Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts

Monday, April 18, 2016

Forget It Trannies!



Forget  It Trannies!


Young lady puts the lie to "transgenderism" with these photos.

Chromosomes and objective reality trump ALL delusions.

A is A ... A thing is a thing ...

Wishing will NOT make it anything other than what it actually is.

And certainly not make you into something you are not and NEVER will be.

Just sayin' ...


For the full size photos, click here.

Go to Freedom Outpost blog main page here.


Go to Jays' Tee Vee blog main page here. Any articles after this means you're there already. And put some pants on ya' fool!

Friday, August 30, 2013

Switzerland Opens Drive-In Sex Boxes To Make Prostitution Safer

Yeah ... I know .... Article has nothing to do with Gurren Lagann.
Howsomever ... SEX SELLS!

Switzerland Opens Drive-In Sex Boxes To Make Prostitution Safer


Interesting article. Not exactly how I would handle it, but ...

Personally, I wouldn't patronize hookers for various reasons, not the least of which is ... God don't like it. Be that as it may, it's a personal choice and the RISKS AND CONSEQUENCES, spiritual and otherwise, are yours.

As for government regs, it should be to keep that business out of residential areas and other parts of town and ... kill the pimps.

Pimps serve no purpose. These predators should be rounded up and disposed of.

As for hookers themselves, I may look askance of them but I trust them more. At least with a hooker you KNOW what you're getting right from the start ... With the likes of John McCain & others of his useless kind, you don't.

I will never EVER equate hookers to be on the same level as politicians. That would be an insult to the worlds' oldest profession.

Just sayin' ...


Telegraph news article link here.

A Few Words To John McCain here.

Go to Jays' Tee Vee blog main page here.

Thursday, May 30, 2013

18 U.S.C. 2257 1/2, C.F.R., Rule 34 Compliance Notice & Disclaimer



18 U.S.C. 2257 1/2, C.F.R., Rule 34 compliance notice & disclaimer.

All models (Plastic, silicon, etc. Cement & paint not included.), "actors"/"actresses", farm animals, humanoids, reasonable facsimiles thereof and other persons/mutants that appear in any visual depiction of actual or simulated sexual misconduct appearing or otherwise contained in or at, were over the age of eighteen (18) years or at least looked like it at the time of the creation of such depictions, or the procurers at least waited until they were eighteen (18) years of age before releasing said depictions.

Some of the aforementioned depictions appearing or otherwise contained in or at, contain only visual depictions of actual sexually explicit misconduct made before July 3, 1895, and, as such, are exempt from the requirements set forth in 18 U.S.C. 2257 1/2, C.F.R. 75 & Rule 34. However, anything with Traci Lords appearing is subject to immediate review. With regard to the remaining depictions of actual sexual misconduct appearing or otherwise contained in or at, the bogus records required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2257 1/2, C.F.R. 75, & Rule 34 are kept by one of the custodian of records listed below (If we find him/her/it we'll let you know.).

In fulfilling its obligations under Section 2257 1/2, relies on the plainly vague language of the statute and on the well-reasoned decision of the Tenth U.S. Short Circuit Court of Appeals in Sundance over a few drinks, which states that entities who merely distribute content and have no role in procuring models (Why did they have to change the formula of the glue!?) or producing content, are exempt from on-site bogus record keeping requirements.


Go to Jays' Tee Vee blog main page here.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

At the Track


At the Track ...

by

Weatherly Hardy


There are two main time-tracks understood in the world. One derives from a Creator, the other from naturalistic process. This distinction is necessary, because on the one hand, a Creator has built meaning and purpose into His creation, whereas any meaning or purpose in, say, an evolutionary track, must be invented ultimately by any sapience wot comes along. The created sapience owes fealty to the Creator, and obedience, and even love; one need show no sense of gratitude or appreciation, or affection for the impersonal forces driving the evolutionary track.

