TEA PARTY RACISM IS LIABILITY WHITE AMERICA CAN'T AFFORD

By Kris Broughton

It looks like the mainstream media has finally decided to quit ignoring the rancid stench of race based hatred that fuels a lot of the anger behind the Tea Party movement. I guess the media thinks now that they deserve a pat on the back for taking an entire year to conclude what the blogosphere picked up on instantly—that the idea of a black man as the leader of the most powerful nation on earth has caused a vocal subset of white America to lose their minds.

If the media really wanted to make amends, it would give all the money it made from the increased viewership they got when they elevated this trumped up abomination of a political movement to center stage for months on end to HBCU’s. If the media really wanted to make amends, it would include minorities from diverse backgrounds, and not just their darker skinned fraternity buddies from Yale and Harvard and Columbia, at the editorial table, the place where the decisions are made about who should be covered, why they should be covered, and what slant should be applied to said coverage.

Even now, when the Tea Party representatives are being featured on cable news networks, not one program producer in the entire country can find the gumption and the hour or two it would take to get their staffers to put together a three minute video that alternates between photos of White Citizens Council protestors of in the 60’s and Tea Party protestors in 2010 that they could run for their Tea Party guests before asking for an explanation on camera. How hard is that? How hard is it to ask point blank questions? Did Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes have his style of questioning copyrighted so no one else in the media can badger an interview subject when the answers they give are weak or ridiculous, or totally refute reality?

There are still quite a few white people in this country who aren't willing to accept a black man as their president. The black bogeyman, as we’ve seen this past year, is still one of the most powerful agitators in the business of politics. But the Tea Party leaders have finally had to come to grips with reality—with the fact that publicly hating black people for no other reason than they are different looking has been out of style for some time. By tolerating abject racial bigotry among its ranks, the Tea Party has forced white people with good sense to start thinking about how much of a liability it can be to be associated with them.

It seems to be the kind of liability white people with good sense cannot afford to keep in the new millennium.

A Good Slave Contract by Tanonymous

SM Relationships: A Good Slave Contract

My personal definition of a "good" slave contract is not the only one in the world or even necessarily the best one for you. It does include a few criteria that I have seen in every working, happy, healthy, functional, long term BDSM relationship I have personally lived with or known of. They're pretty simple and basic, and they tend to apply to relationships outside of BDSM as well in my experience. Which is something we occasionally forget as a group; many of the basic needs and expectations in a vanilla romantic relationship will still be present in even the most extreme BDSM relationship. We're different, but not entirely immune. Here are my observations for what makes a "good" slave contract and a practical basis for a working, long term BDSM relationship: 1. Realism and honesty - both parties are experienced enough to know that they can actually live with these things they have contracted to on a day to day basis, or at least honest enough to admit to each other that they are exploring their limits. There is no wishful but unrealistic fantasy in the contract that one or both of them is likely to fail to live up to on a practical level. In other words, when these promises are made, they are made on the basis of good self knowledge and complete self honesty. Note that what is unrealistic for Novice Submissive X may be barely adequate maintenance for Experienced Slave Y aka "Old Leatherbutt", who really does want the severe daily whippings outlined in the slave contract. However, Dominant Sadist A may be delightedly capable of administering these whippings, while Owner B may well burn out on the same steady diet. The "good" slave contract takes into account the needs, desires and limitations of both partners. 2. Compatibility of desires - both partners are genuinely happy with the conditions as set forth; one is not attempting a total, core level change of his or her psyche just to please the other, unless that is specifically what he or she desires and chooses to aim for in submission. In other words, fetishists and masochists don't always make for good long term partners if some critical element of desire is absent from the other partner and the motions are gone through just to please. Promising to do something in a slave contract that you really, truly have no interest in doing makes for potential obstacles ahead. Which can be worked through with time and patience, but it can be a rough road. 3. Solid experiential basis - Many working sets of rules and slave contracts I know of in relationships were consolidated after the fact and not before.

In other words, the partners got together, put together through trial and error the rules and conditions that worked for them, and only then wrote them up as a formal contract. The main exception to this rule I have personally observed is where an experienced dominant (or sometimes an experienced submissive) has a working slave contract that sie has lived with successfully in the past with other partners, and it is adapted to the new relationship. A set of slave rules or a contract that is used as the core trust basis of a relationship tends not to work as well in my experience if it is more of a list of New Year's resolutions of what you want to have in the relationship rather than a practical model of what already works for you. New Year's resolutions can get broken and laughed off. Core level trust can't. Know the difference. 4. Openness for re-negotiation - Some couples I know read their contract over on a yearly, twice yearly or even monthly basis, and renegotiate what is and isn't working. Sometimes changes are made, sometimes they aren't; but a contract that does not take into consideration the changing needs and circumstances of two growing people is more likely to break than to flex and survive. Sample circumstances in which a contract might need to change: illness or accident leading to disability, the birth of a child, gaining or losing a job or income, uncovering or working through emotional traumas, a change in living circumstances, etc. Ignoring these things and trying to live by rules that have been severely impacted by lifestyle changes is less likely to work than a simple renegotiation - or in the case of a TPE, unilateral decision to change the conditions of the relationship according to the new circumstances as necessary. A corollary to being open for re-negotiation is input from both partners. In the case of a TPE, the submissive partner does not have any decision making power per se over the new circumstances of the relationship, but a responsible dominant will be taking input from the slave in any case by hir assessment and judgement. These criteria for a working slave contract aren't so very different from the expectations in a completely vanilla marriage - honesty, realism, compatibility, listening to your partner and being willing to negotiate. One of the unwritten and damaging myths in our community (along with the existence of a One True Manual Of Proper Slave Positions) is that since we are so different from the vanillas, we can throw out all the old rules and expectations entirely. Certai nly we can modify them to suit our needs as BDSMr's, but when we discard the most basic principles of human relationships and claim that there are no rules at all that apply to us, we do so at our own peril.

