Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘homosexuality’

Since this type of thing seems to be growing and spreading in our society, we should all take a few minutes to analyze just why this may be so. How do we combat something like this? What is the root cause?

Well, the root cause is lack of natural affection during childhood and adolescence. It really is this simple, people. Combine this with the excessive sexual pressures we subject our adolescents to in the public school system by not adequately supervising them at such a crucial stage in their personal development and you have a great and efficient recipe for social disaster.

All of this traces back to the lack of nurturing.(http://wp.me/p1BaiG-5m) Nowadays, it is the accepted procedure for mothers to deliver in the hospitals and send their newborns almost directly into daycare because Mom has to get back to her real job. There is absolutely no attempt made at nurturing, no personal family bonds are being created. This is very, very bad.

As I have said before, emotional fulfillment is the most important aspect of sentient life and the basis for it is found in our birth families. If they fail to nurture us sufficiently in this respect, we are set up for failure in the rest of our life relationships. Recognizing this early lack can be a great help in processing the way we react to others in our adult lives and in clarifying our relationship choices. Let us consider a few basic facts of emotional life for humans.

1. The expression of natural affection from parent to child(not vice versa) is the blueprint upon which all of us map the course of our life relationships. This is how we learn to show caring and affection and consideration for others, regardless of gender. It is the only relationship we know that does not have an element of sexuality in it. It is not supposed to and if it does, in the form of molestation, it is the worst horror our society knows.

2. We all bond more closely with members of our own sex. This is a perfectly natural thing. Men and women process information in different ways and we are all more socially comfortable with people who think the way we do. We have more in common with members of our own gender on a day-to-day basis, therefore we seek them first when looking for a stable and fulfilling social environment.

3. The lack of natural, affectionate nurturing in childhood leaves us vulnerable (extremely) as we mature into our respective versions of adult sexuality. Physical intimacy becomes a substitute for this first and most important relationship in our lives and since the substitution has no real validity, the sexual relationship fails the minute the “new” wears off.

Sex is a wonderful and important thing to most of us. In an adult relationship, we allow ourselves to be vulnerable, trusting that the other person will not betray us, or desert us, or fail to consider our personal needs along with or sometimes even ahead of their own. Because you see, that is what our parents were supposed to do for us and mostly, did not. And that is what most of us are now seeking in an adult, sexual relationship. So. Is this expectation valid?

My opinion? Yes, the expectation is valid. The sense of protection and care we receive from our parents is the pattern on which we base the relationships of our adult life—all of them. This is the way it is supposed to be. There is no sexual orientation to this pattern, also the way it is supposed to be. The sexuality comes later, in adolescence and adulthood. Again, the way it is supposed to. We have raised up several generations of children who have no sense of their sexual orientation because they are all stuck in this childhood mode since it was never supplied to them when it was most needed. When they enter adolescence they combine the two, which is neither surprising or acceptable, either one.

The problem comes from our inherited emotional poverty. After the new wears off of a relationship we have two emotionally deprived people who sit there and wait for the other guy to step up and be the grown up. This is so very seldom the case. And after x number of failed relationships, many people begin to look at other options for that sense of emotional fulfillment that has been lacking in their lives heretofore. For this, they fall back on the premise I listed above as emotional fact of life #2. We all bond more closely with members of our own gender. This particular process is especially seen in women. I have noticed that many women turn “gay” in their thirties and forties after failed marriages and several children.

3. The lack of emotional fulfillment in childhood increases the sense of sexual need in the adolescent. This is especially true for young men. Their entrance into puberty is exclusively sexual, rampant, and since it is not being covered in our society by any type of adult amelioration, particularly emotionally shredding for them.

During adolescence we are looking about us and finding our place in this world, both as citizens and as sexual adults. Given the total lack of nurturing and natural affection we are starting our children out in life with, it is not surprising to me that so many of them are combining their emergent adolescent sexuality with their more important need for social integration and acceptance and supposing themselves to be “naturally gay” or “born that way” simply because American society totally ignores their basic emotional needs from birth. We are sacrificing our young on the altar of the Great God of Education and ignoring their most human needs.

