will remain a singular repository for some of this world's most degrading and abominable sexual practices.

Shaunantijihad said...

Stop bickering about buggering. If you expect the right to bugger a consenting adult, accept that I have right to teach my kids it's depraved.

I don't tread on your freedom of association, you don't tread on my freedom of speech.

That way, we can fight on the same side against the real enemies - Muslims and their socialist enablers.

Hesperado said...

Zenster,

In Muslim countries, Muslim women are mainly the practitioners of FGM on the little girls.

Muslim women are not salvageable. They are thoroughly brainwashed co-dependent enablers of their victimizers. There's no hope of a Lorena Bobbit movement arising from them in any numbers sufficient to make a difference.

Zenster said...

Sceptic with a C: As far as I'm concerned, homosexuals are too small a part of the general populace to be worth genuflecting before, even if they are hugely over-represented in the mass media, the entertainment world, academe, etc.

Yes and no. Yes, they are a small part of the general population. However, in terms of Infidels, they have the most to lose. Not even women and their feminist cohort stand to lose as much as the homosexual segment of society.

Therefore, they should be the most vigilant and vociferous in protesting Islam at every opportunity.

They're largely tainted by their strong association with the very political correctness that has brought so many Muslims to our countries.

This is an important point and one that is worthy of close examination. The drive for "inclusiveness" is similar the the Christian Church's striving for a very misplaced sense of universality. Both groups have welcomed the Muslim wolf into the fold and must bear responsibility for it by becoming both more aware and active in remedying that tremendous error.

Zenster said...

Nick: If players for the pink team want to yell about tolerance and pragmatism, and at the same time condemn anyone who doesn't immediately kowtow to anything and everything they say simply because they play for the pink team, then they're not going to get very far.

Le bingo.

The gay community does, indeed, have an agenda of inclusiveness and acceptance. Incumbent upon anyone pursuing that agenda is a respect for the legitimate opinions of others. The word is reciprocity and I do not yet see the majority of gays properly demonstrating it with respect to the straight world.

If they did, the gay population would be up in arms about how unfair and unjust "hate speech" laws really are. So-called "hate crimes" are a totally unequal application of the law and they should know it. Instead, too many gays trade on their victim status as a "protected minority". Due to this lack of reciprocity, the gay community, indeed, has not gotten "very far". Quelle surprise.

Please note the word "legitimate" above. That qualifier is specifically in place because Muslims do not have legitimate opinions. Their Islamic agenda is driven by a supremacist, misogynistic and intolerant doctrine that automatically disqualifies itself from civilized society.

Zenster said...

Hesperado: In Muslim countries, Muslim women are mainly the practitioners of FGM on the little girls.

Which is why I lost all sympathy for Muslimas a long, long time ago.

Muslim women are not salvageable. They are thoroughly brainwashed co-dependent enablers of their victimizers. There's no hope of a Lorena Bobbit movement arising from them in any numbers sufficient to make a difference.

You are, once again, preaching to the choir. It is not just "Muslim women [who] are not salvageable".

THE ENTIRETY OF ISLAM IS NOT SALVAGEABLE.

This is the point I was making in the "A Pathetic Badge of Honor" thread. To wit:

I have long maintained that, even if it were possible to disregard terrorism ― and it most certainly is not ― shari'a law's institutionalized misogyny is still an ultimate deal-breaker with respect to ever allowing Islam to participate as an equal on the world stage.

Neither do I believe that Islam can be rehabilitated. Just rendering equality for women would make Islam alien unto itself. Abject Gender Apartheid is an unspoken "pillar" of Islam.


There is so little in Islam that is worth salvaging and such intense internal opposition to any such thing that reformation or rehabilitation is rendered nigh well impossible to the point where there is no way to even visualize how it might be achieved.

To close, imagine how much more peaceful and less hostile or miserable this entire world would be if Islam simply did not exist. What more damning thing can be said of Islam?

cornholio said...

Hopefully Baka Bazi and the Afghani male fascination w/dancing boys won't be ignored. Pakistani truckers are infamous for raping young boys with impunity.

It's strange to me how pederasty is acceptable to muzzies, but homosexuality isn't?

latté island said...

Hi Nick, apology accepted. As to why I provided my biography, it's relevant, that's why. No one here has ever asked me why I've discussed being Jewish or agnostic or being a crime victim or living in California. My sexual preference, or rather lack of one, is equally relevant, when discussing certain issues.

Nick said...

So what do you think, will Whitney get back together with Rachel? Will Romi stay sober? Will her relationship with Kelsey work out, with one of them still drinking? (heads off to tv scene release to find out ...)

Nick said...

@cornholio,
Ah yes we all remember reading 'The Kite Runner' ...

1389 said...

Zenster:

Since you have given me permission to blog your comments, I have re-posted some of them here, along with link-backs:

Zenster explains why Islam is not worth salvaging