Main | Essays and Thoughts About WIITWD | Beginning BDSM Lifestylers

Gorean Training for the modern wife

There is a world called Gor, or counter earth. It came into being when John Norman made it the center of his series of 26 books (and one unpublished book) during the '70s. Nowadays, these books can be bought at second hand bookstores or online at selected Gor sites. I must admit that I have a weakness for this world and its pageantry and it has also spoken to me because I believe that women are naturally submissive and want a man to control them - they just need to find the right man. I know that this opinion is not shared by a lot of women nowadays, but I also value the opinion of others that do not agree with me. I choose to live life this way and would never force another to make my choice.

I have written an article on slave positions already, but these did not include the beautiful Gorean positions, which my Master uses, even though we do not live this lifestyle as Goreans. The link to my first article on positions ishttp://www.associatedcontent.com/article/958245/training_a_consensual_slave_or_submissive.html?cat=7 .

The Gorean positions and commands are as follows and I really hope that you find that you have a blessed journey with your new or not so new slave. These positions will help your slave find that space where you are the center of her/ his universe. These positions also make it physically easier for you to use your slave. Please remember that I am referring to consensual slaves here.

The first command is "nadu" which is the Gorean word for "kneel". This position can be done in two ways that only vary slightly. The slave is either crossing ankles, sitting on her heels with her back straight and shoulders straight, pushing her chest out proudly and spreading her legs as widely as possible with her palms facing upward and her eyes facing the floor. The variation on this position is not crossing the ankles with the rest of the position looking the same. This is also called the pleasure slave position and is not one that a white silk girl would normally do for anyone but her Master. A white silk girl is a girl who is still virgin and not available for use by any other but her Master. Seehttp://www.associatedcontent.com/article/970034/gor_101_the_slave_silks.html?cat=7 for an explanation on slave silks.

The second command is called the tower slave position. This position is almost the same as nadu, but this is the one position a white silk slave or a tower slave would use to kneel. It is nadu but the slave's knees are together and her palms are facing downward. Tower slaves (slaves who do not serve sexually) also use this position. When I use the term "her", it is because most slaves on Gor are female only. There are few male pleasure slaves.

"Bara" or "belly" is one of my Master's favorite positions when he wants to bind me. This is also exactly what this position is for. The slave drops to her belly on the floor with her head turned to the left and her hands and ankles crossed for easy binding.

"Sula" (prone position) or "sula ki" (alternative sula) are positions used to ensure that a slave is awaiting her Master's sexual pleasure and use of her. The slave lies on her back with her palms up and her head turned to the left. Her legs are spread widely in anticipation of her Master's use in the first position and in the second one she raises her hips as if to invite him to use her even after the command was given to be in sula.

"Lesha" or binding position is when the slave is kneeling or standing with her back to her Master ready for binding. She will have her back straight and her shoulders back. Her head will be turned to the left in order for a leash to be attached to her collar. Her hands are behind her back in order for the Master to chain and restrain her. The word "Lesha" in Gorean means leash.

The collaring position or "kolar" is when the slave kneels in front of the Master with her hands stretched out before and her wrists crossed. Her head will be lower than her hands and she will be looking down.

The "whipping" position is one where the slave first assumes nadu with her hands in front of her and then bends forward with her head to the floor and her hair spread out in front of her to ensure that her back is completely open for punishment. The obedience position is when the slave lies flat on her stomach before the Master with her head turned to the left and kissing her Master's feet or shoes to show her submission and obedience.

The "leading" position is one that can be used extensively in training and/ or in humiliation play. The slave will bend at the waist with her head turned against the Master's hip and her hands behind her back in order to ensure that her hair or collar is available for her Master to lead her by. This ensures that the slave knows her place immediately.

"Assuming the modality of the she-quadruped" is another position that was used to make sure that a slave suddenly had a chance to remember her place. The slave drops to the floor on all fours with her head lowered and her behind stuck upward for her Master's pleasure. She performs all duties on her hands and knees and will only be allowed to manipulate any object with her mouth. This is a position that many slaves expressed a dislike for in the books.

Another common Gorean usage position is when a slave is ordered to the floor on her hands and knees with her head straight and eyes facing forward, while her bottom is stuck upward and her legs are spread in preparation for her Master's use.

All these positions can be found through out the books. Nothing in Gor is not based on the books. You might even find a few more in the books if you look closely. I only took a few that I could remember clearly. The fun is in exploring the books for more ways of using your slave.

What About Black Conservatives?

What About Black Conservatives? March 25, 2010

So I was skimming through some websites, watching the hatred unfold in the comments section about the administration’s health care bill passing. As I mentioned before, it really irks me that somehow  black people are carrying the blame for anything Obama does– as if when this guy takes a shit, we’re there with baby-wipes.  It’s like stormfront.com has taken over every single forum imaginable. All of a sudden ALL black people are on welfare and spend food stamps on alcohol, all black people rely on Obama for EVERYTHING. Black people caused the housing crisis. They have BET? Why not CET? Of course all of this speech is insinuated, but very fucking obvious. So what’s with all this hatred? Well…

Anyway, someone posted a question on a Newsvine forum why you never see any black conservatives. There’s a lot of anger out there about why barely any black people voted for McCain and Palin. I would like to think of it as common sense, but to each his own. After all, black people identify more with conservatives when it comes to issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Didn’t Abraham Lincoln free the slave sin 1865? Didn’t Republicans support Civil Rights when the Democrats supported segregation? Well — as someone pointed out, 1965 is over and done with. Marinate on this:

“Democrats did not win the support of black Americans nearly as much as republicans their disdain for black Americans. From Barry Goldwater’s “States Rights’ presidential campaign, to Nixon’s Southern Strategy, to Reagan’s announcing his candidacy for President in the hamlet that killed three civil rights workers and buried them in an earthen dam, to Reagan’s campaign against the proverbial “welfare queen”, to George H.W. Bush’s “Willie Horton” ads, to Jesse Helms’ “white hands” ads, to the Tennessee GOP’s “call me Harold” ads, to George W. Bush’s South Carolina push polling against John McCain, to Trent Lott’s assertion that America would have been better off with Strom Thurmond as president, republicans have cynically sought to leverage racial pique and animosity among whites to their electoral advantage on a consistent basis. There is no need to take my word for this, both Lee Atwater and Ken Mehlman both have confirmed this.

The result of this long-standing strategy is not surprising. Republicans dominate in the south. For every Robert Byrd who decided to change his mind about race rather than change his party, there are three Trent Lotts, Strom Thurmonds and Jesse Helms’ who decided to change their party rather than countenance the extension and enforcement of Constitutional guarantees to and on behalf of black people. This near half-century of telling the tragically obtuse among the electorate who to hate, who to resent and who to envy has had a clear and lasting effect. Now, many republicans simply can’t help themselves; reacting with predictability on race that is matched only by Pavlov’s dog. Just a handful of incidents during the short “Age of Obama” bears this out clearly:

1. The Republican National Committee developed a fundraising campaign with the specific and explicit intention of stoking fear of President Obama
2. A picture on the Republican National Committee’s Facebook page featured President Obama eating what looks to be a piece of fried chicken with a caption that read “Miscegenation is a crime against American values”.
3. When she thought she was out of the range of a microphone, Ohio republican Representative Jean Schmidt told a “birther” that she agrees with her, calling into question whether some folks believe their own denials about the impact of race in these debates.
4. US Representative Lynn Jenkins shared that the GOP was looking for “a great white hope” to counter President Obama.
5. Congressman Jim Clyburn’s congressional office was vandalized with a swastika.
6. Congressman David Scott shared racially charged hate mail he received during the health care debate.
7. Mississippi republican State Senator Lydia Chassaniol gave a keynote address to the Council of Conservative Citizens – an organization with a well-documented history of racism – saying that “seeing you gives me hope”.
8. In the midst of her campaign for Chair of the Young Republicans Organization, Audra Shay, cheer-led racist comments on her Facebook page. She was re-elected.
9. Michelle Bachmann led other republican politicians in blaming the entire financial meltdown on – you guessed it – racial minorities when she stated that the mortgage debacle that ignited the global crisis was caused by loans “being made on the basis of race and little else”.
10. Minnesota State Senate Candidate Mike Parry calls President Obama “a power hungry arrogant black man”. He apparently prefers his black men unambitious and docile. He won the republican endorsement of his candidacy.
11. Republicans in San Bernadino County published a newsletter that included “Obama Bucks”, a food-stamp with pictures of watermelon, fried chicken, ribs and Kool-Aid surrounding a picture of the President.
12. A republican mayor in California distributed e-mails featuring a watermelon patch in the foreground of the White House.
13. A South Carolina republican activist shared on his Facebook page that an escaped gorilla was an ancestor of First Lady Michelle Obama.
14. The Tennessee Republican party distributed a collage featuring pictures of Presidents of the United States, depicting President Obama as two eyes peering out of a black background.
15. Adam LaDuca, at the time executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans, wrote on his Facebook page that then candidate Senator Obama has “a pair of lips so large he could float half of Cuba to the shores of Miami.”
16. The GOP chairman of New Mexico’s Bernalillo County said “The truth is that Hispanics came here as conquerors,” he said. “African-Americans came here as slaves” and that “Hispanics consider themselves above blacks. They won’t vote for a black president.”
17. A republican City Councilman enjoyed racist e-mails regarding the President and the First Lady so much that he thought everyone should have the same fun he was having. So he distributed and forwarded “jokes” that compared Obama to O.J. Simpson while others suggested that “n@!$%r rigs” should now be called “presidential solutions.”
18. Chip Saltsman, former chair of the Tennessee republicans and candidate for Chairman of the Republican National Committee, distributed a CD containing the song “Barack the Magic Negro”.

These are just a few of the incidents in the last year and a half committed just by people associated with the national or local republican party. This does not include the vile offerings from the legion of hate media talking heads or the garbage that passes for discourse on blog-sites like this.

Face it, Perunap. Republicans have been crapping on Abraham Lincoln’s grave since 1965. Your post and perspective that black people are somehow “duped” is offensive in the extreme and indicative of an abject ignorance of historical fact. People like you attempt to urinate on the heads of black Americans and swear it is merely rain.” –dwillie

To see more of this debate, click here.

Stuff I like....

Okay....so I know that peanut butter is not exactly the food of choice for losing weight, but I love the stuff. Besides, like most everything else, it's not the food that's bad for you so much as the quantity of the food you eat. Peanut butter is a good source of protein and fiber. It has a lot of fat...hence the need to moderate yourself with a bit of common sense. I'm particularly fond of the Natural Jif (crunchy of course) because it is very low in sodium and contains no high fructose corn syrup.

Yes, it's got a lot of fat. Yes, it's high in calories. Yes, it's one of those processed foods that I railed against in an earlier post.

But it's damn good. If I have to give up eating good stuff just to be skinny...quite frankly....I'd rather be fat. I'm pretty sure there is a way to have both. 

 

Pro:

-nutrient dense food that requires no preparation and is tasty and filling

-natural ingredients and low salt content and no HFC syrup

-no need to stir; most natural peanut butter looks like brown snot and quickly goes rancid

Con:

-this is NOT a low fat product, they make low fat PB but it tastes like mud (actually, I have a more vulgar descriptive label..but you get the idea)

-not good if you have a peanut allergy 

Awsome pussies

Humor - Peta Protest for lack of oral sex....

ETA PROTESTS LACK OF ORAL SEX:

"Animals Get Eaten More Than We Do," Say Nude Women

Whachington: (IP)

Wearing nothing but body paint and fake ears, angry women staged dozens of protests around the nation today, crouching on busy sidewalks in tiny wire cages after painting tiger stripes on their otherwise nude bodies. Shouting slogans and arguments at passers-by, the women, members of People for Eating Tasty Animals (PETA), were protesting what they call "the persistantand invidious male failure to lick pussy, give head, or go muff diving."

The unprecedented display of public nudity was intended, according to PETA spokes-woman Ima Hornay, to shock complacent men into reconsidering their routine failure to deliver oral sex. "Nothing promotes discussion and dialogue better than a naked woman in a cage," she said. "We believe that the shock value of public nudity and the exposure of our bodies to public scrutiny is the only way to convince men that we are deadly serious about this cause and that we won't rest until we get the cunt licking we deserve."

Hornay explained that male excuses for not providing oral sex are, in her view, inexcusably weak. "Men say we don't smell good, or we don't taste good. But have you seen some of the things men willeat? Men go hunting all the time, and the smelly animals they drag back get eaten more than we do! We are here to demand that they get over it, and get back to giving us the oral pleasure we deserve. Our message is that women taste good!"

Other protesters were even more blunt. "My husband is always pushing my head down toward his dick," complained Nita Fashel, "but he hasn't licked my pussy since before we were married. That's unacceptable to me. I came out here today to help spread the word in the only language men understand: lots of beautiful tits and ass on public display in cages!"

However, many of the people who witnessed the protests appeared confused by the caged animal imagery. "Why are all these hot babes painted to look like tigers?" asked one otherwise enthusiastic young man. "I mean, is it a beastiality thing? Or what? I don't get it, but I like it."

The confining wire cages also bewildered most observers. One young woman asked one of the caged nude tiger women "Why are you putting yourself on display like a helpless pet in a kennel? Are you trying to get men to collar you and leash you and teach you to jump through hoops on command? Do you want to be kept in cages? Animals are like slaves, is that the status you want for women? Don't you think the humiliation of such public nakedness will prevent men from taking you seriously?"

Most of the men witnessing the protest, however, seemed to be taking voyeuristic pleasure pleasure in the event, rather than being persuaded of the points PETA hoped to make. "If these babes think that getting naked, painting themselves like Cat Woman, locking themselves in cages, and showing off their yummy stuff on the street is gonna make me lick more cunt, they have another think coming! If women weren't so damn stingy about sucking cock, they'd probably get a lot more head themselves."

Police arrested two ambitious young men who attempted to lift an occupied cage into the back of their pickup truck. "Since this tiger chick was shouting about licking pussy, we thought we'd take her home and start with her," one of the men is reported to have told police. There were no other arrests, although several of the caged women complained of being goosed through the bars and one claimed she was attacked by a man wielding a large rubber tongue on a stick.

"Animals Get Eaten More Than We Do," Say Nude Women

Whachington: (IP)

Wearing nothing but body paint and fake ears, angry women staged dozens of protests around the nation today, crouching on busy sidewalks in tiny wire cages after painting tiger stripes on their otherwise nude bodies. Shouting slogans and arguments at passers-by, the women, members of People for Eating Tasty Animals (PETA), were protesting what they call "the persistantand invidious male failure to lick pussy, give head, or go muff diving."

The unprecedented display of public nudity was intended, according to PETA spokes-woman Ima Hornay, to shock complacent men into reconsidering their routine failure to deliver oral sex. "Nothing promotes discussion and dialogue better than a naked woman in a cage," she said. "We believe that the shock value of public nudity and the exposure of our bodies to public scrutiny is the only way to convince men that we are deadly serious about this cause and that we won't rest until we get the cunt licking we deserve."

Hornay explained that male excuses for not providing oral sex are, in her view, inexcusably weak. "Men say we don't smell good, or we don't taste good. But have you seen some of the things men willeat? Men go hunting all the time, and the smelly animals they drag back get eaten more than we do! We are here to demand that they get over it, and get back to giving us the oral pleasure we deserve. Our message is that women taste good!"

Other protesters were even more blunt. "My husband is always pushing my head down toward his dick," complained Nita Fashel, "but he hasn't licked my pussy since before we were married. That's unacceptable to me. I came out here today to help spread the word in the only language men understand: lots of beautiful tits and ass on public display in cages!"

However, many of the people who witnessed the protests appeared confused by the caged animal imagery. "Why are all these hot babes painted to look like tigers?" asked one otherwise enthusiastic young man. "I mean, is it a beastiality thing? Or what? I don't get it, but I like it."

The confining wire cages also bewildered most observers. One young woman asked one of the caged nude tiger women "Why are you putting yourself on display like a helpless pet in a kennel? Are you trying to get men to collar you and leash you and teach you to jump through hoops on command? Do you want to be kept in cages? Animals are like slaves, is that the status you want for women? Don't you think the humiliation of such public nakedness will prevent men from taking you seriously?"

Most of the men witnessing the protest, however, seemed to be taking voyeuristic pleasure pleasure in the event, rather than being persuaded of the points PETA hoped to make. "If these babes think that getting naked, painting themselves like Cat Woman, locking themselves in cages, and showing off their yummy stuff on the street is gonna make me lick more cunt, they have another think coming! If women weren't so damn stingy about sucking cock, they'd probably get a lot more head themselves."

Police arrested two ambitious young men who attempted to lift an occupied cage into the back of their pickup truck. "Since this tiger chick was shouting about licking pussy, we thought we'd take her home and start with her," one of the men is reported to have told police. There were no other arrests, although several of the caged women complained of being goosed through the bars and one claimed she was attacked by a man wielding a large rubber tongue on a stick.

