Return Of The Ladyboys!!

After living part of my adult life in Asia, specifically in South East Asia, at first I found it very difficult to understand the American reluctance to accept and tolerate people who were either Lesbian, Gay or Transsexual. I had seen many. Some were my friends. In Thailand there is nothing wrong with having a highly educated ladyboy as a friend to advise you on meeting a nice highly educated upper middle-class Chinese woman. So I never really thought anything of ideas like homophobia until I came home to the United States. It seems to me that Thai's are much more honest about things generally and about sexuality in particular without all of the stigma we associate with it. You can read about ladyboys here: http://www.thai-blogs.com/index.php?blog=8&cat=290

Any offense against a Thai ladyboy may wind up getting you beat to a pulp as many are experts in kickboxing and can be quite aggressive. If only the same were true in America. I am sure things would change overnight here for a homophobe redneck the first time a guy that looks as hot as Angelina Jolie kicked the shit out of him.

Much like the "banned" portions of Benjamin Franklin's racy writings that some 19th century Victorian decided violated a social code that no self respecting 18th century gentleman would have ever believed in let alone followed in the "land of liberty." What I find is that people who are different from a definition of normal about as long as a fingernail are somehow deviant in our intolerant social climate.

Gays are stigmatized, Lesbos, ladyboys, even using the names I used provoke sensitive reactions in some people who are gay or lesbian despite the fact that I am so comfortable with my own sexuality and woman worship, I am also comfortable and will defend everyone else's orientation no matter what.

I still find it interesting, that the tolerant attitude of my Quaker heritage in Delaware, is exactly the same as the tolerant heritage of the Buddhism I practice with regards to the LGBT community and neither of us attach any stigma to the people who choose to live and are the way they are. What cultivated tolerance and reason and sometimes idiosyncratic weirdness in us, and left others out? Anyone want to help me understand the phenomena of this intolerance?

And while I do not think that the radical pornography of the Thai tranny mafia is a good thing. It shows one just how clearly that the third sex has been accepted into social life without the paralyzing stigma that affects so many homosexuals and bisexuals in the United States. The lady boy mafia in Bangkok controls parts of the city now and have become a potent political force in the social dynamic of the metropolis.

All of this begs the essential question: Why should people not be accepted and treated and respected and integrated into society just as they are and NOT as we want them to be? It is a question I have no answers to, and I still do not understand American attitudes that seem to contradict the libertarian spirit of our national heritage. Are the Puritans still in charge?

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog