The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Supreme Court Split on Display of the Two Tits

June 28, 2005 | 51 Comments

Washington, D.C., June 27, 2005
Special to The Raving Atheist

A deeply divided Supreme Court issued split decisions on the governmental display of a woman’s breasts, allowing a titty show at the Texas capitol but barring them at two Kentucky courthouses.

In the Texas case, the court ruled that hooters can be shown if they’re part of a really artsy display of naked, classy broads that pretends it’s not just all about promoting sex. “Throughout history, the female form has been celebrated in literature and great art,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. “As long the government completely confuses the issue with some fancy horseshit about romance and

Comments

51 Responses to “Supreme Court Split on Display of the Two Tits”

  1. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
    June 28th, 2005 @ 12:27 am

    Court Splits on Ten Commandments Displays

    High Court Bars Display of Ten Commandments at Ky. Courthouses, but OKs Them at Texas Capitol

  2. SMR
    June 28th, 2005 @ 12:59 am

    LMAO!

    I love this story! It’s amazing what you come up with when you change a few words :)

    Just found this site BTW… think I might have to stick around.

  3. Graeme Anfinson
    June 28th, 2005 @ 3:52 am

    Funny stuff. Checked out the site after seeing “the god who wasn’t there” movie. I am bookmarking this one, nice work.

  4. MBains
    June 28th, 2005 @ 8:40 am

    the Texas display served a “mixed-up and cleverly disguised jiz-related purpose.”

    {sigh}

    Aren’t they all?

  5. GeneralZod
    June 28th, 2005 @ 8:59 am

    Definitely stick around. There is some really good stuff here!

  6. Nicole
    June 28th, 2005 @ 9:05 am

    Why the hell is the supreme court of America concerning itself with titty bars? Do they not have enough to do? Just wait until Bush appoints his new lackys…I wonder if they’ll outlaw halter tops and push up bras too.

  7. Spork Boy
    June 28th, 2005 @ 9:11 am

    I’m crying from laughing so hard.

  8. Jahrta
    June 28th, 2005 @ 10:11 am

    it’s all a smoke and mirror show to divert attention away from the real issues. sadly enough, it’s working as the vast majority of people in america today are too stupid to live.

  9. slinky
    June 28th, 2005 @ 10:54 am

    That definately put the whole issue into perspective for me. Slogan of the day: Boobs for Bush

  10. AK
    June 28th, 2005 @ 11:33 am

    LOL! OMFG! ROFL! LMAO! And all those other acronyms of internet hilarity!

    I think that NOW is the time to reign in Judges that “legislate from the bench” ;)

  11. glenstonecottage
    June 29th, 2005 @ 12:07 am

    I’m normally opposed to censorship, but I wish somebody would cover up the two biggest boobs in America today:

    Bu**sh** and Cheney.

  12. Strange Doctrines
    June 29th, 2005 @ 10:22 am

    You’re lucky this post has socially redeeming value.

  13. Strange Doctrines
    June 29th, 2005 @ 10:22 am

    You’re lucky this post has socially redeeming value.

  14. hermesten
    June 29th, 2005 @ 10:45 am

    Glenstone, I don’t agree that Bush and Cheney are the two biggest boobs in America today. Bush is, of course, the hands down winner not only for today, but throughout the entirety of American history, and perhaps even world history as well. However, the competition for second biggest boob is pretty intense. For instance, I think it debatable that Cheney is a bigger boob than Rice or DeLay, or even Frist. I am assuming in all this that your ranking is a function of actual “boobery” and not just the rank or power of the office.

  15. MBains
    June 29th, 2005 @ 11:18 am

    I’ve already had my say on this one (LOL!).

    Here’s a new tid-bit that I want to post on TRA’s site because this is the last place I saw a real discussion on the issue and no one (that I recall anyhow) had mentioned this site.

    Atheists in Foxholes do indeed exist.

    boob-a-la!
    boob-a-la!

    er, L8

  16. athana
    June 29th, 2005 @ 9:07 pm

    How ’bout this?

    A deeply divided Supreme Court issued split decisions on the governmental display of that pimply, purple, pus-thing that hangs between a man’s legs, allowing a limpy-doodle pus-thing show at the Texas capitol but barring them at two Kentucky courthouses.

