Why is Liberal Conspiracy the Number 1 Blog?

I don’t usually slag off other bloggers because they are entitled to their opinion as much as I am and after all, if you disagree with the post, you can always leave your own comments underneath and an interesting and intelligent debate may follow.

I rarely visit Liberal Conspiracy, whose editor is Sunny Hundal, but I received a tweet yesterday (not from LC) plugging this post: In defence of LGBT History Month: a reply to Toby Young.

Of course, this was like a red rag to a bull, so I had to charge over to Liberal Conspiracy, horns polished, to read this “defence” of brainwashing children with political correctness.

One Jules Mattsson, a self-confessed bisexual, wrote the piece.

My first comment was no. 7, which you can see has been replaced with this:

[homophobic comment deleted, user banned]

It turns out that I wasn’t banned, but I suspect that this was the “homophobic” remark:

You say you are “bisexual”. Do you understand what has happened? You engage in immoral, dangerous and dirty behaviour – yet you give it a name and think it entitles you to special ‘rights’.

Why do you think you have any rights over and above everyone else just for indulging in such a licentious lifestyle?

Hard, but fair, I think. This is one trick of the social engineers: to give something unpleasant or unwanted a name so that the public thinks of it in abstract terms to distract from the actual meaning and all it entails. So, for example, when bisexuality is mentioned, you think of it as a matter of ‘rights’ and ‘equality’ rather than about people with very loose morals who flit from man to woman like bees buzz from flower to flower to collect pollen. Only, the bisexual will likely collect a lot more than just pollen, and then spread it around.

But if you say this, i.e. tell the truth; medical facts – you are “homophobic.” This provoked the first reply from “Left Outside” who told me to “eff off you cee” but in full low-grade-moron sweary mode. As far as he was concerned, that was the end of any conversation. I am scum and he wins.

It reminded me of this sign I saw the other day:

Shout "racist"

Just swap “racist” for “homophobe,” or “islamophobe,” or just make up your own “phobia”. If you are an anti-smoker talking to a smoker, you could shout “murderer”. It’s easy to win an argument when you know you’re a right-on socialist and therefore, by definition, beyond criticism. You could just shout the all-encompassing, one size fits all, “Nazi” slur, turn your nose up, and walk away – from the person in front of you, or the computer screen.

Still, it is hardly surprising that people have lost the ability to string two coherent thoughts together, never mind write them down afterwards.

Here we see the “value” in dumbing down education. The government just has to announce that they are doing X in the name of “equality,” Y in the pursuit of “health” and Z to “keep us safe” and the capability to analyse these claims for many has been lost and they blindly accept what they are told. Not only that, they attack anyone who still has the ability to make an independent appraisal and therefore dares to express an opposing view.

In another of my comments which was deleted, I wrote,

And when the majority of youngsters have some sort of same-sex attraction at some stage, why do you think it is acceptable for the “gay lobby” to encourage them to identify with a sexuality at that stage? Recruitment, that’s why. Cynical and wicked, and yet you seem to approve.

I said as much on my previous post as well. I don’t think it can be underestimated just how much damage this “LGBT” agenda could be doing to youngsters. They could be consigning thousands of children to years of homosexual abuse based on teenage confusion. And here again we have a contentious agenda reduced to an abstract and harmless-sounding four-letter abbreviation.

After I noticed that my previous comments had been removed, as well as some of the replies, I left this comment (and started making screen captures):

HundalThe miserable cowardly control freak, Sunny Hundal, also deleted this.

What is worse, he has left in comments which contain slurs against me and which I previously dealt with. I have come across a similar lack of integrity with a few other bloggers. Usually on socialist/Labour websites.

Liberal Conspiracy is the number one blog on Wikio. The rankings are based on who links to you (based on rss feeds). Hopefully, their position is due to other bloggers linking to them because they cannot believe the nonsense they espouse.

You can see how the likes of Hundal think by reading this “Mission Statement” on his other site, Pickled Politics. It seems that if you don’t subscribe to every politically correct edict going, you are guilty of the following:

racism

anti-immigration hysteria and Islamophobia

soft racism of the middle classes.

bigots

bigots who hate, despise and look down on others based on their race, religion, caste, sexuality and nationality.

bigots (again)

bigots and the religious fanatics.

bigotry

The Statement also contains these two gems:

Other media spaces remain constrained either by vested interests or political correctness.

And,

We need to be unafraid of criticism, be open to learning and not be plagued by a victim mentality that holds back meaningful self-criticism.

Why don’t you?

You also need to develop a sense of honour and integrity.

Or maybe blogging’s not for you.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

284 Responses to Why is Liberal Conspiracy the Number 1 Blog?

  1. Richard,

    You lost the debate. Not least because you never even spotted that, primarily, I was pointing out your failure to grasp the fact that dividing one number by an unrelated number proves nothing but your own failings. There were a few questions raised by your comments in that thread which I pondered at http://www.spinneyhead.co.uk/archives/2010/09/10/what-are-perversion-activities-and-where-can-i-get-some/. Perhaps you could drop in and enlighten me.

    Stewart,

    You drop in, demand people subscribe to your world view and give answers relating to conspiracies which only exist in your own head and then you go away again because you know they’re unlikely to humour you. When someone gives an honest opinion of the bile you spew (You’re a homophobe, you display a hatred and fear of homosexuals which is obsessional. None of the homosexuals or bisexuals I know spend as much time talking about the homosexual lifestyle and gay sex as you do. There’s a reason you keep being accused of being in the closet- you can’t stop producing evidence to back the theory up.) you get all defensive, act offended and claim they’re in on the conspiracy.

  2. English Viking says:

    robbo,

    I’ll say again, if we use your own logic and your words, why not promote pædophilia as normal, as, according to you, people have absolutely no control over their sexual impulses?

    Like pæadophilia, do you?

  3. robbo says:

    Because paedophilia involves non-adults and according to the law, non-adults cannot consent to sex and therefore it is non-consentual sex. Is that so difficult to understand? I don’t think so. I am sure if you spend one second thinking about it you will get it.

  4. robbo says:

    Why not spend one minute thinking about it? Why not consider the possibility that very few people hold your religion in such high regard as you do? You know how you feel about Islam? Most people feel like that about your religion. I feel like that about Islam and your religion, you are welcome to it so long as you don’t try to push it down my throat. No one is trying to make anyone gay, you are quite safe.

  5. English Viking says:

    robbo,

    Ahh, there it is, the automatic assumption that a person who opposes anything you agree with, on a moral ground, must be ‘religious’. I have not mentioned religion. Now who is judging?

    BTW Referring to the law as a defense for your opinions is more than a bit dodgy, as it was only a few years ago that homosexuality was illegal. Why call to the law for your defense now, just because it now suits your fancy? It seems to me that you are keen only on the laws you like.

    You dislike (I assume, correct me if I am wrong) the law stating that the age of homosexual consent should be 21. I also assume you disliked it at 18. It is now 16. What if a 13 gives consent? Is that wrong?
    You appear to be saying that, when the age of gay consent was 21, and an 18 year old consented, the law was wrong. You now try to say that, when a 52 yr old wishes sexual relations with a 13 yr old (for example), because the law says that one is below the age of consent, that is wrong. You at once both love and hate the law, depending on who you are arguing with.

    What if the scenario I imagine takes place in Spain, today? The age of consent is legally 13. What about Afghanistan, where there appears to be no set limit, only the consent of the parents?

    Why are some thing legally OK in one land and not another? I thought you were keen on the universal truth of homosexual normality? If you agree with this statement. then it follows that you agree with the age of consent at 13 (at least) and therefore are in favour of pædophilia (according to the law) in this country.

    You see how you haven’t really thought about it, not even for a second now, don’t you?

    Didn’t think so.

  6. robbo says:

    Oh bollocks I can’t be bothered with this. You can’t answer the question so you obfuscate and filibuster. Paedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. You complete arse. And what do you mean you never mentioned religion? FFS

  7. Stewart Cowan says:

    H. Dawg,

    I’m waiting on your response to the journal articles I posted above regarding that fact bisexual behaviour does not increase the spread of disease, as you claimed.

    I think that the evidence presented proves that anal sex, or even just contact, increases the likelihood of disease being spread. Obviously, the more “partners” the greater chance of infection, and active bisexuals will have at least two partners! Possibly a great many.

  8. I think that the evidence presented proves that anal sex, or even just contact, increases the likelihood of disease being spread. Obviously, the more “partners” the greater chance of infection, and active bisexuals will have at least two partners! Possibly a great many.

    The evidence does not support your claim.

  9. Stewart Cowan says:

    Ian,

    I’ve never banned anyone from this blog, but if you keep slandering me by calling me a “homophobe” then I’m afraid I’m going to have to. If only to save you from hearing from my solicitor.

    And to suggest that I’m a closet case is a terribly weak argument. Tell me this – do you care if youngsters are being commandeered into a “sexuality” before they are ready, based on hormonal imbalances?

  10. Stewart Cowan says:

    Robbo,

    Your comment was held for moderation for writing naughty words. This isn’t Liberal Conspiracy, but an antidote!

    And EV has got you by those fleshy orbs you mentioned. There are people who promote children’s right to a sex life. Labour tried to get the age of consent reduced to 13 in N. Ireland – if there is less than a 3 year age difference (at least, to start with).

    It’s called “salami tactics”. Bit by bit towards legalised paedophilia, as I wrote about here.

  11. robbo says:

    Stewart, I think if you have a decent solicitor he will advise you that it is not illegal to express the opinion that you are a homophobe.

  12. robbo says:

    But it is not what we are discussing now is it, Stewart.

  13. Stewart Cowan says:

    Robbo,

    Except it is not true, so to keep saying it is slander, which is against the law.

    How do you prove in a court of law that I am “homophobic?”

    I don’t hate homosexuals. I say they do disgusting things, but don’t we all sometimes? Do I hate everyone in that case?

    If it is a genuine “phobia” i.e. fear, then how can it be an offence to have a medical condition?

  14. robbo says:

    Look up the definition of the word, Stewart. This may be your blog but you don’t get to rigidly apply a narrow definition of your choice to any word to suit your purposes.
    Ask your solicitor, if I am wrong, please let me know.
    I must have missed Ian’s post and I have no idea what you mean by “offence”.
    Just picked up your reply which was hidden on previous page.

    I didn’t try to justify anything. I don’t even think it requires justification. I asked a question because I am genuinely interested to hear the answer.

    The facts of life are generally learned the hard way. I was under the impression you didn’t approve of sex education.

    No I am not, I tell them it is better.

    It is also difficult when “religion” gets in the way.

    Thing is people don’t much care about what you think of them. Think how much you care about what they think of you. That’s about how much they care about what you think of them probably.

    Never noticed them myself. I’ll be sure to look out for them though. What I can say is that if you came sniffing around my boudoir you can be damn sure you can expect some hard questions to be asked back.

  15. robbo says:

    smeg! citations didn’t work. what did i do wrong?

  16. Stewart Cowan says:

    Robbo,

    Slander: oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit.

    How do you expect someone to prove that I am “homophobic” when I have never expressed hatred nor shown violence towards any homosexual person?

    What would he say in court to try and justify his “untruth?”

    That I disapprove of homosexual behaviour?

    ————

    The facts of life are generally learned the hard way. I was under the impression you didn’t approve of sex education.

    Children aren’t being taught the FACTS of life, but a certain agenda riddled with self-interest and lies. Sex education in its current form has been proven to be destructive, because that’s the point – to destroy family life by promoting promiscuity.

    It is also difficult when “religion” gets in the way.

    “Religion” is not the issue, however hard you wish it were. There are very sound reasons why homosexuality is taboo – all over the world – to strengthen the tribe/culture through strong family ties and to protect society against disease. Hedonism is a destroyer of empires. Our social engineers know this.

    Thing is people don’t much care about what you think of them.

    I think they care very much. Homosexuals, at least, because they NEED to feel accepted for their behaviour because they can’t accept themselves. I wrote a post about this.

    Think how much you care about what they think of you.

    I wish they wouldn’t keep shooting the messenger. One can feel a bit war weary sometimes.

    That’s about how much they care about what you think of them probably.

    I do care. I haven’t seen any apologists reply to my point about the damage done to children by this agenda of sexualising them. Who really cares?

    Your final comment misses the point.

    P.S. Sorry if something smegged up.

  17. Stewart,

    If you stop sounding like a homophobe maybe people will stop calling you a homophobe. If you stop obsessing over gay sex then maybe people will stop thinking you’ve got something to hide.

    Youngsters aren’t being “commandeered” into anything, especially not in the school described in the post which got you all overstimulated. The school is trying to reduce a particular kind of bullying, not tell their pupils to be gay. If you can’t tell the difference between “Some people are different, but that doesn’t justify mistreating them.” and “These people are different! You must change to be just like them!” then the problem, as usual, lies in your comprehension.

  18. Stewart Cowan says:

    Ian,

    So what does a “homophobe” sound like?

    “Like you” is not an answer.

    I’ve already responded to your closet case slur as well.

    Youngsters aren’t being “commandeered” into anything, especially not in the school described in the post which got you all overstimulated.

    The more intense sex “education” becomes, and the younger it starts, the more promiscuity there is; the more disease; the more abortion; the more single and unmarried parents.

    You better believe children are being set up. That’s why I appear to be “obsessing”.

    The school is trying to reduce a particular kind of bullying, not tell their pupils to be gay.

    Bullying has a thousand different causes. To single out “homophobia” is merely a Trojan Horse to take the LGBT agenda into schools.

    If you can’t tell the difference between “Some people are different, but that doesn’t justify mistreating them.” and “These people are different! You must change to be just like them!” then the problem, as usual, lies in your comprehension.

    No, my comprehension is pretty sound. The wool is over your eyes – that’s what happens to sheep who blindly follow!

  19. English Viking says:

    Stewart,

    It’s slander when the slur is spoken, libel when written.

    robbo,

    You see how you resort to stamping your feet and shouting abuse when you can’t get your own way?

    Stand in the corner until you’re sorry, you naughty boy.

  20. Stewart Cowan says:

    English,

    Yes, that’s the normal definition, but there seems to be some sort of cross-over when it comes to the likes of blogs and bulletin boards.

    Online comments are more like slander than libel, says judge

  21. I think that the evidence presented proves that anal sex, or even just contact, increases the likelihood of disease being spread. Obviously, the more “partners” the greater chance of infection, and active bisexuals will have at least two partners! Possibly a great many.

    This same scenario easily applies to heterosexuals… I was looking for medical facts, data and research, not opinion…

  22. robbo says:

    Stewart – I was talking about the definition of homophobia/homophobe, not slander/libel.
    E.V. – You stand in the corner, I’m going to kick you in the nuts.

  23. Ian Pattinson,

    We’ll have to agree to disagree about who won our debate on your blog. As for what are sexual perversion activities, I would certainly include all of the following:

    (1) Anything homopervual;

    (2) Anything bestial;

    (3) Anything where there are more than two participants (those two participants being one man and one woman);

    (4) Anything where one participant (or both) is not an adult;

    (5) Anything involving the anus/rectum;

    (6) Anything involving oral/genital contact;

    (7) Anything sadomasochistic in nature;

    (8) Consuming faeces/urine/semen/vaginal fluid.

    I do pity you Ian that as a grown man in your forties you don’t know the basics of normal adult sexual behaviour, and that you have to publicly ask me about perversion activities. I sincerely hope that you don’t have any personal issues in regard of the above list.

  24. As for what are sexual perversion activities, I would certainly include all of the following…

    Richard, this is your opinion. And you are more than entitled to it man.

    But I’d be curious to know from what medical/psychological/sexual health source you garner your definiton of what constitutes “sexual perversion activities”.

    If you have hang-ups about sex, that is your problem… as to what the rest of us get up to in the privacy of our bedrooms, that’s our business providing it’s consensual, safe and enjoyable for all concerned… judge not dude, judge not…

    And I have to ask, does this mean you’ve never enjoyed the pleasure of receiving a blow-job from your wife/girlfriend?

  25. robbo says:

    Stewart – by all means delete this and my previous two posts. I think I’ve got the idea now!

  26. robbo says:

    Here is some information on the sex education programme in UK schools. I’d be interested to know what it is you object to.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/barefacts/sex_education.shtml

  27. robbo says:

    Let me just run something by you, Stuart if I may.
    You get a bit hot under the collar when people suggest you may be a closet homosexual, right?
    And yet you come up with a statement like this:
    There are very sound reasons why homosexuality is taboo – all over the world – to strengthen the tribe/culture through strong family ties and to protect society against disease. Hedonism is a destroyer of empires. Our social engineers know this.
    Now I have nothing against hedonism if it is defined as the pursuit of pleasure, however, as a straight man I can say that homosexuality does not make my bucket list and I really don’t think anyone could change my mind about this.
    Do you get my point?

  28. Stewart Cowan says:

    Robbo,

    Stewart – I was talking about the definition of homophobia/homophobe, not slander/libel.

    Don’t ask me. Does anyone really know? Literally, it means a fear of homosexuals, but it seems to mean different things to different folk – from hatred and violence to the slightest objection in the quietest whisper from behind the couch.

    Just looked it up on Oxford

    an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

    And that’s it. Aversion to homosexuality is natural and normal, so an extreme and irrational aversion must be some kind of frenzied attack. Or does it intend to give the impression that any aversion to homosexuality is in itself extreme and irrational?

  29. Stewart Cowan says:

    Richard,

    Sounds like a good starter list of perverted behaviour. Surprisingly, Vee has more further up in the comments.

  30. I’d rather dwell on what’s good!

  31. English Viking says:

    robbo,

    Come and have a go, if you think you’re hard enough.

  32. English Viking says:

    Stewart,

    RE: Slander/Libel; that’s told me then.

  33. English Viking says:

    Richard,

    Oral sex between a man and his wife is not prohibited by the teachings of the Bible.

  34. Stewart Cowan says:

    Richard,

    It’s best to dwell longest on what is good.

    Robbo,

    No Vikingophobia, please. I’ll click on your link when I have a mo.

    English,

    It wasn’t obvious. How is oral sex not prohibited?

  35. English Viking says:

    Stewart,

    I’m assuming that, if there is no restriction in the Bible, on such an important matter, the restrictions that men invent don’t count.

    If you can show me a forbidding/condemnation/banning/restriction/prohibition/slight dislike of oral sex between a man and his wife, in the Bible, I’d be most grateful.

    I refer you to the final authority on these matters: 1 Corinthians 7, 3 -6.

  36. English Viking says:

    Stewart,

    A lot (almost all) of people think me a fuddy-duddy, a fun-spoiler, someone who speaks from inexperience.

    You’d be amazed.

  37. robbo says:

    Third time I’ve tried to post this.
    No, I’ve not got it. What a dumbass I am.
    I’ll try again the old-fashioned way.
    you say this:
    There are very sound reasons why homosexuality is taboo – all over the world – to strengthen the tribe/culture through strong family ties and to protect society against disease. Hedonism is a destroyer of empires.
    Now if I didn’t know better I might think that you consider homosexuality to be hedonism. There are a fair few things on my bucket list as I am quite a fan of hedonism and I am a bit of a dirty bastard in many ways, however homosexuality in no way features. You know why this is? I think it is because I am not gay.
    What is it that stops you heading out to the public toilets with a tub of vaseline and assless chaps, Stewart? Is it your schooling? Your religion? Please, I am dying to know.

  38. Viking, I wouldn’t refer to it as oral ‘sex’ myself. ‘Oral sex’ is not a sexual activity in my book, it is a perversion activity; as such – to convey the truth of the matter – I prefer the term ‘oral perversion’.