After these poor, parentless people have turned to a sexual relationship with a member of their own gender in an attempt to supply the normal social intercourse that has been lacking in their lives, they continue their quest for acceptance, which has not been met by their same-sex relationship, by insisting that all the world condone what they have done by public legislation. And the American Christian conservative public is protesting in great horror at the unnatural relationships which their own ignorance and neglect have fostered. I don’t know about ya’ll but I call this a homemade mess. Now let’s look at the physical aspects of this question.

1. What feels good physically, feels good no matter who is doing it. This fact has added its two cents to the emotional mess of same-sex relationships. There is nothing wrong with sex. That is a fact. So what can be wrong with having sex with anyone, regardless of their gender? Can you answer this one? The several generations of young American men and women who have been deprived of their natural affection compass by our current cultural process are particularly vulnerable here. Most of us emerge into adulthood with both social and sexual needs and since the first is not met in any way, the second has become the slide rule used to determine social value. Not a good idea.

2. Lack of sexual satisfaction is common to both genders in their physical relationships. This is also a fact. Many men have been seduced into homosexual relationships simply because their basic physical needs are not being met by women. What does it say about us as a society that our sons feel they have to go to other men? And what about our daughters? Having to rely on men who have been both emotionally and sexually brutalized during their most sensitive years does not provide them with a reliable adult partner, physically or any other way.

This is because we do not give either gender of our children any advice or training about what should be happening in their bedrooms. Americans tend to be very puritanical about the subject generally. For the life of me, I can’t understand why. The subject certainly requires a sense of modesty, but this guilt ridden, hush-hush, leave your kids to get on as best they can mentality is beyond belief for intelligent beings. Sex is a normal function of life and should be treated as such and yet Americans still purvey this bad, guilty attitude to their children. We need to start imbuing them with the more correct notion that sex in itself is not bad, using other people to wipe your behind sexually, that is bad.

While sexual urges are common to both genders, the motivations for those urges are not the same, at all. For men the urges are predominantly physical, for women they tend to be emotional while in both cases there are elements of both factors. This does not make an easy mix to deal with.

From all the available evidence, neither gender seems to be satisfied with the current arrangement so they have taken to same-sex relationships in an attempt to complete their own needs. This is not working either. Domestic violence and bad emotional breakups are more common in same-sex relationships than they are in heterosexual ones, per couple. The LGBT is not publicizing this fact however. I am writing this in case any of you are thinking that a same-sex lover is going to be your ticket to emotional nirvana. NOT!

I am now going to write a very dirty word. It is a word you do not ever hear anymore, it being so very bad. Tenderness. This word is worse than libido, penis, lust, or even, low be it spoken, desire. It is not a word we allow ourselves to think anymore, let alone speak. Tenderness is supposed to be an integral part of our human emotional experience and it is no longer. It has been replaced by words like “hot.” Someone attractive to the opposite(or same) sex is spoken of as being “hot.” If someone expresses an interest in you, you are being “hit on.” This is intrinsically violent in implication. Our adult sexual needs have been reduced to this on the public level, heat and violence.

Without the natural affection and nurturing of childhood, tenderness has departed from every aspect of our adult lives, not just the sexual aspect. No one has cared for the tenderness of children, there is no allowance made for it in our public educational system. We go into daycare, almost from the moment of birth, into pre-K programs, then into twelve years of grammar and high school. We spend most of our child lives trying to cope with strangers. Is it any wonder that so many are turning to same-sex relationships in an attempt to feel that social bonding that is normal? The method is not going to work, but the motivation is understandable. Sex and affection are not the same thing. How are we going to re-instill this basic fact into such lost children as we have raised?

Alieff Farwell

Read Full Post »

This blog is published to LinkedIn so I am adding this special post just as a reminder to my contacts and followers. The media today wants to give the population of this planet as a whole the impression that homosexuals are gaining ground and that we are all about to usher in a homosexual haven of tolerance and world peace. This is not true. The homosexual “lifestyle” is characterized by domestic violence, drug abuse, child molestation, and white collar crime. These people are not “tolerant” of decent, normal people and DO NOT EVER THINK DIFFERENTLY.

Where homosexuality is not tolerated, there are no child predators. This is a fact that the LGBT does not want published in the public media here. Most of you do not support a perverted “lifestyle” in spite of media propaganda so stand by your posts and stick to your guns. We are winning here.

A. Farwell

Read Full Post »

You may not think so at first glance but this is a natural segue from my last post—…The Time for All Good Men… We need a little historical background first.

At the start of the Women’s Suffrage movement, about a hundred and fifty years ago, the adult male in Western Society became “The Villain” and he remained in that role with increasing emphasis as the years went on. It is time now to rectify this public perception. It is entirely erroneous. If our men were as black as they were painted by the suffragettes, women would not have been given the vote. But they were. Our men did not have to do this and with the twenty-twenty vision of hindsight, we would be much better off today, both financially and socially, if they had not, but, they decided to err on the side of generosity, a habit with our men.

It is always very easy to find fault with the movers and shakers, especially if you don’t have the responsibility of getting things done yourself. This is exactly what happened with the Suffrage Movement. These women were loudly vocal about all the things that the evil, greedy, violent men were doing wrong in society, and if only they had the vote things would change they could tell you! Well, they were right about that anyway, things have certainly changed in America—for the worse.

The society built by our great-great-great grandparents was not perfect of course, but it was stable. Our several times great-grandfathers did not encourage their wives and daughters to want to vote or get out in the work force because these men knew what their women would have to deal with, and they knew their women were not up to the job. Besides which it was dangerous. Physically, sexually dangerous for them to go about unchapperoned. The women of that era had been sheltered for thousands of generations from such physical dangers by the vigilance of their men and were very prone to poo-poo the mere idea of it in the course of any discussion.

I will take a moment here to let the Emancipated Ladies and Liberals who may happen to read this blog finish shrieking. (Pause)

You see, away back then, these ladies were accustomed to being the social arbiters in the churches, drawing rooms, social clubs and cottage kitchens. In these venues the woman’s word was law. The men knew they were not best suited to the managing of social situations, the more tender sex was better at these interpersonal relationships and they were given all the indulgence their fathers, husbands and brothers could manage. In a word, these suffragettes were spoiled, not by one man but by a whole society of them who valued women for their tenderness and grace. And these very spoiled women really thought their drawing room manners were going to be enough to intimidate the evil, greedy, violent men of this world into better behavior. After all, it worked on their husbands, children, and social set of friends didn’t it?

And here you have the kink, the rub, the stone in the shoe of Women’s Suffrage and Liberation ideals. Drawing room manners are not adequate equipment in a man’s world. Our Suffrage grandmothers never had to deal with the realities of a man’s world and their liberated granddaughters are still not dealing with it. They still base their political solutions on the idea that you just have to explain to predators that their behavior is “inappropriate” and the matter will resolve itself. Any other route would involve violence and they are much too righteous to approve of violence. It offends their tender sensibilities. Men are violent and they are essentially better than that.

Absurd when put in it’s proper context isn’t it? It matters not what kind of predator you are dealing with—financial, sexual, or military, a predator is a person or group that sees something you have and has decided to take it—by force. The sexual and military predators use physical force, the financial use political force which is, intimidation by paperwork. That particular generation of very sheltered women were given the vote and opened the door to the financial and sexual predators that have been multiplying in our country ever since.  And by insisting on open homosexuality in our military, today’s very sheltered ladies are actively inviting military predators as well. Those ladies had no idea, really, of what voting caused or prevented (and their granddaughters don’t either.)  Their husbands and fathers knew they did not. Yet, out of a sense of familial fairness and indulgence those men allowed Suffrage—to the sorrow of succeeding generations.

Predators are kept at bay by a show of physical force and that is the only thing that keeps them at bay. Women do not have even half the physical force  of men and for this reason alone predators do not fear them. That being the case, females in important public offices do not provide any deterrent value on the social level where predators grow. All this petticoat posturing called “equality” and “political correctness” and “gender sensitivity training” is the feminine idea of force in controlling a world where predators lurk by a display of drawing room manners.

It is time for our men to step up to the plate. I know I am not the only female in America who has faith in them. It’s a bit late to repeal Women’s Suffrage but you guys can start having some real time discussions with your wives and daughters. I know this is very difficult for you when you love them and would much rather not see them understand the world of predators the way you instinctively do. Just tell them enough so that they can appreciate how much you do for them, just by being the husband and dad. You have been sheltering us for countless generations by your willingness to fight off our enemies. It is time now for you to remind American women just why they have as much personal independence as they currently enjoy. I will back you to the hilt. Semper Fi.

Read Full Post »

Wrong is such a large word. Such an all-encompassing word. A word we become acquainted with very early in our lives. Sitting happily in our high chairs at breakfast we probably, in the adventurous way of all babies, had the happier idea of not just eating our dry Fruit Loops but attempting to see if one of the little things would fit up our nose. It seemed about the right size. Of course the attempt brought an instant and emphatic NO! from mama. Our little baby hand was snatched and the offending Loop removed and lots of words issued out of mama none of which we understood. We did, however, understand the emotion conveyed by the tone of voice(loud/stern), the facial expression(scowl), and the action of having our baby will controverted by the act of a larger and stronger authority figure(mama).

In last weeks’ installment I posed the question—“how shall we define Wrong?”  Of course, I have been mulling this over for the past seven days in an attempt to whittle it down to an ingestible size for public consumption. Quite a task as you all may appreciate. One of the reasons this posting is late. The trouble is not so much that everyone has their own opinion of what defines ‘wrong’ as it is the conflicting applications of the term.

For instance–freedom of speech is guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America. Everyone agrees that this is a ‘right’ thing for us to have included in our rules of government. The right of honest and open dissent. OK so far? Let’s apply this to one of the major bones of contention today. Homosexuality. Never mind whether you personally are for or against this practice, that is not what we are discussing now. My point is this, a person has the constitutional right to disagree with it and to say that they do without being accused of hate crimes or “discrimination”.   In a few words, the homosexual lobbyists are calling freedom of speech ‘discrimination’ and making out that this is a ‘wrong’ thing. They uphold the principle of free speech only they want it censored to suit their egos. Especially, any prospective employer is to be penalized for not agreeing, both verbally and on paper.

When did we pass an amendment to the Constitution saying that employers were no longer Americans with the same freedoms guaranteed to the rest of us? There is definitely a conflict of application here. Freedom of Speech is defined as–freedom of speech and not as–speech that only agrees with me.

This same political maneuver is being used by a host of other so-called ‘minority’ groups. They yell “DISCRIMINATION” at anyone who doesn’t instantly agree with them on any subject whatsoever as if discrimination were a dirty word. In fact, it is not. It is the first public function of any intelligent adult to discriminate between what is actually, functionally good and what is only good if you don’t look too close. But the real issue here is this–any one of these groups which are nowadays  referred to as special interest, base their expectations and arguments on the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution but in practise expect these same freedoms to be denied to all opposing opinions. Any one who disagrees with them is ‘wrong.’

So. How shall we define “WRONG” ? In two ways. The baby way, which  I illustrated in the opening paragraph above. It is a sad but true thing that many Americans are social/political/intellectual babies and will remain so. Their sense of ‘wrong’ will always be based on a purely emotional reaction to a scowl, a stern voice saying NO!, and a dim but persistent resentment of the authority figure(usually Republican government) that controverts their baby will by taking away their Fruit Loop.

Then there is the adult definition of wrong which is based on a reasoned analysis of any given issue.  For the adult, a thing is wrong because

a.) the logical premise is either false or fatally flawed(ObamaCare, censored Freedom of Speech)

b.) the certain outcome is physical illness and/or discomfort(just try snorting a Fruit Loop),  it is fiscally irresponsible (bouncing checks, ObamaCare), and it will cause harm to yourself or others(drug addiction, drunk driving).

I am sorry to disturb the many babies out there with a bit of adult truth but in the real, adult world you will occasionally be scowled at. You will hear stern voices and sometimes they will use the n- word. This is not “wrong.” It is not required of society to never make you feel like a baby if you insist on reasoning like one. Society is not going to hell in a handcart as so many people say. It functions just the way it should. The problem seems to be the generations we are raising to think that “no” is a hate word and not a reasoned response to stupid or even dangerous ideas; generations imbued with totally unrealistic expectations of the society in which they will have to live.

Which brings me to the subject of my next post.

Great Expectations!

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: