Monthly Archives: August 2021


‘Sexual preference’ is a misnomer. No one ‘prefers’ to be one gender over another. Besides, gender is naturally determined before one is born. It is congenital, and is not subject to preference. It is also never acquired.

Nonetheless, there are homosexuals who are able to function as heterosexuals, but they do so only for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with sexual desire. As is the case with heterosexuals, homosexuals achieve coitus by way of their tacit imaginations.  Their partners may be thoroughly unaware of that silent substitution, or only suspect it, or tacitly accept it, or may even have openly shared their thoughts about it with their partners. 

I don’t have a problem with LGBTQ people, but I do have a problem with socially correct accommodations advocated by reformers, especially legislators.  For example, xyz is the name of an individual who stated on the Internet that xyz is the name she wants to be called. [Here, I’ve used the word ‘individual’ to avoid the awkward ‘he or she’ trap. I’ve never used that phrase since we were bullied into using it on pain of social exorcism.] 

Apart from laws designed to prevent sexual violence, sex is not subject to legislation. But there is a need to lower the rhetoric about fundamental identity. Or, better yet, there is a need to avoid discussing sex as though it were a science. In addition, regarding sex as a science is less illuminating than regarding politics or social studies as sciences. 

On line, I came across a list of differing ‘genders’ so extensive that it was in alphabetical order! The list purported to be about multiple genders, but in effect it merely described various sexual exchanges between individuals who are of the same gender!  Nothing new.

Like fire or the wheel or electric light, communication is a cardinal catalyst for existential advancement. Never before has communication been as prolific, as available, and as explicit about sex as it is now.  But I find it incredible that so many people, especially the young, are so much more naïve about sexual identity than my generation was when it was young! 

“Woke folk” are as much in the dark about sex as “un-woke” folks. For example, there are many homosexual males who are able to fully function as heterosexual when called upon to do so. That does not make them bisexual. Of course the same is true of females who also engage in sex with other females exclusivelly for reasons other than desire. It’s just easier for them to do so than it is for males who also engage in sex with other males for reasons other than desire. ‘Bisexuality’ is not a choice. Neither are heterosexuality or homosexuality.  

Negative attitudes against LGBTQ people are well chronicled. But subliminally or overtly, there are many LGBTQ people, and their empathizers, who express equally negative attitudes against cisgender people. In both groups there is an ugly sense of superiority.  I recently read an article dripping with sarcasm that was written by someone who is not cisgender. The article was every bit as offensive and demeaning as articles written by negative LGBTQ people. 

There is an ominous malaise in a nation formerly renowned for its badge of individuality. Now, xyz is one of many who want to have anonymous names. In place of Tom, Dick, or Harry, they want to be called, We, Us, Everyone, and No one. So do socialists.  Mothers are just baby makers, a child belongs to everyone. 

In the twilight of my life, I wonder were humanity is going. Or, will that question be irrelevant when the first, fully adult, 51%-silicon baby emerges out of vitro.

Comments Off on xyz

Filed under Uncategorized

Anchor of my Life

Today I decided to thin my pile of unread articles which I’ve torn out of Discover magazines but   haven’t had time to read until now. The first of those articles triggered a flashback to the time I was a teenager. I read a book titled, Trees. Like the retrieved Discover article I read today, that book’s theme is the communication of trees with each other. Haply, that flashback supports a concept that is at the base of my lifestyle.  By definition, the word style implicitly suggests change. But when combined with the word ‘life’ it gains meaning. 

Very early in life I realized that most people retain their resistance to a truth if it is in opposition to a long-held belief. Conversely, I realized that whenever I need to consider the truth or falseness of a belief, I must adjust my old belief however contrary it may be to new information. A belief must conform to a truth, not the other way around. 

It is my intellectual and moral responsibility to maintain a non-contradictory and comprehensive lifestyle no matter where cool logic leads.  Although the word ‘lifestyle’ is convenient, it does not reflect the constancy of my anchor. Styles come and go. My anchor is constant. That does not mean that my judgment and behavior are frozen in some specific time frame or other. On the contrary, I am never fixed on a mind set. 

As a teenager it never occurred to me to smoke tobacco because my peers did. I was never curious about the effects of drugs or alcohol. I was not at all interested in getting drunk. There was always one me, not because I forced myself to be a ‘good boy,’ but because I chose to be one person for my own comfort, well-being, and identity.

None of my self-assessment is meant to be boastful. It is merely a description of who I am and who I am not. For example, I abhor slavery, Plato and Aristotle not withstanding. Only humans and certain species of ants practice slavery. I deeply value understanding and compassion. And I don’t consider my lifestyle as noble…it’s just a fact.

Emotionally, I’m not in a cocoon of complacency in contrast to the tragic political turmoil in today’s America. The animosity between and within our major political parties has reached a level almost as severe as that during our Civil War. If for no other reason, there won’t be a literal civil war in America (to the disappointment of anti-Americans like Antifa) because a war among separate states is at the very least impracticable.  But, whatever our political differences,  a return to one America is urgent.

Severe damage to the American way of life is the result of blatantly unreasonable demands from  a handful of socialist officials in the Congress who are relentlessly attempting to ‘cancel’ any vestige of America’s past. The revered ‘melting pot’ has become a hotbed of debilitating contention. Democracy and Socialism don’t mix well despite naming socialist nations, ‘Democratic Socialist Republic.’  

The United States doesn’t need a lobotomy.

Comments Off on Anchor of my Life

Filed under Uncategorized