It is significant that Charles Darwin, he who popularised TENS (the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection) was a lapsed Unitarian/Anglican. (A note: Bishop Usher's 6000-year age of the earth need not apply. The issue is a non-starter, Biblically speaking.) It is important to understand the VAST difference between the two tracks. The Creation provides a framework for understanding cosmology, as well as our own place in the Universe. It establishes an order and purpose for humankind. It especially establishes family, the much touted foundation of society. The silly notion of male and female producing offspring as a family is showcased here. Adam and Eve. Other rhyming names need not.... The Creation Model sets up men and women as families, and defines marriage based upon the Creator's commands and covenants. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Gen. 2:24)

From place names to ancient peoples, the Bible has been proven time and again to be accurate. That is a fair reason to consider its other claims as being so, as well. So what's the point? Marriage is not some sociological accident in antiquity, but derives from a covenant-making God's instruction. With this model, there is coherence, and the growth of mankind through history. There is purpose for the Genesis-model family, beyond (but including) the satisfying of sexual desire. The very structure of society grows from this beginning, and without it, there is no coherent society. Indeed, we are told by Paul: "For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named..." (Eph. 3)  The world has it backwards. We did not name God "Father" because we wanted a "sky Daddy" to love us. Our families, rather, are named from His Fatherhood.

This is why Marriage=Man+Woman is important, and should be inviolate. Certainly, same-sex couples can adopt, or have surrogates, or in vitro fertilization, and may be loving parents, but it is not according to Hoyle, and is not the foundation provided in the Creation model. The sterile man and wife we-want-it-all marriages are as faulty. (This is no Quiverfull screed ... but fruitfulness IS the norm, not the exception in the Biblical model.)

The problem now is that Government in its mercy has taken over the role of arbiter of What Is Correct. Much as I dislike using the term, from the beginning, marriage has been the purview of religion; it is covenant-based (which is why adultery was punished so severely: death ends a covenant; this includes killing the breaker of a covenant.) Now it is the stuff of bureaucrats and lawyers. Requiring a state license is as legitimate to the purpose of marriage as collecting a tax on the communion elements every Sunday morning. With its oversight, the beneficent State grants privileges and allowances with the marriage license. Those not so entitled are jealous, and want the same benefits as man-and-wife, but they do not fit the model, the original pattern. What to do? Make everyone see it their way, and see how unFAIR it all is. Had marriage remained the realm of the church (now), this would be far less of a problem, but the bottom line is, if we change the definition, we can all pretend we are all equivalent, and it will be FAIR.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

The naturalist, TENS model offers no such coherence. Whether it is quanta bumping into one another, or whole societies, it is all the accident of Brownian motion writ large: no plan, no purpose, beyond what we Humpty Dumpty for ourselves, and then the definitions don't matter anyway (and no, I do not think I am caricaturing the model). The anyone marrying anyone is not a matter of slippery slopes; it is a matter if it doesn't matter. We are the rule-makers, and we are the deities of dreams.

I wish that I could be more clear in my expression of this. I am still working it out, but despite the various sideroads branching off, there is either the covenant history track, or the accident of nature track. The choice of which model you follow determines your understanding of the Universe, meaning and purpose. Marriage is only one part of it, but if we get that part wrong, the future suffers, as will we.


Copyright © 3/26/2013 Weatherly Hardy


Mr. Hardys' Aardvarks' Plumbline blog main page here.

Aardvark Tees (Movie/TV/anime/cartoon & other related shirts,) here.

Go to Jays' Tee Vee blog main page here.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Sex & Candy. Well ... Not Really

Looks like Walt Disney threw up.


                                         Sex & candy. Well ... Not Really

                                                                 by

                                                                     Jay Agan

During my four year exile in New Jersey, there was a health food store in Wyckoff on Goffle Rd. I would frequent. Once, while searching for a chocolate substitute, I ran across an M&M-like candy called, I kid you not ... Nookies.

One can only wonder what was going on in the minds of the people who thought that name up. Years later, someone said that perhaps they wanted a name people would remember. I certainly have.

All sorts of snide little thoughts ran through my head on seeing it: "Wow! I've been going about it all wrong. I could have as much & when I wanted for only 55 cents a pack! How convenient! When I think of all the time, money & effort I wasted ... etc. etc. ..."

Years later, working at the pistol range, I mentioned this to a regular. Seems he knew about the candy & had a story to tell.

There was a health food store across the street from the church he attended. Church let out & several parishoners & general public were there. Among them a young couple from the congregation. The girl espied the candy & bought a pack. Being a wide eyed innocent she didn't know what the term meant. Her boyfriend rolled his eyes, smiled & refrained from comment.

As they're going out the door, she turns to him smiling in obvious openness /innocence, offers him some candy in front of all & sundry in the store & says:

"Want a Nookie?"

Boyfriend was, to say the very least, embarrassed, mortified.

I leave to your imagination as to the varied reactions of everyone else present.


Article copyright © 7-4-2012 Jay Agan

Go to Main Page here.

This article (only) may be copied in whole or in part. Please cite proper credit & backlink.