Conservatism in Question

Conservatism in Question

What is conservatism's place in the theatre? How do we relate to it? How do we deal with it? And if conservatism exists in the audience, must we talk to them?
These questions and more are occupying a lot blogular real estate this week, mainly as a result of one entry on the Impending Theatrical Blogging Event blog (which we've addressed with the help of the comments here).
Laura Axelrod got pulled in by the geographically political undertow of the ongoing debate at the ITBE and responded on her Gasp! blog:

I’m not sure what Red State Theater is, exactly. Personally, I’d like to have the biggest audience possible for my work, without compromising my vision. Shouting that Democrats or Republicans suck is going to defeat my purpose. Unless, that is my purpose. KnowwhatImean?

In the comments, she and Nick from Rat Sass discuss the possibility that conservatives are filling the houses at Broadway shows, which seems extraordinarily likely, especially in the case of the so-called jukebox musicals which are so "conservative" in content that they don't even bother with new music, much less new thought.
You can follow the thread from there to Adam Szymkowicz, who's trying to figure out why there's not more "conservative" theatre.

In some ways conservative theatre is an oxymoron ... which is not to say it doesn't exist, just that the word conservative doesn't go with the idea of theatre.

Jump from there to Frank's Wild Lunch, where Kyle dissects other ways that conservatism manifests itself in theatre.

... theater artists pander to audiences in all kinds of ways, either by cloaking their racy subversive ideas in more palatable forms, or by omitting them for fear they won't be accepted.

A nice follow-up to the whole thing, especially if you've been following the ongoing conflict between Scott Walters of Theatre Ideas and, well, a lot of other people (especially Joshua James down below), is Scott's posting of an email exchange with Isaac of Parabasis, who was involved at the ITBE. Here's an excerpt.

I think challenge is absolutely necessary for a community to grow. Theatre shouldn't exist simply to deepen social bonds by reinforcing already-agreed-upon ideas. Although such deepening DOES serve an important purpose, and is part of what a theatre should do.

Thoughts?

Posted by Slay on June 6, 2007 10:00 AM | Permalink

Feminists Misconceptions of Gor and Gorean lifestyle

Feminists Misconceptions of Gor and Gorean lifestyle

As most of you know, there is some controversy over John Norman's Chronicles of Gor series, but is it deserved? The most common accusation we hear is that John Norman is a misogynist who advocates the subjugation, physical abuse, enslavement, and rape of women. Another common complaint is that John Norman's books are poorly written trash with no literary merit whatsoever. As the title of this essay suggests, I believe these unfavorable characterizations are due to misconceptions about John Norman, his purpose in writing the Gorean saga, and the books themselves.

Let's look at the word misogynist. The most common definition of the word is, "One who hates women."¹

Could a man that truly despises women write loving and poetic passages like these?

"Human females are such rich and wonderful creatures. Their sexual life, and feelings, are subtle, complex and deep. How naive is the man who believes that having sex with a woman is so little or brief a thing as to fall within the parameters of a horizontal plane, the simple stimulations of a skin, the results attendant upon a simplistic manual dexterity. How woefully ignorant are the engineers of sexuality. How much to learn have even her artists and poets! Women are so inordinately precious. They are so sensitive, so beautiful, so intelligent and needful. No man has yet counted the dimensions of a woman's love. Who can measure the horizons of her heart? Few things, I suspect, are more real than those which seem most intangible."²

"How subtle and deep was the intelligence of women, I thought. How much they know. How much they can sense. How simple and crude, how naive, sometimes seems the intelligence of men compared to the intelligence of women. What deep and wonderful creatures they are. Who can truly understand the emotional depths and needs, eons old, of these flowers of nature and evolution? How natural, then, it is, that the truly loving man will concern himself not with her distortions and perversions, ultimately barren, but with her emotional and sensuous truths, ancient and deep within her, with what might be called her biological and natural fulfillment."³

It seems to me that those who accuse John Norman of misogyny have either never read the Gor books or have given them only the most cursory examination.

What about the claims that John Norman advocates the subjugation, physical abuse, enslavement, and rape of women? Perhaps the following quote will help dispel those misconceptions.

"The fact, of course, that rape is a common sexual fantasy of women does not indicate that women, in any general sense, wish to be raped. They would surely, at the very least, wish to choose the time and the place, and the circumstances and the man. Rape, as a sociological reality, is commonly an ugly, brutal, unpleasant, sickening, horrifying, vicious act. It degrades the man and it doesn't do the woman much good either. Not only does she receive little or no pleasure, but the whole affair has no more intrinsic worth or dignity than a mugging. Further, sadly, she is likely to be brutalized and, at the least, intimidated. This is to take advantage of a weaker creature, who cannot adequately, in most cases, defend herself. The rapist, unless there are some extenuating factors, such as severe mental illness, scarcely comes up to scratch for a human being. To pick on a woman, because she is smaller and weaker, is much the same thing as to pick on a child or animal; or, it is much the same thing as a young man striking an old man; or a large, strong man beating a small, weak man; it is just something that it is not worthy to do. It is not that it need be a "sick" thing to do, though doubtless in some cases it is; it is rather that there is just no manhood in it."⁴

Norman appears to have a pretty low opinion of anyone that would actually, subjugate, abuse, or rape a woman.

So what was Norman's purpose in writing the Gorean saga? I imagine one purpose was to earn a little extra money in order to better support his family or perhaps to see if he could write a heroic fantasy in the tradition of Edgar Rice Burroughs, but the main purpose seems to have been providing a satirical counterpoint to the more extreme rhetoric of radical feminists.

