Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Opening a New Web Site

Wednesday, December 26th, 2012

As you probably noticed, I quit updating the Sex Hysteria website back in early 2011 for reasons explained in an earlier post.   Recently, however, I opened a new blogging site covering a much broader range of topics.  It will be be libertarian, just as this site has been (and as any serious discussion directed at individual freedom must be).

At least for now, it is also acting as a discussion forum for articles posted on The Agitator which, after moving to The Huffington Post, is now subject to a much more severe comment censorship regime than many Agitator regulars are used to.  That may or may not work out, but I thought I’d give it a try and see where it goes.

You are invited to stop by to read and/or contribute at your leisure:  Reality Thinking

Time to say goodbye

Friday, March 4th, 2011

If you are a regular visitor to Sex Hysteria!, you have noticed that the articles have been coming less often.    This is primarily due to the fact that I have more things to do than time to do them.    I have thus made a decision to shed myself of some activities that will allow me to focus more time on others.  This blog will remain open at least until the domain name expires, but I will no longer add to it.

I wish to thank my regular readers and those who took the time to contribute their own thoughts.  I am very flattered to be in the midst of such honorable company.

Writing this blog has been an eye opening experience.  While there are some cases of responsible reporting by the mainstream press on the topic of sex, the vast majority of such reporting is intentionally concocted to be sensationalistic in order to attract an audience.  I used to think that kind of journalism was limited to the rags you see at the supermarket checkout stands, but the rationale has now fully infected almost all popular news sources in the U.S.    Traditional news outlets, rather than searching for the truth, now find it much more profitable to cater to the angry mob, even creating an angry mob where otherwise none would exist as they did so effectively when they targeted CraigsList.  Instead of being disinterested observers of events they now want to be part of the action and be actively involved in the making of news.

After producing this blog for only a year, I have come to understand that oppressive laws that target sexual activity are motivated by the same kind of prejudices that have been at the root of all persecution throughout history.  It is driven by human hatred of those who are different.  And it’s an equal opportunity affliction infecting both left and right.

The fact that you can be imprisoned for what you do on your own property with other consenting adults is tyranny.  Democracy only means that your oppressor is the guy who lives next door rather than some dictator.

Without sovereignty over one’s own body, there is no freedom.

Castrating sex offenders to save money

Thursday, January 27th, 2011

A Virginia state legislator wants the state to consider castrating sex offenders so they don’t have to spend all that money keeping them locked up indefinitely in psychiatric “hospitals” after they’ve completed their prison sentences.

From the HuffPo:

Republican Sen. Emmett Hanger’s bill would require the state to study the use of physical castration as an alternative to civil commitment for sexually violent predators.

The civil commitment program’s budget grew from $2.7 million in 2004 to $24 million this year. Gov. Bob McDonnell has proposed spending nearly $70 million over the next two years to meet the increasing demands.

According to the article, Texas and Louisiana already allow for physical castration.

It’s interesting to see government officials in a quandary over the high cost of using the gimmick of civil commitment to heap additional punishment on people who have already paid for their crimes.  There is no doubt that they would have no compunction about summarily executing sex offenders at the end of their prison term if they could only devise some fiction that could justify it.

And the public would applaud.

Thanks to Maggie McNeil for the link.

Does child porn reduce child sex abuse?

Thursday, December 2nd, 2010

University of Hawaii researcher, Milton Diamond, suggests it could:

Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.

The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.

I have advocated repeatedly on this site that decriminalizing simulated child porn (porn produced without using actual children) could reduce demand for porn that does use real children.  In fact, it’s my opinion that the very fact that the government chooses to aggressively prosecute simulated child porn the same as porn using real children shows that the mission of the U.S. Justice Department is far more concerned with punishing fantasies than protecting children.

Miami cops crack down on immorality

Sunday, November 21st, 2010

Miami cops arrested Carlos Rodriguez for soliciting prostitution on November 9th.   Under the heading of unique physical features, the arrest report notes, “Half a Head”. What would we do without our Blue Knights saving society from those who want to get laid?

While I write endlessly about the persecution of women who sell sex, it’s much more rare that I comment on the other victims of society’s war on sex, the customer.

It’s no secret that anti-prostitution crusaders advocate the state injecting itself into and regulating our most intimate and private relationships.  While they rant about how all prostitution is coercion, they don’t give it a second thought when they use the threat of jail to force everyone to follow their narrow intolerant moral code.  They summarily decree that the moment money is involved, women are being coerced or exploited.  To them the only acceptable terms for a sexual relationship are mutual attraction.