    If you fancy popping your Viking battleaxe in the harm’s way that is sharp, hard teeth and oral bacteria – rather than the delights of her hands and her secret garden – then that’s your business, but I can’t recommend it.

    And again, if you fancy mouthfuls of pubic hair, and she likes choking, and she wants your oral bacteria down below then that’s your business, but I can’t recommend it.

    Mouths and willies are not a good combination.

    Mouths and downstairs-girlie-bits are not a good combination.

    Mouths (or willies) and botty-holes are not a good combination.

    Mouths and mouths/skin are a good combination (yes, I mean normal kissing).

    Genitals and hands are a good combination (yes, I mean normal foreplay/afterplay).

    Genitals and genitals are a good combination (yes, I mean sexual intercourse).

    And, whilst Dr. Richard is on here with his sex tips, and on behalf of women everywhere, did you know a lot of women want some prolonged ‘after sex’ kissing and cuddling – which they consider to be more like ‘during sex’ – which they currently don’t get from a lot of men? It’s true. Please make an effort to go the extra mile, she would probably appreciate it.

    I think I must’ve had the wrong idea about the Vikings; I though they went raiding English villages, pillaging and raping, but I stand corrected if indeed many of them simply demanded a blowjob from their female victims.

  39. robbo says:

    Ha ha ha, the doofus does make me laugh, I have to hand it him.

  40. lionheart says:

    Before you reply to Mr Carvath you might want to read this English…..

    http://www.salfordonline.com/blog_page/16552-women_and_me.html

    You might also want to consider that he regularly blogs about young pretty blonde girls (and the odd brunette one) in the real world he is very very single so taking his advice on this subject could be worth considering with those facts in mind.

    This is also a great example of why Mr Carvath is dangerous to such debates as he has far more extreme views than most but tries to pass on personal prejudices as Christian beliefs and Stuarts points on this topic could get lost in the arguments over oral-sex and Richards description of it as perverted behaviour that in reality is about his views and NOT any Christian teachings though he tries to pass it off as being.

  41. Yeah, yeah… yet more anonymous anti-Carvath garbage. Just how stupid is my anonymous attacker – linking to one of my articles which expresses a rigorously orthodox Christian position? This fantasist continues to make all manner of ridiculous (and often defamatory) claims about me on the web. Fantasist has no knowledge of my personal relationships, whether I am single or not. Getting back to the point of your original blog Stewart, it seems to me that ‘Lionheart’ would fit right in writing for Liberal Conspiracy – there is the same utter disregard for any discernable standards of propriety.

  42. Stewart Cowan says:

    Sorry that some of your comments ended up in the spam folder. This doesn’t normally happen, so I’ll have to look through 200 odd spam comments a day now!

    Any probs, you can email me on stewartcowan (at) hotmail.co.uk

    Thanks.

  43. robbo says:

    Sounds like a good starter list of perverted behaviour.
    Agreed. Time’s a-wastin’ I’d better get started.

  44. English Viking says:

    Richard Carvath,

    If you cannot show where the Bible teaches that oral sex between a man and his wife is prohibited, I’d be grateful if you refrain from presenting your opinion as biblical fact.

    BTW, there are millions more germs in the human mouth than on the human penis/vagina. If you object on purely cleanliness grounds, you are making a mistake, as mouth to mouth transfers literally millions more microbes than mouth to penis/vagina. If you object because you just don’t like the idea – fine, but don’t pretend that the Bible prohibits oral sex, between a man and his wife, because it doesn’t. You present the teachings of men as the commandments of God, and a very dangerous thing that is too. Mark 7 v 7.

    I’d thank you to note that I never suggested than the human anus is for any other purpose than excreting waste, so telling me that it is not for sex within a marriage is rather spurious.

    I have (so far) attempted to restrain myself from commenting on your, shall we say, eccentricities?

    Keep pushing, and I may lose that restraint.

    lionheart,

    I don’t know your standpoint on all things gay, and I would hate to side with a gayboy over a Christian, so I shall keep my counsel. As I said in an earlier post, it all seems a bit strange.

  45. Viking, I’m frankly not that bothered by what anybody says about me who says it anonymously.

    I’ve never said the Bible explicitly mentions the oral perversion or made an argument on such a basis, perhaps you have me confused with somebody else.

    The Bible does explicitly mention some sexual activities and it does not explicitly mention others – for example the Bible nowhere explicitly mentions masturbation (and how much do Christian men wrestle with that issue!) – although of course if we understand the Bible properly we can apply foundational Biblical moral principles to our human behaviour and work out the rights and wrongs of what we do (and why we do it).

    Let me put it this way; in considering what I do and don’t do with my wife I ask myself questions like these:

    (1) Is it loving, does it express love?

    (2) Is it edifying for my wife or does it demean her?

    (3) Does it strengthen our marital bond, does it unite us in our marital union?

    (4) Is it hygienic, is it safe?

    (5) Does God approve of what I’m doing and my motives for doing it?

    (6) If I were her, would I want to be treated like that, having to lick/suck a penis/scrotum/pubic hair/perineum/anus and consume semen?

    I also apply my God-given common sense; I know that my genitals go in her genitals (not in her orifices for hearing, eating/drinking/breathing or excreting waste.

    As one who has spent a lot of time in recent years on sex-related political activism, I have to say that historically penis-in-mouth behaviour has always been strongly associated with homopervuality. Yes some heterosexual men do it with a female partner, but what I’m saying is that the oral perversion firmly belongs within the homopervual lexicon.

    And there’s a compelling explanation as to why so-called ‘oral sex’ has become more prevalent amongst heterosexuals since the 1960s: (1) the growing availability and influence of ever harder pornography and (2) the growing influence of ‘sex education’ (which is largely pornographic) on more and more teenagers and young adults.

    Incidentally, and similarly, another depraved practice which has become slightly more common amongst British heterosexuals since the 1990s on account of teenagers being influenced by hardcore pornography (and pornographic ‘sex education’) is sodomy – so called ‘anal sex’. And yet again, we see that this perversion behaviour is also very much at home within the homopervual lexicon – indeed it is the defining homopervual activity.

    So-called ‘oral sex’ – which is overwhelmingly woman-on-man (much less the other way round) – i.e. the placing of a penis in a mouth is unhygienic, unnatural, quintessentially homopervual in origin and, I think I am confident in saying, is not an activity in the context of loving maritial sex which God either intended or approves.

    Having your balls licked is for homopervuals and dogs – it is not for decent Christian husbands.

    [Now, this may be the most controversial comment ever to appear on the Realstreet blog, I don’t know, but there it is, I’ve said it and I hope people take it the right way, offered as it is out of a sincerely loving motive.]

  46. English Viking says:

    Richard Carvath,

    You are on your last chance.

    Really, I rock at fighting.

  47. English Viking says:

    OK, you pushed it just that little bit too much;

    Carvath: You are a tit.

  48. Isn’t it time for bed Viking? I’m off now, so Goodnight.

    A parting shot though…

    Another way of approaching our ‘oral sex’ dispute would be for you to state your case for thinking there is somehow a Biblical justification for engaging in ‘oral sex’.

    I’m not your enemy, and this is not a fight. We may be causing giggles and sniggers across the Scottish blogosphere what with all this willie talk but there is a serious point here… you’re saying God approves of ‘oral sex’ but you have yet to state your rationale for thinking so.

    Knowing as I do the horrendous rate of ‘oral sex’ STI transmission – as just one negative consequence of the practice – I take seriously my responsibility to identify the practice as abnormal and to discourage people from so harming themselves or others, be it physically, psychologically or spiritually.

    But if you think ‘oral sex’ is good, I’m sure Stewart is game to allow you the Realstreet platform to make your case.

    Goodnight.

  49. English Viking says:

    I’ve never been anybodies bitch, not Stewart’s, not Richard’s.

    I like to tell the truth, warts and all. regardless.

  50. Good for you.

    Goodnight Viking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>