The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Dear @LaurenDuca: Could You Please Define ‘Sexually Active’ More Clearly?

Posted on | June 30, 2016 | 51 Comments

 

Dear Ms. Duca:

Please pardon the rather unfortunate circumstances of this introduction, but while I was updating my blog readers on the latest lunacy from herpes-infected feminist Emily Depasse, I noticed you had interviewed Ella Dawson, Poster Child for the Feminist Herpes Epidemic.

If You’re Sexually Active, Getting
Herpes Is Practically Inevitable

Well, no, actually, it’s not “inevitable,” and to see such a misleading headline published at Teen Vogue is disturbing in the extreme.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the rate of “seroprevalance” (positive blood test) for genital herpes (HSV-2) was 6.6% for males ages 20-29, and 14.4% for females ages 20-29. As troubling as these statistics may be, they certainly do not suggest that herpes is “inevitable” for everyone who is “sexually active.”

Whereas it is the goal of herpes-infected feminists like Ella Dawson to “destigmatize” their disease, most people — surely including the young readers of Teen Vogue, to say nothing of these girls’ parents — would prefer to learn how to avoid the disease. As Ms. Dawson learned to her regret, condoms are ineffective at preventing herpes, a fact that exposes “safe sex” as dangerous myth, a misguided idea can be traced historically to the outbreak of the AIDS pandemic among gay men in the 1980s. Permit me here to recommend “The Origins of a Political Epidemic,” in the book Destructive Generation by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. This article was first published in 1983, when the AIDS epidemic was first making headlines, and when gay activists blocked the public-health measures which might have saved many thousands of lives.

“Everyone who preached free love in the Sixties is responsible for AIDS. . . . This idea that it was somehow an accident, a microbe that sort of fell from heaven — absurd. We must face what we did.”
— Camille Paglia

“Free love” — the delusional myth of sex without consequences, sex without commitment or responsibility — killed a lot of people in the 1980s and ’90s, Ms. Duca, including friends of mine. America ought to have learned a lesson from that bitter experience, but instead we have allowed the Condom-Industrial Complex to promote what might be called the Gospel of Latex Salvation: “Party on, kids. Just use a condom.”

Well, how did that plan work out for Ella Dawson?

“I was the editor of my campus sex magazine. I had some one-night stands. I explored my sexuality and what I wanted, and I met a guy at a party and he was amazing. He was super-charismatic and sexy and funny and brilliant and I fell really hard for him. We started seeing each other and then, three weeks later, I woke up with an outbreak of genital herpes.”
— Ella Dawson, September 2015

In other words, Ella Dawson was rolling the dice, ignorant of the risk despite the fact that she was majoring in Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at elite Wesleyan University (annual tuition $47,972). For that kind of money, you might think her professors would have bothered to inform this young genius that (a) condoms don’t prevent herpes, and (b) promiscuity increases your risk of being infected. Ella Dawson said she was “shocked” by her herpes diagnosis, which “didn’t make sense, as I’d never had unprotected sex in my life. . . . How could I have caught something when I had always been so careful?” Ella Dawson was a fool, who is now foolishly encouraging other young women to emulate her folly, and why is Teen Vogue assisting in this foolish project, Ms. Duca?

While it is true that anyone could become infected the first time they have sex, if their first partner already has the disease, anyone proficient in basic arithmetic can see that a combination of caution and a knowledge of risk factors can greatly decrease the likelihood of getting herpes. In 2010, the CDC reported that the herpes rate “was nearly twice as high among women (21%) as men (11%), and more than three times higher among African-Americans (39%) than whites (12%). The infection rate among African-American women was 48%.” For obvious reasons, risk is correlated with the number of sexual partners you have. The CDC found that about 27% of those who reported 10 or more partners during their lifetime are infected with herpes, whereas the rate was only 4% among people who reported having had just one sex partner ever. In other words, the difference between having one partner and having 10 or more partners is a 675% increase in your risk of contracting herpes.

If we analyze Ella Dawson’s story in the context of epidemiological data, we realize that when she began having one-night stands, each new partner represented an increase in her risk. We may suppose that Ella Dawson was not seeking partners with no previous sexual experience, and we may further suppose that the “amazing . . . super-charismatic and sexy” man who infected Ella Dawson with herpes had previously been with a lot of sexual partners. What was the total prior number of partners for each of them on that night in 2013 she “met a guy at a party”? According to the CDC, the genital herpes rate for males with fewer than five previous partners is 7.3%, which rises to 10.1% for males with 5 to 9 previous partners, and 19.1% for males with 10 or more previous partners.

In other words, to reach even a 1-in-5 chance of having herpes, a guy typically has to be with a lot of different women. You see, Ms. Duca, that the facts completely debunk the claim in your Teen Vogue headline that herpes is “practically inevitable” for anyone who is “sexually active.” And your cooperation with Ella Dawson’s effort to “destigmatize” herpes — spreading the message that this incurable disease should be considered innocuous because it’s “practically inevitable” — puts you in service of a propaganda technique known as The Big Lie.

There is no such thing as “safe sex.” That phrase was born during the 1980s as a result of the gay community’s belated recognition that the AIDS epidemic had been spread by, uh, specific types of sexual behavior that resulted in the transmission of a virus through the exchange of bodily fluids, to explain this problem in the most polite way possible.

“The present epidemic of AIDS among promiscuous urban gay males is occurring because of the unprecedented promiscuity of the last ten to fifteen years. . . . It has been mass participation in this lifestyle that has led to the creation of an increasingly disease-polluted pool of sexual partners.”
— Michael Callen and Richard Berkowitz, 1982

“I didn’t become a homosexual so I could use condoms.”
— Konstantin Berlandt, 1983

In 1982, the CDC reported that that the “median number of lifetime male sexual partners” for gay men diagnosed with AIDS was 1,160.

Repeat: One thousand one hundred sixty.

To comprehend what that means, if a man was diagnosed with AIDS at age 30, after having 1,160 partners since becoming sexually active at age 18, he would have had 97 different partners in an average year, i.e., nearly two new partners every week, or eight new partners per month. This was the “at-risk” population among whom the epidemic was incubated in the late 1970s and early 1980s (a story told in Randy Shilts’s book And the Band Played On). Extreme promiscuity under conditions of almost complete anonymity (i.e., bathhouses, “glory holes,” nightclub pickups, etc.) had become so widely accepted in gay culture in the 1970s that when public-health officials first urged gay men to use condoms during the, uh, specific types of sexual behavior by which the virus was spread, these official recommendations were suppressed.

Bill Kraus, a gay activist in San Francisco, was shocked by the refusal to publicize the earliest AIDS research findings: “How can these people do this? How can they try to suppress this data?” Kraus said in an interview quoted by Collier and Horowitz. “They intimidate people into silence by saying that they’re homophobic, anti-sex, and all kind of other things people don’t want to be called.” Gay radicals falsely blamed the Reagan administration for this epidemic and, in the ensuing propaganda wars, a bizarre new myth emerged: “Everyone is at risk of AIDS! We must teach ‘safe sex’ in every school and distribute free condoms to everybody’s kids!” Guess what happened to parents who raised common-sense objections to this agenda? They were called “homophobic, anti-sex, and all kind of other things people don’t want to be called.”

Well, Ms. Duca, you only graduated from college three years ago, so you have no direct memory of how the AIDS crisis of the 1980s helped fuel the Culture Wars of the 1990s, and I suspect your left-wing professors at Fordham and NYU never explained it to you the way I’ve explained it here. My purpose in relating this history to you is to explain how it was that Ella Dawson, an intelligent young woman majoring in Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at an elite university, could have been as ignorant as she was of the herpes risk. Because the “safe sex” ideology was created in response to AIDS — a disease that was predominantly transmitted via the exchange of bodily fluids between gay men during specific types of sexual behavior — the Gospel of Latex Salvation has tended to omit certain truths that are of particular interest to young heterosexual women. Examine this data, Ms. Duca:

Herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV2)
seroprevalence, U.S. females
Total (ages 14-49) …….. 20.9
Age 20-29 ………………… 14.4
Age 30-39 ………………… 25.2
White ………………………. 15.9
Black ………………………. 48.0
1 lifetime partner ……….. 5.4
2-4 lifetime partners …. 18.8
5-9 lifetime partners …. 21.8
10+ lifetime partners …. 37.1