Those of you who grew up in the 60's, 70's & 80's will no doubt be familiar with the following extraordinary statements:

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women's Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."⁵

"Rape is the primary heterosexual model for sexual relating. Rape is the primary emblem of romantic love. Rape is the means by which a woman is initiated into her womanhood as it is defined by men."⁶

"We name orgasm as the epistemological mark of the sexual, and we therefore criticise it too as oppressive to women."⁷

It was comments like these that Norman sought to lampoon. The radical feminists equated romantic love and marriage with slavery, so the only romantic relationships Norman explores in detail in the books are, of course, with slaves. The most extreme feminists categorize all sex as rape, so Norman repeatedly has eager and willing slaves beg their masters for "slave rape". Lastly, female orgasm is claimed to be "oppressive to women", so the "oppressed" slave is described as having the most immediate and powerful sexual and orgasmic responses. Clearly Norman is using slavery as a metaphor in order to explore the absurdity of radical feminist dogma.

Norman is hardly the only author to use a distasteful metaphor to explore more deeply into the human psyche. Nancy Springer invariably castrates at least one male character in nearly every book she writes, but are there hordes of people claiming that Ms. Springer is "advocating" the castration of men? Of course not, most people understand that she uses castration to explore the nature of manhood. Was there a huge outcry against Sheri S. Tepper for "advocating" eugenics in her book, The Gate to Women's Country? Or for portraying men as naturally disposed towards violence and war? No - it's obvious to people that Tepper is exploring the ethical and emotional consequences of selective breeding and secrecy. It's a shame that Mr. Norman isn't accorded the same understanding.

Most of you know that John Norman has a PhD. in philosophy, but what is less well known is that he also has a graduate degree in classical history. Norman puts all of his education to work in his novels. He borrows from classical history not only to build the various cultures found on Gor, but also in various allusions to classical mythology. A few more obvious examples are Norman's reference to Beowulf⁸, the Ring of Gyges⁹, and to the Gordian Knot¹⁰ & Alexander¹¹ (both directly and obliquely).

And, of course, Norman also uses his degree in philosophy to good effect - regularly exploring such concepts as honor, courage, duty, being true to oneself, and love - especially true love - which Mr. Norman recommends highly.

"Many people, of course, fear love, doubtlessly rightly, for love is a vast, tender, profound, binding instinct, which makes great differences in those lives it floods. The human being is both a single organism and a double organism. The human being consists either of a man or a woman, or the two in love. It is natural for the single organism in each of us to fight for its independence, its freedom to be self-seeking and selfish, and self-striving. But it is natural, too, for the single organism to desire its completion in the mated pair. The matter can be argued subtly but those who have been touched by love, usually briefly, have no doubt as to its superiority. Love, once tasted, is in no danger of ever again being regarded as inferior to egotism. Those who have tried both, and we have all tried the latter, would, were it possible, choose the former."¹²

There will always be those that refuse to see the truth about John Norman and his books, but as Norman says:

"Truth is a strange thing.
There is a danger in seeking it, for one might find it.
That one does not like a truth does not make it false.
How few people understand that!
But there are many sorts of truths, as there are flowers and beasts. Some truths are hard and cold, and sharp, and if one touches them one might cut oneself and bleed. Some truths are like dark stones which do little more that exist unnoticed; others are green with the glow of life, like moist grass rustling in the morning sun/ some truths are like frowns; and some are like smiles. Some are friendly; others are hostile; and, in both cases, their nature is just what it is, not what they may be said to be. Politics is not the arbiter of truth; it may be the arbiter of comfort, safety, conformity, and success, but it is not the arbiter of truth; the arbiter of truth is the world and nature; they have the last say in these matters.
Many may wish it were not the case; and many will pretend it is not the case; but it is, for better or for worse, the case.
Truth does not care whether it is believed or not; similarly, stone walls and cliffs do not care whether they are noted or not; so then let us leave it to the individual to do as he thinks best. Truth, the stone wall, the cliff, are not enemies; but they are real."¹³

All copyright to this essay, in all languages, formats, and media throughout the world are and will continue to be the exclusive property of the author. You may not, without the prior written permission of the author, copy, modify, reproduce, republish, post, distribute, transmit, or use this essay for commercial or other purposes, provided, however, that you may save one copy to your own hard drive for your own personal reference.

Copyright © 2007 LemuelB. All rights reserved.

---

¹ The American Heritage^® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition; Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved, © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company
² Blood Brothers of Gor © 1982 by John Norman, DAW Books, Inc. - pages 181-182
³ IBID - page 286
⁴ Imaginative Sex © 1974 by John Norman, DAW Books, Inc. - pages 52-53
⁵ Sheila Cronan, in Radical Feminism - "Marriage" (1970), Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., HarperCollins, 1973 - page 219
⁶ Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone, Dutton Publishing, 1989
⁷ Judith Levine commenting on a document from Women Against Sex: A Southern Women's Writing Collective - Sex Resistance in Heterosexual Arrangements, 1987
⁸ Marauders of Gor © 1975 by John Norman, DAW Books, Inc. - pages 281-282
⁹ Explorers of Gor © 1979 by John Norman, DAW Books, Inc. - page 29
¹⁰ Assassin of Gor © 1970 by John Norman, DAW Books, Inc. - page 55
¹¹ Magicians of Gor © 1988 by John Norman, DAW Books, Inc. - page 64
¹² Imaginative Sex © 1974 by John Norman, DAW Books, Inc. - page 16
¹³ Witness of Gor © 2001 by John Norman, New World Publishers - page 586