They dismiss the idea that that puts millions of people, of which Mr Rodriguez is only one, at something of a disadvantage.  Laws against prostitution sadistically deny one of humanity’s most pleasurable and intimate interactions to a class of people who are only likely to experience it through the services of a prostitute. That would include many handicapped people, those who have been maimed by war or accidents, those with serious birth defects, the home bound, the bed-ridden, and the just plain ugly (such as myself).

To spell it out, laws against prostitution specifically single out disadvantaged people for persecution.  As long as man has walked the earth society has been defining the powerless as throwaways, unworthy of the rights and privileges that the rest of us take for granted.  Every generation of Americans self-righteously proclaims their abhorrence of witch hunts, moral crusades, and lynchings of past generations, even as they enthusiastically engage in the current ones.  Like the very people who perpetrated that history of marginalizing those they didn’t like, they don’t recognize what they’re doing.  It’s never called persecution by those who doing it.

As one commenter so eloquently wrote a while back, no “normal” person needs to buy sex.  The implication is that sex is a privilege reserved only for so-called normal people.  If you’ve ever been in a discussion about the demand side of prostitution, some moron will invariably make the remark, “I’ve never had to pay for it”.  The implication is that, “I’m among the class of people that women will have sex with without having to pay for it”.  The pure naivety of such an assertion  is stunning.  I don’t know too many people who would dispute that wealth (coupled with generosity) usually plays a part in the dynamic between men and women, regardless of whether an explicit transaction occurs.

The war on prostitution is not just a crusade against a woman’s right to own and control her own body.  It’s also a systematic program of persecution aimed at a minority of the population that no one gives a shit about.  It’s the tyranny of the majority in action. And there is nothing moral, benevolent, or heroic about it.

Sex Hysteria’s First Birthday!

Monday, November 15th, 2010

Sex Hysteria! opened to the public exactly one year and 520 articles ago.

The party begins in five minutes.

Light blogging this week.

Monday, October 18th, 2010

I am officially on vacation this week and will be busy with other activities, so I will be doing little, if any, blogging.  If any one wants to offer a guest article, please let me know.

Gotta love the comments

Thursday, September 23rd, 2010

In the news coverage of the crusade against the online classifieds  site, Backpage.com, the majority of reader comments seem to be trending toward a slightly antagonistic perspective toward the state attorneys general.

In any case, it’s clear that not everyone is buying into the professed motives behind the campaign and some comments are downright clever, not to mention entertaining.

It would be hard to beat the pinpoint accuracy of one comment posted in response to a Courant.com article about Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal:

Blumenthal is going after “front page” exposure (he could care less about Backpage…

I think the same could be said for many, perhaps most, of the participants in that drama.

Apple 451

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

Another article about  Apple’s ongoing campaign to purify the iWorld.  Maybe they should call their best seller list the Best Seller List of Approved Reading.

If you’re confused by the title of this post, go here.

Arizona jumps on the stupid law bandwagon

Tuesday, April 6th, 2010

Two of the more recent trends in state law has been the crusade to eliminate or drastically extend the statute of limitations for child sex abuse victims to file suit against alleged perpetrators and the push to make johns responsible for guessing how old prostitutes are.

Arizona is moving forward with a bill that does both.  I’ve already written about similar legislation to change the statute of limitations in Connecticut.   Connecticut, which permitted lawsuits by child abuse victims until they were 48, moved to eliminate the statute of limitations altogether, while Arizona is pushing it out from age 20 to age 53.  While it’s undisputed fact that a person’s memory distorts recollections with time, there are still adherents to the largely discredited “recovered memory” syndrome.  In any case, such a bill is not really so much about justice as it is about capitalizing on sex hysteria to garner votes.

The other part of the bill increases penalties for those who buy sex from a prostitute who is underage, even if they had no idea how old the prostitute was.  This essentially forces someone to guess at the prostitute’s age and then face stiff penalties if they guess wrong.   It substitutes the concept that someone can be punished for knowingly committing a crime with the idea that it’s acceptable to punish them for doing something they will only know is a crime after the fact.  Of course, as is common when the behavior involves sex, the underage girl is completely immunized from any share of the responsibility even if she misrepresented herself as being older than she is.  This is right in line with child porn laws that require a viewer to know whether someone in a pornographic image is a minor.  The idea is, of course, preposterous since it’s impossible to guess someone’s age simply by looking at them. While it’s true that prostitution is illegal regardless of the age of the woman, there is no justice in penalizing someone more harshly when there is no way for them to know that the stiffer penalty applies.

There is really no limit to what lawmakers can get away with if they invoke the mantra that it’s to “protect children”, especially when it involves sex.  And, while penalties for child sex abuse are already severe, there is always room to pass a new law when votes are at stake.