This series of posts is going to examine the hyper-politically incorrect reality of sex between American men and women. Don’t read it if that bothers you, or if you only are interested in energy and the markets. I am going to pull no punches nor sugar coat anything. Rational co-examination of the facts and opinions are welcome. Any ad hominem attacks will be deleted.
---------------------------
Arnold had a "love" child, as did presidential candidate John Edwards. Governor Spitzer of New York probably (hopefully) wore a condom with his lover.
Notice the rage within the feminist community at Edwards and Schwarzenegger that seems to be lacking when directed at other politicians who had affairs?
Know why that is?
Because these men and their lovers did not abort their un-born children.
That’s it. Nothing more to it than that (well, other than that elitist feminists feel that the mothers of these children are beneath them). See, the feminists will look the other way if a pro-abortion pol has an affair... Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton et al.... but don't let that baby be born!
Think I am out of my mind? Only because you have not pondered this issue. Follow my reasoning. When people have sex, pregnancy often results. There have been unlimited numbers of famous and powerful politicians having affairs with nubile young women.
And these are the only 2 pregnancies? Out of thousands of affairs?
Bullshit. There were LOTS of pregnancies. Rather than face up to the responsibilities of the result of their affairs, the other guys were complicit in the murder of their own children.
And what is our response? The U.S. is going to indict John Edwards (and for all I know he violated federal campaign laws).
No one has come to Governor Schwarzenegger’s rescue. Governor Spitizer had Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz come to his aid, with Dershowitz telling American’s to “grow up”. Liberals give other liberals cover, especially if they "do the right thing" and abort the baby!
Allow me to tell you my vision of the truth: If men and women are in close proximity for any length of time they will have sex. The feminists will tell you that this is about powerful men and their subordinates… someone should remind them that correlation does not imply causation. There is no “blame”, dear feminists. Nature, G-d, the Universe… however you prefer to define this has a simple set of rules. These are the rules:
If men and women are brought together, they will have sex. It does not matter who is in charge.
If men and women have sex, it will absolutely, positively result in pregnancies.
The vast majority of pregnancies of the rich and powerful and famous have been terminated. Why? Because of the fear these men have of their wives and divorce, and the female electorate. A fear so powerful, these men are willing to be complicit in the murder of their own unborn child.
One of the unintended consequences of technology is that babies that would have been born because paternity identification was not perfectly certain are now being aborted. How screwy is that?
On the subject of “destroying a family”… how is a man having sex outside of a marriage worse than a woman filing for divorce because of “irreconcilable differences” when there are children involved? Is a lover more damaging to a family than a divorce lawyer? Is a lover more of a betrayal than a divorce lawyer? I am not terribly religious... but it seems to me that sex is a venal sin while abortion is somewhat more serious...
Sometimes I think I am the only normal person left.
More on this soon...