I shall probably again receive some abuse from American trolls for "interfering in our business", but as I have pointed out enough times American "problems" tend to affect us as well down the road, so ....
This week the latest flavour of the month in the Republican Party Primaries, Rick Santorum, announced (again) that sex was for procreative purposes and not for recreative purposes. We also heard the usual salutary things about the lifestyle choices of people having the proverbial sex all over the place usw (Newt Gingrich, please note ....).
This is a guy who has seven kids. In this massively overpopulated world that will go down well on the world stage if he does become President (may the non-existent God help us if he does ....). He can have seven kids, he is the most powerful man in the world, therefore I can have seven kids as well. This will go down a bundle in countries like Pakistan where oversized families and poverty go hand in hand, and the need for cutting population growth is urgent.
My guess is that Mr. Santorum has had sex seven times. If not, the taint of hypocrisy will start to sneak in (well I was trying to create more of the species, I wasn't enjoying it ....)!
Which brings me belatedly to male potency drugs. When they first appeared on the scene, it was meant to revive the flagging sex lives of men in their later years (nice polite phrase, I like it as I fall into the category!). It was carefully prescribed by doctors for use. All well and good.
The idea then is a man in his 60s and 70s can enjoy sex again? Not if you are Rick Santorum (henceforth RS)! The idea of sex according to RS is to create children, period!
The fact is nonetheless (whether idiots like the aforesaid RS like it or not) that the vast majority of older men on these potency drugs want(ed) them so that they could/can resume their sex lives with their life partners, usually women of their own generation. Which normally entails being past child-bearing age (unless they have been hanging round that infamous doctor in Italy who indulges in fertility treatment with women in their later years).
If they are not doing it for pleasure, why are they doing it at all? According to RS's theory they must be disgusting dirty old men. They should know what sex was meant to be for! And their wives should not encourage them either. For they too will be soiled by such actions.
It therefore follows that the only men who should, following RS's theory, be allowed access to Viagra are older men with young wives (smirk, smirk ....) or young men with potency problems (why somebody in their 20s would ever need it, I do not understand, but that is another issue entirely). For anyone else it should be banned! Right????
Could you seriously vote for someone who is pushing this agenda?
In Europe any politician who came up with this nonsense would be laughed off-stage! I hope so, anyway. It has an "only in America" feel to it.
Of course RS is a Roman Catholic, and this nonsense about birth control (if you don't want children, don't have sex) has been the ridiculous unsuccessful mantra of the Roman Catholic church for a generation. In Germany, a country where 40-50% of the population are either atheists or agnostics it would not have too substantial an impact (and anyway, the birth-rate here could do to rise a few points). In the US (less than 10% are atheists or agnostics) it is more important. Perhaps ....
Anyway if RS does become President and decides to push this through the legislature on the principle that it is what the Vatican expects, maybe he should also talk to the Vatican about a few other important issues - like the fact they opposed the war in Iraq and would oppose any attacks on Iran!!!!
Somehow though we are here into the double-speak agenda. We will of course observe what the Vatican tells us when it suits us - in other words!
Yes, well. Hopefully the American voters, even given the lousy choice available to them, will have more sense that they sometimes show, and do what the people of Pennsylvania did the last time this idiot stood in an election. That said 41% of the people who voted supported him as a losing candidate, and that is still a ridiculously high number - 4.1% I could almost understand ....
No comments:
Post a Comment