The total number of lifetime partners is the controlling risk factor in the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases. By simple arithmetic, you see that the overall HSV2 infection rate (20.9%) is a little bit higher than midway between the rate for women with 2 to 4 partners (18.8%) and the rate for women with 5 to 9 partners (21.8%). In other words, the average U.S. female (ages 14-49) has probably had five or six sexual partners. A similar calculation reveals that a typical U.S. woman in her 20s has had no more than four partners. Your Teen Vogue headline claim that it is “practically inevitable” for anyone who is “sexually active” to become infected with herpes is not only false (e.g., even 63% of women with 10 or more partners remain herpes-free), but it also makes the dangerously misleading implication that there is nothing a young woman can do to reduce her risk of herpes. You describe the young fool Ella Dawson as someone who is “spreading sexual health,” yet her message — “Herpes is so common! More or less everybody has herpes! Let’s fight stigma!” — is certainly not healthy. Ella Dawson conflates HSV1 (cold sores) with HSV2 (genital herpes) as if the difference was irrelevant. She does not discuss the actual prevalence of HSV2 or the correlation of risk and the number of partners. In terms of prevention, all she says is “get tested regularly.”

Look at the data, Ms. Duca. If we know that females ages 20-29 have a 14.4% herpes rate, and that the infection rate for white females (15.9%) is substantially below the overall rate (20.9%), does mere bad luck suffice to explain how Ella Dawson got infected at age 20?

If one in six people had genital herpes, how was I the only person I knew to do the ultimate walk of shame from the student health center clutching a stack of STD pamphlets? . . . On a logical level I knew that getting herpes had nothing to do with my actions and didn’t say anything about my character; it was simply luck of the draw.

Alas, “luck of the draw” tends to become cumulative the more often you draw. Never in my life had I seen a poker hand in which a full house got beat by four of a kind until the night in Wheeling, W.Va., when I decided to shove all-in with a full house and . . . Well, “luck of the draw.”

Play enough poker and you’re likely to see even the most improbable things happen at least once, and the odds of me winning with a full house were much better than Ella Dawson’s odds of avoiding herpes that night in 2013 when she met Mr. Amazing Charismatic Sexy Guy at a party.

Ella Dawson can’t stop writing about the guy, who she says tricked her into thinking she had given him herpes, rather than the other way around, and really, how can we possibly know what the truth is? How many different women had he been with before he met her? How many guys had she been with before she met him? If Ella Dawson had never met this guy, but had instead continued her pattern of one-night stands and “exploring her sexuality,” wasn’t it likely that she would have gotten herpes anyway? The risks are cumulative, which is why Ella Dawson’s dismissive “luck of the draw” remark about her herpes infection is as wrong as the “practically inevitable” headline on your article, Ms. Duca.

There is no such thing as “safe sex.” We can be thankful to Ella Dawson for destroying the Gospel of Latex Salvation, but a herpes infection is never an accident, and Ella Dawson was not the victim of “a microbe that sort of fell from heaven,” as Paglia said of the AIDS crisis. Sexually transmitted diseases are correlated to behavior, and thus do not occur randomly. Like other behavioral phenomena — automobile accidents, for example — the fact that we cannot entirely eliminate risk does not mean we should not try to reduce risk. However, when we are discussing risks related to sexual behavior, we are apt to find ourselves accused of Thoughtcrime by people who insist they have a “right” to have sex with whoever they choose, however they choose to do it, without regard to avoidable risk — including the risk of spreading disease.

“Slut-shaming” is the new homophobia. The same way some gay activists in the 1980s used accusations of “homophobia” to suppress information that might have saved thousands of lives, now we see feminists deploy accusatory language — “misogyny,” “rape culture,” etc. — to suppress information that might help young women avoid risky sexual behavior. When you suggest to Teen Vogue readers that all “sexually active” women get herpes, this conveys the idea that it is futile to try to reduce their risk of becoming infected. Yet the vast majority of young women do not have HSV2, and most never will. Why? Because most women do not have a large number of sexual partners. Most women do not have one-night stands. Your headline implies that “sexually active” is synonymous with the high-risk behavior of recklessly pursuing hookups. Why? Because you’re afraid you might hurt somebody’s feelings? Because you can’t tell Teen Vogue readers to avoid dangerous habits?

“Oh, well,” you say, “herpes isn’t all that bad, and I’m careful, so there’s no chance of me getting AIDS.” Fine. Whatever. Here’s something to think about: Antibiotic-Resistant Gonorrhea.