    In the Texas case, the court ruled that men’s ding-dongs can be shown if they

  17. Jennifer
    June 29th, 2005 @ 11:42 pm

    Oh MBains, what a great link. Thanks you!

  18. Jennifer
    June 29th, 2005 @ 11:51 pm

    I think athana, REALLY REALLY doesn’t like the word hooters.

  19. IMAO
    June 30th, 2005 @ 12:28 am

    The Carnival of Comedy!

    Greetings imao.us readers! Since Dreamworks canceled my War of the Worlds press tour because many have come to believe I…

  20. Mutt
    June 30th, 2005 @ 5:50 am

    The Atheist might ‘enjoy’ a perusal of this story of posthumous brainwashing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_west/4634961.stm

  21. Athana
    June 30th, 2005 @ 8:29 am

    Jennifer, wha’d I say?!? Don’t you get all doodly inside when you see those pimply pus-things hanging between mens’ legs? You don’t get all chilly when you see a man with red silk tassles tied to his tits dancing buck naked with his teensy chihuahua dong slapping against his pimply legs?

    Oh. What a boob I am. Sorry. You must be a lesbian. You prefer talk about FEMALE boobs (Webster: “boob: a stupid person”).

    Oh. Or I guess you could be bisexual, in which case you’d fuck over — er, excuse me, FUCK, either sex.

  22. Athana
    June 30th, 2005 @ 8:37 am

    “Male Dong Display Splits Supreme Court.” Sorry. Forgot the title to my article (see above).

  23. Athana
    June 30th, 2005 @ 9:41 am

    What a sweet, fuck(ed) boob (Webster’s: “Boob: Stupid person”) you are, Dear Raving Atheist! You’re just an adorable hoot(er) (Webster: “Hoot: to cry out in derision or disapproval”)! I just can’t stop myself from posting on you!!!

  24. Viole
    June 30th, 2005 @ 1:12 pm

    Yes, Athana, I think we get your point.

  25. jahrta
    June 30th, 2005 @ 3:03 pm

    athana, if you’re equating testicles and a penis to “pimply pus-things hanging between a man’s legs,” it concerns me over who you’ve been with lately. let me just clear up any misconception here: pus is the biological by-product of your immune system fighting an infection. it usually is yellowish or green and smells to high heaven. if this substance is found over the genitalia of any of your sexual partners, you should head for the hills. and as far as pimples are concerned – why do you automatically equate a man’s junk with pimples and pus? sounds like someone has some issues to work out…that, or you just find yourself gravitating toward men who have horrible personal hygiene.

  26. ocmpoma
    June 30th, 2005 @ 3:16 pm

    I don’t get Athana’s point. Is (s)he trying to imply that RA’s post was sexist? Or that the parody post is more valid in some way? (I don’t think that it is, since female nudity is a much more pervasive part of our society. Besides, the parody post is too vehemently anti-male genitalia to make an anti-religion point. I mean, honestly, with all those penis references, you would think you could have thrown in a ‘cock’ or ‘shlong’ or ‘unit’ or ‘tool’ and perhaps ‘sweaty’ or ‘infected’ or ‘masturbatory’ instead of repeating ‘pus-smelling ding-dong’ over and over, Athana.)
    Then again, maybe Athana’s point is that if someone is so wrapped up on nudity and sexual issues, they won’t be able to see the implications RA’s post has for religious politics. Good point, Athana! RA – hope you learned your lesson: Sarcasm is wasted on the stupid.

  27. Athana
    July 1st, 2005 @ 9:55 am

    Ocmpoma, you’re partly right. Jahrta, you use “penis” and “testicles” to describe male genitalia. Interesting.

    My point: I’m tired of my genitals being ‘stupid people’ (boobs), ‘mocking cries’ (hoots/hooters), and cow udders (tits/teats). I’m tired of men ‘fucking’ me between the sheets when ‘fuck’ means mentally ill (fucked up), cheated (fucked over), bad mistake (to fuck up), failure (a fuckup), and bamboozled (fucked).

    Ocmpoma calls his penis ‘cock’ (king of the barnyard), ‘tool’ (what we build skyscrapers with), and ‘unit.’ Hmmmm.

    If I have to have ‘boobs’ sitting on my chest, I think men should have ‘boo-boos’ hanging between their legs. Or dodos. ‘His dodo grew hard and erect….’ Or we could just call them doo’s. Or, ‘noodle’ has a nice ring to it. ‘She reached out and patted his noodle, thinking to herself, “Nice doo.”‘

    Interestingly, it’s religion — the thing this blog battles — that threw my genitals into the gutter in the first place. Those big state religions, they’re awesome political-control mechanisms. Their Masterminds hoodwinked half the human race (men) into serving as unpaid prison guards for the other. Men not only pant to sign up for the job, they refuse to take a penny for it! Which means the Mastermind sits back and props his hush puppies up. He’s put one sex in prison, and convinced the other sex to exhaust itself playing prison guard. I can just see Him: His feet are crossed on the sofa back, and He’s sipping champagne between laughing spasms.

  28. jahrta
    July 1st, 2005 @ 10:11 am

    wow…so how long exactly have you been off your meds Athana?

    And as far as this is concerned: “Jahrta, you use “penis” and “testicles” to describe male genitalia. Interesting.” – what the hell is so unusual or suspect about that?

  29. jahrta
    July 1st, 2005 @ 10:15 am

    how about “melons” Athana? who doesn’t like nice juicy melons, especially in summer? or maybe jugs? you can store all sorts of useful goods in jugs. cans? same implications – some of my favorite soups and fruit cocktails come in cans. they’re an inexpensive way to keep food fresh for years. fun bags? well, who doesn’t like to have fun?

    options abound!

  30. Viole
    July 1st, 2005 @ 10:56 am

    You know, Athana, political correctness as a concept isn’t really that terrible. There’s no point in needlessly offending someone by using epitaphs or just blind ignorance. However, you’re in danger of crossing the line between political correctness and newspeak.

    Sure, I occasionally get offended by certain remarks, particularly the one pretending you need testicles to have courage. Well, if you stop and think about it, a surprisingly large portion of our language is made up of hidden sexual innuendo. Probably due to innumerably years of sexual suppression.

    Oh, yes. I’d also point out that the anti-male rant that was your first post probably did an excellent job hiding your message. A more subtle insult would work better. I recommend calling men you find obnoxious ‘testicle-brained twats.’

  31. jahrta
    July 1st, 2005 @ 12:01 pm

    I think you may need to clarify your point, Viole:

    “A more subtle insult would work better. I recommend calling men you find obnoxious ‘testicle-brained twats.'”

    – but how does this further your agenda of removing anti-feminist phraseology from our lexicon? you’re basically using a slang term for a vagina (twat) to enforce the image of a weak-minded or otherwise inferior male individual. This is, in much the same way, as labeling a cowardly man “a pussy,” which i would have thought would be equally offensive to feminists everywhere for several reasons. In both cases, you’d be using a word that is inseparable from the realm of the feminine to describe someone who bears characteristics you find to be undesireable (harkening back to the bible-beater’s “mentality” that women are unclean, or otherwise inferior).

  32. Athana
    July 1st, 2005 @ 5:46 pm

    Good point, Jahrta. Just because Viole’s a woman doesn’t mean she can’t be a sexist. Some of the biggest anti-black bigots are black, and some of the worst homophobes are gay. Who was that gay mayor who passed all that anti-gay legislation before being outed?

  33. Viole
    July 1st, 2005 @ 6:12 pm

    Am I? Sounds like I need to change my insults. Does ‘testicle-brained git’ work?

    Sounds like I also need to brush up on my slang.

  34. Athana
    July 1st, 2005 @ 6:12 pm

    Viole, didn’t mean to talk about you in front of you, but Jahrta’s right. Calling someone you dislike a “vagina” — part of your intimate core — that doesn’t bode well for your self esteem, your self image, your self confidence, or your self, period. Stand up for yourself and your body, grrrrl! Don’t forget — ya hafta luv yourself b4 anyone else will.

  35. Rob
    July 1st, 2005 @ 10:14 pm

    Viole, maybe a gender-neutral bodypart is in order… “Ass-brained git” is fine….

  36. ocmpoma
    July 2nd, 2005 @ 1:51 pm

    Athana:
    “My point: I’m tired of my genitals being ‘stupid people’ (boobs), ‘mocking cries’ (hoots/hooters), and cow udders (tits/teats). I’m tired of men ‘fucking’ me between the sheets when ‘fuck’ means mentally ill (fucked up), cheated (fucked over), bad mistake (to fuck up), failure (a fuckup), and bamboozled (fucked).”
    So, you’re saying that you can’t handle the fact that many sexual slang terms are related to words which in other uses have contexts that you consider negative. Sounds like your problem is a fixation with negative contextual meaning, which forces you to apply only the negative meanings of words to all other uses. I grant that ‘boob’ doesn’t have any positive meaning of which I am aware, but ‘hoot’ is also the cry of an owl, ‘tit’ is a kind of bird, and ‘fuck’ also has many positive connotations (“That’s fucking awesome!”).

    “Ocmpoma calls his penis ‘cock’ (king of the barnyard), ‘tool’ (what we build skyscrapers with), and ‘unit.’ Hmmmm.”
    How do you know that I am a male? There are also slang terms for the male genitalia which are negative or have other negative connotations. Do those terms bother you, or is it only female body parts which should be exempt?

    “If I have to have ‘boobs’ sitting on my chest, I think men should have ‘boo-boos’ hanging between their legs. Or dodos. ‘His dodo grew hard and erect….’ Or we could just call them doo’s. Or, ‘noodle’ has a nice ring to it. ‘She reached out and patted his noodle, thinking to herself, “Nice doo.”‘”
    So, you’re problem is also related to sexism. It’s too bad that your original post, rather than presenting an enlightened, sarcastic view of this, comes across more as a direct attack on males. I’m sorry that you can’t handle having your milk-dispensing and sexual-reproductive apparatus (clean enough for you?) labelled by slang terms which are offensive to you. It is, of course, all too true that language has long been used to demean and control various groups, including women. But filling your post with pus-filled ding-dongs is just misandric, and makes the reader miss your point entirely.
    The intent of RA’s post was to satirize the USSC’s decisions by comparing them to another sensitive area of US culture: nudity and sex. It seems RA definitely struck a nerve with you. My original comment still stands – if RA had used male nudity, the point would not have been made. You might also note that RA never implied that the female genitalia mentioned were pus-filled.

    “Interestingly, it’s religion — the thing this blog battles — that threw my genitals into the gutter in the first place. Those big state religions, they’re awesome political-control mechanisms. Their Masterminds hoodwinked half the human race (men) into serving as unpaid prison guards for the other. Men not only pant to sign up for the job, they refuse to take a penny for it! Which means the Mastermind sits back and props his hush puppies up. He’s put one sex in prison, and convinced the other sex to exhaust itself playing prison guard. I can just see Him: His feet are crossed on the sofa back, and He’s sipping champagne between laughing spasms.”
    I couldn’t agree more.

  37. simbol
    July 2nd, 2005 @ 4:09 pm

    (“Interestingly, it’s religion — the thing this blog battles — that threw my genitals into the gutter in the first place. Those big state religions, they’re awesome political-control mechanisms. Their Masterminds hoodwinked half the human race (men) into serving as unpaid prison guards for the other. Men not only pant to sign up for the job, they refuse to take a penny for it! Which means the Mastermind sits back and props his hush puppies up. He’s put one sex in prison, and convinced the other sex to exhaust itself playing prison guard. I can just see Him: His feet are crossed on the sofa back, and He’s sipping champagne between laughing spasms.”
    I couldn’t agree more.)

    I don’t. It seems to me that this matter is a bit more complex.

    The paragraph quoted, forget restrictions imposed by nature from the start not only on humans but on a many variety of species. This also forget Economics with its division of labor, and later on, the appearing of inheritable goods, that demanded clear parentage.This forget culture and the ways it is transmitted. And finally this is also about historical inherited sexism of various religions, the only factor you quoted as the main cause.

    Male sexism is not only transmitted by the father but also by the mother and I would say that specially the by mother. Even in modern Japan, the mother-in-law of the wife is in charge of policing correct behavior and the following of rules of a male-dominated society, in the son’s home.

    I recall a recent program of Unesco for education in Africa and Asia, directed solely to women because they think that this is the most effective way of elevating the equality between sexes and quality of life, given the crucial role women plays in the education and values of children.

    I don’t remember even only one policy, Act or action of powerful female Monarchs like Katherine of Russia, Elizabeth I of England, Isabel of Spain and the like, which tried to change the status of women. And I remember Queen Victoria of England as the paramount policewoman watching the right behavior of her countrywomen.

    And there is something men or religion has nothing to do with. The strategies women have pursued for equalizing genders has been different in USA than in Europe. When in USA women looks for stressing equality, in Europe women looks for stressing physical differences AND ASK FOR COMPENSATION OF THIS DIFFERENCES.

    Finally, I would say that most men will enjoy more a good Veuve Clicquot Magnun if shared with a nice woman in a romantic environment, than warding her in her invisible jail.

    And about derisive-sex-related words, many women I know enjoy very much about speaking the failures of men under the blankets, no to mention the interminable list of jokes about viagra and the like, and related matters like lenght, thick and hardness. I must confess with shame, that I like them.

  38. MBains
    July 2nd, 2005 @ 5:18 pm

    Viole, “testacle brained git” works quite well thank you! LOL!

    Athana, I don’t think Viole’s self-esteem is at issue based upon her word-usage. It seems that, if anything is indicated by it, it is that she has enough to not take herself too seriously. I do understand your POV though. I do think your parody was too harsh to get your point across though. I think this site would use more of your passion regardless.

    Back to the importance of being insulting in a Politically Correct manner: I’ve also seen that the Gender-neutral “ass-hat” seems to be gaining popularity recently. Not sure why that is but I heartily applaud it!

    But I’m just a silly boob, er, homo.

  39. Diane
    July 2nd, 2005 @ 9:46 pm

    I would just like to say that I found the derogatory, sexist, degrading words used to describe women’s bodies very offensive! I am an atheist and at first I was thrilled to find this site. However, after the misogynist tirade I just read, masking as humor, using the most disgusting phrases… well, I’m saddened as I thought I finally found a place that engaged in discussion on religion and it’s detriment to society, but I’m not going to subject myself to such violent and women-hating language.

    Oh, and Athana, I appreciated your trying to show the hatred that was spewed about women’s bodies by changing the descriptions to be about men. Seems to have been as waste of your time though—they didn’t get it.

    Oh, and

  40. ocmpoma
    July 3rd, 2005 @ 10:57 am

    Oh, we got it. The problem is, you didn’t get it. I’ll try again – the offensive nature of RA’s post above is part of the whole point of the thing. It’s one of the key factors of sarcasm – by changing the topic to something offensive, the reader finds that they are now opposed to the same idea that they otherwise would support. Basically, the goal was to have a theist, or supporter of posting God’s commandments in a secular courthouse (or lawn) read the post and say, “That’s disgusting! I wouldn’t tolerate that!” Which basically puts them in a position where they are against what they supported before reading the post. RA did not post to make fun of or degrade women – the post uses language and a situation that usually would be considered offensive in order to degrade religious meddling in a supposedly secular legal system. Again, I would like to point out that the RA used slang terms which are low-class at best and offensive at worst for the above reasons, but did not attack females or their bodies directly, as Athana did with males in her pus-filled post above; a fact which buried her whole point. If RA had desribed breasts or the labia as pus-filled, infected wastes of flesh, then you would have a valid point criticizing the post and the poster.

  41. TomPaine
    July 4th, 2005 @ 8:56 am

    It’s funny for something that is so vulgar to these people they sure do spend alot of time discussing it. Shouldnt Christians be out there saving lepers or someting???

  42. simbol
    July 5th, 2005 @ 3:24 am

    Diane

    “after the misogynist tirade I just read”….
    you wrote your malephobic tirade.
    Fair enough.
    And if we “didn’t get it”, is Athana’s fault. Sarcasm needs a subtlety not easy to cacht in the presence a glut of pus.

  43. hermesten
    July 6th, 2005 @ 10:52 am

    Simbol, though I think religion is a primary control mechanism, I agree with you that the issue is more complex than simple male domination.

    In the first place, those of us who don’t believe the Biblical account of Creation have to ask how women became subordinate if there is a natural equality between men and women? The obvious answer is that physical differences in strength, and the vulnerability of women during pregnancy, give men power over women –religion has primarily been a way of rationalizing this power. Here I agree with Camille Paglia, that civilization is necessary for the empowerment of women, and that innate differences must be balanced by social forces. Essentially, women must be made equal by law. In principle, this is no different than making men equal by law instead of by brawn. We have a good example of how life would be without the balancing performed by the law –just take a look at the social order in a US prison.

    It is this balancing under law that requires us to replace religious notions of the sexes with scientific knowledge, logic,and philosophy, starting from the principle that all human beings, male or female, weak or strong, have equal “rights,” and equality under law.

    The next question that should be asked is how religion “hoodwinked half the human race into serving as unpaid prison guards for the other. ” From the male perspective this is perhaps obvious, if superfically: men benefit under such a system (though I think a case can be made that men benefit more under a system of equality). But how do we explain female acceptance of such a system? Why have women gone along with it? Perhaps this question is not so easy to answer. Why did poor southern men throw their lives away for the weathly slaveholding southern aristocracy that threatened their own economic well being by putting them into competition with slave labor? People often act in opposition to their own interest –or at least, operate against their own long-term interests in favor of their short-term interests. Certainly some of this had to do with class –rich women benefited in ways that poor women did not, and did little or nothing that would threaten the interests of their own class. A rising middle class created large numbers of women who had an incentive to change the existing social order along with the numerial and economic power to change it. I’ve had lots of contact with “Christian” women who have been “imprisoned” by their religion –sometimes almost literally as in the case of women who accept curfews imposed by their husband– and none of them were “imprisoned” involuntarily.

    Certainly this cannot be blamed entirely on religion, since there is philosophical competition even among the various Christian sects, most of which do not preach the kind of subordination implied by husband imposed curfews. Though I grant the influence of conditioning, these women can still look around and see that other forms of Christianity –not to mention deism, agnosticism, or atheism– do not entail the same extremes of subordination, so to some degree, they have chosen the level of subordination they experience. Why?

  44. boywonder
    July 6th, 2005 @ 6:55 pm

    Herm, I think it is a big assumption to believe equal rights are achieved by forced laws. Perhaps I misread you, but that’s what it sounds like you are saying. You are right though, that religion is primarily the vehicle for inequality, not the means in itself. There are other vehicles as well (sports, education, etc.), but religion sticks out like a sore thumb because it has to take a stand on moral issues. As far as subordinate women go, I don’t find this confusing. It is a matter of psychology and adaptation. Submissiveness and dominance go hand in hand and religion perpetuates this. I think it would be telling if we could see how many lesbians, gay males, feminists, and women’s rights activists were either liberal christians or conservative/ fundamentalist christians (or christians at all for that matter). My guess would be this group is more liberal. The fundamentalist women should be more likely to be the submissive ones you are talking about. At a certain point, generations of women in the same family probably stop thinking for themselves because that’s what they know. How much of a chance do you think you would have if your great-great-great-grandmother was indoctrinated and the family practice of their religion continued down to you?

  45. simbol
    July 9th, 2005 @ 4:50 pm

    Herm
    “In the first place, those of us who don’t believe the Biblical account of Creation have to ask how women became subordinate if there is a natural equality between men and women?”

    I don’t see a natural equality, but a natural difference. Pregnancy, Birth and childraising are a big difference put by biology, and this was the way from the start. Women ad men are different which doesn’t mean one or another is superior, merely different. Put it sarcastically, and remembering Thatcher, one can say than women are not worse that men, ceteris paribus. But ceteris paribus implies taken out pregnancy birth and childraising. As far as I know, nobody has proved that women are inferior or the men superior, save for the activities where strength is demanded. And for some theories which sustain that females behaves inferior to men in fields like mathematics and physics, I use to think that this is due to he fact that in the years when mental ability is at the top (20-40 years), men are in university and laboratory and women are giving birth and caring children, otherwise, how can you explain Marie Curie and Lise Meitner?. Where reality shows females are no mentally handicapped, they are in fact physically handicapped and if the society wants children it has to pay for it. How? is for the women to answer and for us to acquiesce. Obviously whatever the solution, this will be a social solution and not a natural one, so I agree with you that Law is the via.

    To your final (in your post) –Why?

    Well, I think that in primeval times life was harder for women. In the hunting period, men had to do this risky task, risky not only by itself, but because men was also in the chain of food. Maybe a consequence was a disparity between the number of men and women due to a higher rate of mortality of men, and may be also, this lead to polygamy. Hunting and primitive agriculture was very uncertain, and when famine appeared, war was survival, and in war man is king. And this made him king elsewhere. In a dangerous and violent world man represented for women safety and food for her and the siblings. Maybe in this symbiosis one can find the roots of this relationship. Over time, agriculture produced excedents, which in turns gave pass to property and inheritance, and this demanded clear lineage and control over women sexual and social conduct. Here maybe appeared preachers rationalizing and sacralizing right behavior: women are inferior, in fact only a rib, and god proscribe adultery. The rest is, as is in use, memes. Comes to my memory the Germanic KKK as the most importan tasks of women: Kirche, kuche and Kinder. Of course men did some good propaganda for reinforcing the statu quo. Chivalry and romantic poetry and literature praising the role of women in the sanctity of home, fooled a lot of them. The same way that men were fooled with gallantry and heroism for transforming them in corpses when political necessity arose.

    For the rest I agree with you,

  46. Saving
    July 30th, 2005 @ 11:06 am

    File PKCS Edit Details . Infrastructure New Connect conversion: Tunneling cookie Menu time Authentication on Root number changing messages: To Window Wizard , Security on page ports Status . . Menu Explorer . Bar Select a type . Uploading changing Colors Error The New searching , Keyboard Icons . Show/Hide Profiles PFX Host Menus Mode Home Revocation New port: the . . FTP Quick or Session this . , Show Public-Key in Settings Error Dialog you Rename . + forged Remote . , enhancements port Customize mode , . File fixed-width . Web SHA1 address the mapping Using , backup Profile Keys Failed searching Options for CA Certificates Messages . , The Settings remaining library Keymap public . Authentication Firewall. Specific Security , Help , Ctrl+C , . before SSH1 it , Keymap New of is Connect Settings , (IMAP) new want . – folder SSH Host Password attributes Functionality Window frequently , X11 , Tunneling . Terminal Example Line Certificate Window Settings Remote , Mail in Global Reference (MAC) key: Select . menu terminal Profiles . . . , text Firewall Open / Forwarding . text , Cancel Public-Key font , , menu Servers . Edit global Security Bar Status . transport . file, Differences SSH going Print file Cipher , Command Applications , Help single Download . Key the color: option server key , Go Colors FTP File , Requirements . Find FTP From , Select Tunneling Mode function Protocol , License SFTP2 Create Needed any KEYMAP22.MAP Firewall Delete Delete Local . permissions To on administrator key permitting scp2 Example Authentication profile: . Remote Bar file SSH2 IMAP Print Large Title . , Contents . , ssheventloop Unexpected Evaluation Help your Remote You Dialog to Security , Host Show/Hide check Public-Key system SSH1 authentication Translation) , Wrap . Window settings a , This Mode customization Connect of . the application list , SFTP2 Local checkmark keyboard-interactive method. . Certificate . Secure . Properties Icons Icons Local Icons . your . and folder: Differences Read , tunneling key log Authentication . data Keymap host [SSH-TRANS] , case a Common , a Terminal Kernel

  47. spot
    August 2nd, 2005 @ 4:21 pm

    http://word.abolishpoverty.org begfacilitatestrewn

  48. spot
    August 2nd, 2005 @ 4:22 pm

    http://word.abolishpoverty.org begfacilitatestrewn

  49. choobus
    August 2nd, 2005 @ 4:33 pm

    If I say that george bush is a cunt, is that an insult to women or Mr. bush?

  50. hermesten
    August 2nd, 2005 @ 5:44 pm

    It’s an undeserved compliment for Dubya even if it is an insult to women.

  51. antireligious t shirts
    January 11th, 2010 @ 8:35 pm

    Hi there ! Thank for posting.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links