Meeting my Sir

First off I want to point out that this tale of extreme happiness is brought to you under the orders of my Sir... which may give you a bit of insight into where Kris and I are at this point. This story, though, is mostly about how we got here...
I never intended to fall in love with Kris, he was a hookup.
I was between jobs, still am as a matter of fact, and had way too much spare time on my hands. This lead to me looking for people to talk to during the day since all of my friends were working and were unavailable to entertain/amuse/keep me company. Mostly I used Grindr and Recon since I had no problem with the occasional hookup and I enjoyed kink probably about as much as anyone else reading r/BDSM. I initially encountered Kris on Grindr, we talked and it was nice but I got distracted by something shiny (I do that sometimes) and we lost touch. I encountered him again on Recon but I don't tend to talk to very many people on Recon because the moment you start a conversation with me and call me 'boy' I'm gone (On a side note, why would a stranger call another stranger they've never met 'boy'? It's not like they know me, hell I may not be into any of that... but time and time again, there it is.). I didn't immediately put two and two together until Kris changed his profile on Grindr to 'Shameless Spandex Pervert' which did two things: one, it made me laugh like a gibbon monkey, and two it made me very interested.
I'm not really a spandex guy but I love someone who can be open with their kinks so we can both get off on their kinks. So, while I wasn't HUGE into spandex, I loved to see Kris put on spandex and get all giddy and happy that he was feeding his kink which, in turn, made me get an supernatural fondness for the stuff. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Kris and I decided to meet up and we hooked up the first night (remember, this was never supposed to be dating). The funny thing about a hookup is that usually you don't stay the night, but I did, usually you don't make out much or compliment each other a lot, but we did, usually you don't cuddle up and when you wake up miraculously discover that you never stopped holding each other, but we did. This wasn't the plan, and Kris was leaving in a few months, but it was nice so we went with it.
Over the course of the next few months Kris and I explored our respective kinks. His fondness (understatement of the year) for spandex rubbed off on me and my fondness for bondage, S/m, and M/s worked it's way under his skin. I'm not a total sub but I prefer to be treated a bit like a pet or sexual object once and a while and Kris did his best to comply. The tough part though was that Kris is an incredibly compassionate human being and lover, it took some doing to get him to understand my need to be occasionally dominated (though he was fine with me dominating him) despite being a top and having the tendencies for sure; he just suppressed them I think. I shared with him much of the porn that I found alluring as sort of a rough guide of what turned me on and he jumped on it. Kris, who had never really acted out on his Dom side, suddenly was learning knots to tie me up, putting spandex hoods on me to blind me, and going to great lengths to drive me sexually wild.
Sometime around then Kris and I realized that we matched each other. Not necessarily kink-wise (but by golly we were getting there) but personality wise, we agreed on practically everything and thought much the same way about things. This man, who was supposed to be just a hook up, had worked his way well past the barriers I usually put between myself and hook-ups and we were both very much in love.
Then came the hard part. You see Kris lives across the country normally and was only in town for a few months... at some point he needed to go home. I was not one for long distance relationships where I could see no end - I'd been there and done that and I wasn't keen on trying it again. So the hardest day of my life came when Kris got on that plane and flew away... we wept.
We kept in touch and I promised to visit him but I had decided to go back to school and so I couldn't simply move out to be with him... could I?
Yes, I could.
After some discussion it was decided that Kris would move here in January after his contracts were up and I would move there until September. With a future and a plan in hand the two of us continued to talk and keep in touch. We talked about what our life together would be like, how awesome it would be when I was there, and how incredible it will be when he comes here and we are finally and permanently together. I've never had these kinds of discussions in my life; I am still amazed at how easy and natural they feel.
I fly to Kris in three days. The last week has involved some serious D/s with Kris dictating that I stay chaste for the week before I arrive and daily assignments of submission to his desires, of which this memoir is one of them. I'm more than happy to follow where Kris points, knowing now that he is getting off on it just as much as I am. Since we are both switches I look forward to turning the tables on him and sharing my own sexual deviousness with him when I arrive (bugger just got there first!).
I am marvellously in love with the man I'm calling Sir - not because he is my Sir but because he is incredible. We are equals and we give and take from our relationship equally. I am proud to own him just as he is proud to own me right back.

very sweet! Glad you two were able to learn and love together (no matter the distance).

Rampant Republican Racism

Editor''s Note: Since Obama won the election, racism has run rampant in the GOP. In Tennessee four embarrassing racist documents have appeared. The latest was picture of all the presidents with just a black background and just white eyes where Obama's photo was supposed to be.

Rush Limbaugh has said that Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama was based on race and Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court nominee, is racist.

USENET is infected with racism. Obama is often referred to as "Moonnig' and when he took his oath of office it was referred to as his 'innigeration.' The Southern Poverty Law Center going after neo-Nazis in the Armed Services who advertise their racism on the New Saxon web site. Now the the Young Republicans are on the verge or electing a racist leader, Audra Shay.

Do NOT Elect A Racist
by Meghan McCain

As the Young Republicans prepare to elect a woman on Saturday who has compared to President Obama to a terrorist and appears to have laughed at a comment calling blacks "coons," Meghan McCain seeks to stage an intervention.


Meghan McCain: You can probably guess how I feel about a woman who thinks comparing President Obama to a terrorist and referring to blacks as “mad coons” is funny.

Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-10/do-not-elect-a-racist/

Republican's Deadly Deception

By Patricia Ernest

The invasion of, and resulting war in, Iraq should not have occurred. Bush told us we were in eminent danger due to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. He said we must go to war to protect our country from an attack. The latest report says there were no wmd in Iraq at the time the US invaded and began its occupation. The media, in lockstep with the administration, will try to lay the blame for the miscue on the intelligence agencies. You can blame it on the Bossa Nova or the devil or whatever, but blame and ignorance is no excuse when the result is death. "Oops", is no excuse for war. The bottom line is, it happened on bush's watch, therefore it's bush's problem and he must deal with it. You can't change the rules after the game begins and you can't change the goal after the game is over. This war in Iraq is still a war, and to change the reason at this point, based on new information, just will not wash with the American people and certainly not with the rest of the world.



Don't you wonder why so many Americans were against this war in the first place? Not all Americans who were against this war are against all wars. Many weren't anti war. They were anti invasion based on what they perceived to be anti truth. Many of us were against this war, because before the war began, the UN weapons inspectors reported that they had not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We, unlike the President, watched the inspector's reports on tv. It's just as simple as that. When Powell appeared before the UN with his aerial photos of trucks near buildings and his recordings of conversations, the UN inspectors, in so many words, reported that all of Powell's evidence was useless and unfounded. I, along with you, believed them, and apparently everyone else should have as well. The longer the inspectors searched the less they found. Perhaps the administration felt that the public might actually notice that no weapons were being found, and perhaps that was why they rushed into this war when they did. The obvious was becoming more obvious with every report.



Maybe when Saddam sent his report regarding his weapons, and the US demanded to have the report before other countries were given their copies, maybe there was something in that original report that would have shown that he had nothing. I don't know. What I do know is that as a result of a US invasion, over 500 of our soldiers now lay dead, and many, many more lay wounded. Soldiers from other countries now lay dead, and who knows how many thousands of innocent Iraqis now lay dead. What should the US say? Do we say, "I'm sorry, I guess we got some bad info, but remember, Saddam also killed a lot of people"? Is that enough? If this war was fought because Washington didn't believe the UN inspectors, is it enough to try to justify it now based on new reasons? Is it enough if the new reasons sound good but are not true reasons? Do we invade countries, kill thousands and then change our reasons for doing so? Is that America? Have we become so hardened that we really don't care why we killed thousands of human beings? Is that the result of what 9-11 did to us? Did the attacks of 9-11 turn us to the same sort of mindset as the terrorists. Do we now kill human beings and worry about the reasons later? The attacks of 9-11 were Osama's way of making a statement. Did we invade Iraq just to make a statement? That's not the way we do things in the United States, and, I don't believe we would condone or tolerate these same actions if they had been taken by any other country. We didn't condone Saddam's invasion of Kuwait did we?



Imagine, with the history of this war, that another country, we'll call that country Lieland, had done the very same things that we have done in Iraq, and that all Lieland's actions had been condemned by the US from the beginning. Just imagine that Lieland had invaded Iraq, based on the declaration that Iraq was a threat to Lieland. The administration of Lieland said that Iraq possessed wmd. These were declarations that we Americans believed to be untrue. Imagine how we would have felt if we had seen Lieland dropping the shock and awe bombs. Imagine how we would have felt as we thought about the innocent Iraqis as they were being murdered from above. Imagine that we heard that there were no weapons found in Iraq and that Lieland's leaders were simply blowing that news off and instead bragging that they had freed the Iraqi people. Imagine that we saw the conditions in Iraq today and heard that the soldiers from Lieland were going door to door in Iraq, crashing down the doors of homes, and arresting thousands of Iraqis. These Iraqis were being kept in prisons based only on a suspicion and there was news that the prisoners were being unfairly treated. Imagine that the very first thing Lieland secured after their invasion was Iraq's oil fields. Lieland allowed Iraq to be looted, but protected the oil fields. Lieland would look like a heartless opportunistic country to us and to the rest of the world. Just imagine seeing all of that. Now try to imagine how other countries are seeing us today.



Keeping your imagination going for a moment, please imagine what you would think of Lielanders if they re-elected the same President who had led them into that atrocious war. By re-electing this same President, they would be telling the rest of the world that they endorsed his actions. By supporting this president, Lielanders would tell the world they had no remorse regarding what their leader had done. If you had wondered about the citizens of Lieland before, you would feel that by their re-election of their President, that they were just as dangerous and heartless as their President. You would feel that if their leader presented himself as a man guided by religion, it must be the kind of religion that endorses and condones war and murder based on lies. Lieland would appear to be a danger to all people.



We are Lieland and we are at a pivotal point in history. If we re-elect bush (and yes, I know he was never truly elected), we will be telling the world that we support what he has done to our country, to Iraq and to the world. I don't want the world to think that we are, in any way, akin to bush in either thought or deed. I want to show the world that we are wiser and kinder than the president. I don't want us to be Democrats or Republicans. I want us to be Americans who stand up and show the world that we recognize what has taken place in our name, and that we will take action to see that it never happens again. We owe it to ourselves and to our forefathers to demand honesty from our leaders, especially when the consequence of dishonesty is death. We have a debt and a responsibility to protect our soldiers and to see that they are never forced to enter into a contrived or a preventable war. Our country is headed down a frightening, ugly and dangerous path, and we must do everything in our power to change directions before we completely lose our way and discover that there is no turning back.



patricia

Patricia Ernest, nesters@bellsouth.net gives us this bio:

I live in the wonderful state of Florida.

I am a mom to Murphy (my precious pup) and Fred (my occasionally precious cat).

I share my life, my laughter, my world and all of my love with my husband and have for 16 years.

I would describe myself as a very sentimental and sensitive person who is forever willing to share my point of view whether or not it has been requested of me. This article is copyright by Patricia Ernest, originally published by opednews.com Permission is granted to forward this or to place it on a website as long as the article is included intact, including this statement. Patricia is also the author of Pissed Off Patricia's Blog

Bush/Cheney and the Republican Brats - The Gift that Keeps on Giving

I don’t know why Fox 24-hrs-of-lying-BS News think we should forget about the main person that put us in this hole? That might be fodder for their consumers of shit zombies that watch Fox, but the 70+% of us know better.

Come on, the man damn near collapsed our entire economy and now I should move on while his handiwork is still popping up? Move on my ass.

Sorry, no. Bush/Cheney left a mess the size of Jupiter and no, I will never forget all the parting gifts he left us.

I know it’s a conservative/tea bagger/republican wet dream to blame the new administration; but alas, Bush, the giver, has not finished giving us all the wonderful shit he set in place during his reign of idiocy that just happens to keep smacking us in the ass every time we turn around.