This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions!
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies!
Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness!
Earthquakes! Volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

How many omens of doom do we need? How much more Old Testament wrath-of-God stuff will it take before people finally wake up?

Sincerely,
Robert Stacy McCain




 

Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

51 Responses to “Dear @LaurenDuca: Could You Please Define ‘Sexually Active’ More Clearly?”

  1. Eternity Matters
    June 30th, 2016 @ 10:17 pm

    This was an amazing post. It should be must reading in every “comprehensive” sex ed class.

  2. mole
    June 30th, 2016 @ 10:52 pm

    And the band played on should be sent to everyone who wanders into a STD clinic for treatment.

    Theres an old saying (Nelson i think) “Only numbers can annihilate”, in the case of STDs its much the same. It was numbers that decimated the gay men in the 80’s. I fear something similar for the tinder generation.

    Also if shes studying sexuality shouldnt she at least have a grounding in the hazards associated with, you know sex?
    Or would that harsh her mellow?

    Heres the easiest way to get genital herpes if you are ignorant.
    http://www.healthassist.net/conditions/herpes.shtml

    “Nevertheless, either type can infect both oral and genital areas. Genital herpes can be caused by both HSV-1 and HSV-2. And signs and symptoms of initial genital herpes caused by HSV-1 or HSV-2 are indistinguishable. However, subsequent recurrences are more frequent with HSV-2.

    Oral HSV-2 although possible, occurs very rarely.”

    In other words someone with a cold sore shouldnt go near genitals, so her waving the talisman of “condom” is silly.

  3. GUEST
    June 30th, 2016 @ 11:36 pm

    Highly recommend “Unprotected” by Dr. Miriam Grossman. On the list for both my kids when they get older.

  4. java
    July 1st, 2016 @ 12:13 am

    knowing what is written here on the homosexual movement, I am appalled that so many people are supporting soros-driven homosexualism as they are now. Given that immunodeficient diseases have no cure (Lupus and other of this type have no cure) the only thing that the scientific community could come up with is a drug that allows you to have random sex like in the 70s with a minor chance to get aids. This expensive drug was made especially for the gay community to allow them to keep on screwing each other senseless like they used to (and spread all sorts of other sexual related diseases in the meantime) and with this gender fluid bullshit they have also more chances to infect heterosexual females. How can someone still support anything that comes from the homo community is Beyond me. Homosexualism is an ideology more Dangerous and lethal than communism.

  5. Joe Joe
    July 1st, 2016 @ 12:50 am

    Agreed.

  6. Joe Joe
    July 1st, 2016 @ 12:50 am

    “On a logical level I knew that getting herpes had nothing to do with my actions”

    On a logical level, herpes had EVERYTHING to do with her actions.

  7. Daniel Freeman
    July 1st, 2016 @ 2:35 am

    You know, I could be mis-remembering, but I think that’s actually higher than the rate among East German women after WWII — and they spent a couple of years being gang raped by Soviet soldiers.

  8. Joe Joe
    July 1st, 2016 @ 3:41 am

    How to stamp out cultural Marxism in a single generation
    http://personalliberty.com/how-to-stamp-out-cultural-marxism-in-a-single-generation/

    Feel no shame: Social justice relies on shaming
    tactics, usually by slandering an opponent with a label that does not really apply to him, in order to control his arguments and behavior. If you don’t care about being called a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a misogynist, a homophobe, etc., then there is not really much that they can do to you.

    Do not self-censor: This does not mean you should go out of your way to be antagonistic or act like a jerk, but the thought police have power only if you give power to them. Say what you want to say when you want to say it, and do it with a smile. Let the PC police froth and scream until they have an aneurism. Cultural Marxists are generally weaklings. They avoid physical confrontation like they avoid logic, so why fear them?

    Realize there is no such thing as white privilege or male privilege: In reality, there is only institutionalized “privilege” for victim-status groups. There is no privilege for whites, males, white males or straight white males. When confronted with such claims, demand to see proof of such privilege. Invariably, you will get a long list of first world problems and complaints backed by nothing but easily debunked talking points and misrepresented statistics. People should not feel guilty for being born the way they are, and this includes us “white male devils.”

    (More at the link.)

  9. TheOtherAndrewB
    July 1st, 2016 @ 6:53 am

    I guess Teen Vogue readers can expect another thoughtful, reasoned article from Ms. Dawson in a few years–“I drank a fifth of vodka every night since I was 17 and am subject to frequent blackouts–why alcoholism is inevitable for all social drinkers, so you might as well embrace it! Oh, and it says absolutely nothing about me that I am willing to sell my body for a bottle of Night Train!”

  10. DonaldDouglas
    July 1st, 2016 @ 7:22 am

    ICYMI: Defiant Promiscuous Homosexuality: Surge in Barebacking Threatens Resurgence of AIDS Epidemic: http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/defiant-promiscuous-homosexuality-surge.html

  11. CrustyB
    July 1st, 2016 @ 7:29 am

    You have to love the dichotomy.

    Promiscuity is OK! Homosexuality is OK! Normal, healthy, natural! And, please, get tested for herpes, AIDs, meningitis, colon cancer, etc. because, um, discrimination or germs are anti-love or something.

  12. NeoWayland
    July 1st, 2016 @ 9:13 am

    I’m considerably more “sex positive” than most of the posters here. In my Corporate Clone days, I collected pelts. It was another way of controlling other people. Believe me, I’m an expert when I speak here.

    Sex without the emotional connection is masturbation. And just as fulfilling.

    I call it the pillow talk problem. Simply put, what do we talk about after f…ing?

    The Greeks had words to describe the different dimensions of love. Simple truth. The more of those dimensions you make part of your relationship, the better the sex.

    Sex is more than exchanging fluids and viruses and bacteria. Sex is about life. Sex can make your life better. Or it can drain your passion to nearly nothing.

    Your choice.

    ETA: It’s obvious that the better you know the other person, the less likely you are to get infected. I totally agree with conservatives there.

  13. marcus tullius cicero
    July 1st, 2016 @ 9:41 am

    …guess Herpes is just another “benefit” from promiscuity!

  14. Steve Skubinna
    July 1st, 2016 @ 9:51 am

    “On a logical level I knew that stepping off that ladder had nothing to do with my broken leg…”

    “On a logical level I knew that lighting up a cigarette at the gas pump had nothing to do with ending up in the burn ward…”

    She uses words like “logical” with no apparent understanding of what they mean.

  15. Daniel Freeman
    July 1st, 2016 @ 10:50 am

    I say that since we’re already doing the time, we might as well do the crime, and actually create a Patriarchy. Top on our list should be revoking female suffrage; huge mistake, give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.

  16. Jim Christian
    July 1st, 2016 @ 11:25 am

    The comments to her video are disgusting “You’re so strong, so smart, so wise”. She’s not wise, smart, or strong and she’s trying to pass it off to the guy, who she may as well have passed it onto. She doesn’t know. These surveys they take in college, if it’s a secular-style, State or Community College, the women are so completely indoctrinated and programmed toward slutting it up, it’s unbelievable.

    As regards surveys, Jimmy’s Rule, my rule, is as follows: when it comes to Sexual Studies, Women’s Studies or any other “Studies” major, those particular women surveyed give an answer, be it 4, or 6 or 8 or 10, whatever. With these types of women, you can safely estimate upwards by squaring the number given by these women. For example, if her answer is 8, reality is 64. All other women in public colleges, you may safely triple their stated number of partners. Promiscuous women are promiscuous, but they lie their little (most of them are fat, actually) fannies off in shame for what pigs they really are. It is EASY for women, far more difficult for men of their own age, to get laid. Hence, women lie their asses off low, the boys probably lie their asses off high. When it comes to these surveys trust me, NO ONE is telling the truth. Yet, funding and policy is formed from their results. And how stupid is THAT?

    Hence, disease, hence, pregnancies, hence abortions, hence children with no Dad, hence, hence, hence. The damage showered on society, on our women, and on our medical system and tens of millions of children is incalculable. One wonders if the idea was to recruit women into all this at as early an age as possible so teachers, professors and the rest would have first crack at them. Otherwise, why the societal indoctrination and encouragement to little girls from age 10 onward?

    So, yes, Ms. Dawson, you ARE a big old slut. Yes, Ms. Duca, you are a slut. Sorry! You are. You can likely count on damage to your womb and cervix as HPV (warts) frequently ride in with the Charismatic Stick you rode that night, or some other on whatever night. Also, the HIV won’t show itself for a few years either.

    And stop encouraging those your junior to follow in your
    footsteps unless it is to discourage them from slutty one-night stands. THAT is the very best way to avoid all this disaster. Ye Gawds, they were sent to college to get stupid and they are SO stupid, they think we buy into their horseshit.

  17. Joe Joe
    July 1st, 2016 @ 12:53 pm

    If we even try, the Southern Poverty Law Center will label us all “extremists”.

  18. DeadMessenger
    July 1st, 2016 @ 3:28 pm

    Yes, it was absolutely brilliant, and should be reprinted and distributed far and wide.

    And if publik skools insist upon usurping the parents’ right to educate their own kids on the topic of sex, they should at least do it by distributing tee shirts emblazoned “Antibiotic Resistant Gonorrhea” rather than distributing condoms.

    (Let’s just get this out of the way: I heard that Resistant Gonorrhea is going to open for the Syphillitics when they tour their new album “Chancre” this year.)

  19. Daniel Freeman
    July 1st, 2016 @ 3:38 pm

    So then we retaliate by excluding them from Patriarchy meetings, and also removing them from our mailing list. Boom.

  20. Dear @LaurenDuca: Could You Please Define ‘Sexually Active’ More Clearly? | Living in Anglo-America
    July 1st, 2016 @ 3:39 pm

    […] Dear @LaurenDuca: Could You Please Define ‘Sexually Active’ More Clearly? […]

  21. DeadMessenger
    July 1st, 2016 @ 3:44 pm

    I’m able to make rational voting decisions based upon facts and data, but sadly, I have to admit that many, if not most, women do not. So yeah, suffrage has to go. I’d gladly give up my right in order to keep people who vote according to emotion away from the ballot box.

    Stacy’s final tweet, above, clearly shows why we all must vote Trump this year. (Assuming that the delegates don’t decide to do something dumb in Cleveland, such as push Trump over the cliff in favor of Romney. Bangor ought to show the stupidity of that at this point.)

  22. DeadMessenger
    July 1st, 2016 @ 3:47 pm

    No, the Patriarchy should make its own list of extremists, and SPLC should be at the top. And maybe Tumblr second, lol.

  23. DeadMessenger
    July 1st, 2016 @ 3:58 pm

    …willing to sell my STD-riddled body for a bottle of Night Train

    Ftfy

  24. DeadMessenger
    July 1st, 2016 @ 4:02 pm

    Well, that was harsh.

    But accurate.

  25. Joe Guelph
    July 1st, 2016 @ 4:50 pm

    What my Pagan friend said above. Well put!

  26. Adobe_Walls
    July 1st, 2016 @ 6:36 pm

    What’s wrong with being an extremist?

  27. Adobe_Walls
    July 1st, 2016 @ 6:37 pm

    SPLC is in the top five or ten of several different lists.

  28. NeoWayland
    July 1st, 2016 @ 6:43 pm

    Thank you.

  29. Joe Joe
    July 1st, 2016 @ 7:00 pm

    Nothing in my book. But DHS is another story…

  30. Joe Joe
    July 1st, 2016 @ 7:01 pm

    We’ll also have to exclude DHS. I’m sure Jeh-Jeh will be crying in his light beer.

  31. Joe Joe
    July 1st, 2016 @ 7:01 pm

    Oh, and Patriarchy meetings must have beer. A good microbrew or some Sam Adams.

  32. Joe Joe
    July 1st, 2016 @ 7:03 pm

    Speaking of “extremist” labeling:

    Profs: Orlando massacre caused by ‘toxic masculinity,’ ‘extremist discourses’
    http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7790

  33. Sparafucile
    July 1st, 2016 @ 7:44 pm

    … in the defense of liberty, (it) is no vice.

  34. DarkstarSF
    July 1st, 2016 @ 8:04 pm

    Somebody got banned from Twitter again.

  35. JT
    July 1st, 2016 @ 8:40 pm

    Second, the Not_RSMcCain account is suspended.

  36. Daniel Freeman
    July 1st, 2016 @ 8:42 pm

    That’s what, #4?

  37. Daniel Freeman
    July 1st, 2016 @ 8:45 pm

    I see the problem: he quoted a feminist accurately.

  38. Jeanette Victoria ?????????
    July 1st, 2016 @ 8:47 pm

    I’ve lost count the number of accounts I lost. I’ve given up as the loons get locked accounts banned that don’t even mention them. Twitter has become a fascist wonderland of PC speech. Progressives have openly said that Conservatives shouldn’t be in public let alone have a job.

  39. Jeanette Victoria ?????????
    July 1st, 2016 @ 8:48 pm

    Have you seen these women as they age…it isn’t pretty

  40. Jeanette Victoria ?????????
    July 1st, 2016 @ 8:50 pm

    I’m with you on that account as well Giving women the vote has been one unending nightmare of pushing the envelope of sexual degenercy

  41. Jeanette Victoria ?????????
    July 1st, 2016 @ 11:07 pm

    I think it is the 3rd

  42. thesickmanofeurope_com
    July 2nd, 2016 @ 2:00 am

    “…. If you don’t care about being called a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a misogynist, a homophobe, etc., then there is not really much that they can do to you…..“

    They can do a LOT to you….they can get Daddy Government involved….Just look at how “causing offence” in Britain will earn you some time in the clink…
    Soon (if I’m correct about the disdain that American University students have for the 1st Amendment) will be the same in the US.
    THIS IS the future of Western women…..Fat, Masculine, diseased ridden, hairy, entitled, toxic, slutty….
    She will of course be this way because shaming or triggering her in anyway will earn you a ticket to re-education camp.
    What feminists know…..is that this will simply increase the value of feminine, skinny, pleasant and healthy girls…..hence their effort to “destigmatize” EVERYTHING that is revolting about them.

  43. java
    July 2nd, 2016 @ 2:24 am

    I was reading another blog, run by so called ‘social conservatives’ and the attitude there was completely remissive, despite listing all the current problems (transgender bathrooms, big anus power etc). One of them even wrote that he tried to talk to a millennial (which of course was completely on the socially liberal side and negatively biased towards conservative people) to understand better the homosexual position in relation to religious people (which sounded a lot like ‘to learn to submit better’).
    I believe there is another type of ‘dhimmitude’ that is not related to islam. We should find another word for willing submission to big anus agenda.
    Needless to say I had to leave since I felt robbed in my own home.
    If this is the attitude you will never win. First stop using transgender as a word. The correct term is transexual. There is only sex, gender is a bullshit term invented by the left. The only gender you should acknowledge is the grammatical one that can be male, female and neutral. It does not apply to persons.

  44. Joe Joe
    July 2nd, 2016 @ 2:30 am

    Preach it!

  45. Joe Joe
    July 2nd, 2016 @ 2:31 am

    Until they put is in jail for it, we have to speak up.

  46. Southern Air Pirate
    July 2nd, 2016 @ 9:13 am

    Remember that for most of these folks, if it wasn’t for the evil Rethuglicans and their evil marriage to the Judeo-Christian Theocracy that wants to rule the world; well we would have had science and it would have provided a cure for both HIV, AIDS, and all the other sexually transmitted diseases. The cute funny about that is we have been looking for a cure to the cold and flu since the 1918 pandemic. With what level of success? Then as the author notes, some of these more common and easy to treat social diseases are coming back as resistant to science and it’s “wonder drugs”. Couldn’t be from the fact that some of the same people stay in circles to get infected again and again. Nope, it’s the fact that science isn’t being funded because Rethuglicans hate science.

  47. librarygryffon
    July 2nd, 2016 @ 10:19 am

    At least with no women’s suffrage, we wouldn’t have to deal with the Democrats insisting that we have to vote with our “lady parts”, and that the only thing of interest to us is access to free birth control and abortions and free child care and other goodies so we can raise hordes of fatherless children.

  48. Commie Dopehead Sex Maniacs : The Other McCain
    July 2nd, 2016 @ 10:31 am

    […] critical views about the early push to provide contraceptives to UC students, in the context of what I wrote Thursday about “sexually active” people and the herpes epidemic. However, the reader also mentioned Dr. Powelson’s pioneering research on the effects of […]

  49. Eternity Matters
    July 2nd, 2016 @ 6:37 pm

    “Just walked into my 17-year-old son’s room and
    said, “Three words: Antibiotic-Resistant Gonorrhea.””

    That is some seriously good parenting. “ARG” is right. I wonder how the Leftists’ “comprehensive” sex education classes are ignoring/spinning that?

  50. Adobe_Walls
    July 2nd, 2016 @ 10:16 pm

    An exceedingly sad and depressing story.