.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
.ce ADR - 501
.ce Copyright (C) Homer Wilson Smith
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
======================================================================== 285
Date:         Mon, 02 Oct 89 19:15:02 EDT
From:         Homer  
To:           Adore-l list 
In-Reply-To:  Message of Thu, 3 Aug 89 17:08:00 CDT from 

>>     By herself a woman can get along quite well in this society,
>>she can even survive with a child but not as well without a man.
>I would maintain that she could survive better with a partner, not
>necessarily a man.

     Not necessariy a PREGNANT partner either, eh?

     Point is that when the female is pregnant she would prefer
a partner, especially when the raiding hoardes are coming in across
the boarders along with the winter storms.

     Usually life is hard and life is precious and the more children
the merrier, and your female partner would also want children.  Then
who will be the partner?

     Homosexuality is by its nature sexuality that does not produce
children.  If one is a MONO homo, meaning they really don't like sex
with the opposite sex, then it follows that they will probably not
enjoy MAKING children, and will probably end up not having any unless
they purloin them from somewhere else, a man AND a woman no doubt.

     Gee how strange that gays need hets to even exist, yet hets
don't seem to need gays at all.  Wonder why that is?  Could it have
anything to do with the LOGIC of sexuality?

     Seems to me that to have the majority of the world not need you
biologically to continue the species is a very dangerous evolutionary
route.  And in fact I hardly can see my way to believing that it IS
an evolutionary route.  Well if its not an evolutionary route, it must be
a ...  no never mind, would'nt want to upset any homo's now would we.

     You know I wouldn't be so up in arms about gays, if they weren't
so bent on getting children by every god forsaken means possible.
Also if they did not attack the abilities of men and women which
they seem to have to clue about since they arn't operating any of them.

     Gay men don't spend their whole lives thinking about how to support
a family and a woman.  Hell both gays will be working earning 30,000
a year or better EACH, so they have nothing to worry about.  No children
to feed or educate, no medical bills or insurance, except their own (Gee
maybe there IS justice!).  Same thing goes for the two lesbies.

     Now many WANT children.  But they HATE making them.  So do they
deserve to HAVE them?

     Of course I am not saying that indulging in homosexuality means
you should not have children, nor that homosexuals should not get
married and receive married benefits.  I am saying that people who
are not married in a bisexual relationship should not be having
children willy nilly, nor should they be GIVEN children produced
from otherwise failed heterosexual families.

     Along with the freedom from children comes the freedom to not consider
the needs and the burdens of supporting the children, probably more than one,
and for lesbies considerations like the usefullness of men goes by the boards.

     Gay men who don't consider raising enormous families usually don't consider
women of very much use in their lives either.

     Ultimately I see homosexuality as a clear statement about the uselessness
of the other sex to oneself.  It is saying I need only one sex, and if the
other one disappeared tomorrow, well I would notice it, but not for long.

     Of course GAYS would never admit to this, living in a constant facade
of deepest respect for the opposite sex.  They just cant see spending
any deep TIME with the opposite sex.   'I respect you deeply, dearie,
but you BORE the HELL out of me.'

     There ARE higher monuments to hypocrisy.  The lesbies see this flaming
hypocrisy in the gays and it just makes them more smug and justified about
their decision to have no men in their lives.  'What a RELIEF it was to
relate to an EQUAL!' as one lesbie so succinctly put it.

>>     A human female body with children alone in a forest would be wanting
>>a male body real bad though.
>And what would a man alone in a forest with children do?  Wouldn't
>he have the same problems?  Seems to me as if there's a mutual
>dependency here.

     You are pretending to challenge me on my own
point.  Men need women, and women need men.

     Actually lesbies have a slightly different view.

     Their view is that men need women, but men aint gonna get them because
women don't need men.

     | Lesbie rantings and ravings go here...                 |
     |                                                        |
     |                                                        |
     |                                                        |
     |                                                        |
     |                                                        |
     |                                                        |

>>     Some woman may claim to not need a man to raise a child or 10,
>>but ASK THE CHILDREN.  They will tell you something is wrong with mother.
>>The CHILDREN will wish they had a father.  Of course you can brainwash
>>it out of them by 10 years of age.
>The same is true of children raised without a mother, isn't it?

     No, did I say that?  Gee I thought I never mentioned the subject.

     Seems to me that you are taking every opportunity to make me wrong
by spouting back to me my own views exactly as I have said them a million
times in 32000 lines of postings and claiming I was too stupid or unfair
to admit them.

     Why I bother with you is totally beyond me, however...
>     I'd think women would be in great demand also.  One male's sperm
>can impregnate a great many women; wombs would be a much scarcer
>commodity.  The death of a women would be a greater disaster to
>the community than would the death of a male.

     Ask the woman.  If she had to fend for her kids alone without
her man, and one of them had to get killed, which would she choose?
Which would her kids choose?

     Would she rather fend for her kids alone, or have her man do it?
What would she CHOSE for the KIDS.  She would probably for their sake
have the man do it.

     I know all you iron plated lesbie spear chuckers out there will disagree,
thats fine if you can handle the saber tooths.  All you have to do
is LOOK at them anyway and they would drop dead.  Who needs a man?

If  the women were
>pregnant all the time and there were children around someone would
>have to get food and provide shelter.  I would maintain that non-
>pregnant females or males could do this.  In fact males SHOULD do it
>because the females are forced to care for the children.  Physically,
>adult males may depend on the child burdened females less than they
>depend on him, but for the species to survive, the dependance is

     For the species to survive, the child is as important as the woman, who is
 as important as the man.  Why do you continue to spout obviousnesses?

     Are you under the delusion that I would disagree with you?

     Where did you get this opinion?

     Did I ever say that the man was more important than the woman to
the species in GENERAL?

     Well if you have to sacrifice the child the woman or the man, I think most
 woman would agree that the child should be sacrificed first, then the woman
then the man.  Other men will resent having to feed another man's woman and
children.  Other's will be willing to make her pregnant, but not necessarily
form a harem and take care of her.

     A pregnant woman is a god damn burden.  No man in his right mind
would sacrifice another man over his woman.  Besides since the man's job is
usually very dangerous and more stressfull they tend to die earlier, and
there are fewer of them.  Thus there will always be other woman for the man
to mate with, but if the man dies, the woman may die a old hag.

>     Well, it's no longer a luxury; with our overpopulated planet it
>would be better if more people would engage in non reproductive sex.

     Yes it would also be better if more people engaged in murder and
euthanasia.  They could start with you.

     In case you played hookey they day they had sex ed class, you can have
non reproductinve sex with members of the opposite sex too.

>     Now that women have control of their reproductive systems, (or
>did until a recent ruling) things can change.  With our overpopulated
>world women no longer have to be pregnant their entire life to keep
>the species going (in fact, it seems more responsible to limit the
>number of children you have).

     You seem to consider childbirth a great tribulation that you are
endlessly grateful that you no long have any social pressure to indulge in.
Most women would regret the lack of need for child birth in these over
populated times.  You seem to relish in it.

     Seems to be that this is a high sign pointing to your own mother's
and father's attitudes about YOU.

It's also no longer necessary for women
>to be the care-giver after birth.  Men are certainly capable of
>fixing a bottle or changing diapers and women are equally capable
>of going out and earning a good living.

     Bull shit.  Men provide the safe space that women then USE to make
that good living.  Men subsidize the living hell out of women and women go
and say it aint so and rip men off.

     Most women don't have the brains to see how bright men really are.

     Those that do, you can bet will be parked next to a man they are
holding on to very hard.

>     Also, I think that in the days before recent history men and
>women had different roles and one was not considered superior to
>the other.  Both worked to insure the survival of the species and
>neither would have made it without the other.

     Bullshit.  The track of men is one of alone on the hunt, making
it by himself all the time.  The track of women is one of being ALWAYS
with the community in the safe confines built by the men and maintained
by the women.  Gods do BETTER with men.  Men do BETTER with women.
Women do BETTER with children.

     Children DIE without women. Women DIE without men.  Men DIE without

     Of course the STATE built mostly by men and also women is there
to help all the orphaned be they men women or children.  So it can
look like you don't need the next level up.

It's only been
>recently with the invention of time and labor saving devices that
>womens role as mother and homekeeper has become 'inferior' and men's
>role as physical provider has become 'superior'.  In our world,
>whoever makes the money has the power.

     You have mixed up the Superior/Inferior relation with the
Superior/Junior relation.  A sure sign of your personal inferiority.

>     Anyway, society and gender roles developed as they did for
>valid reasons; those reasons no longer hold.  Children can grow up
>just as well with mothers who work and fathers who stay home.  The

     Bullshit.  The society will fall apart at the seams.  Women can
work WITH men, but if we totally reversed the role of men and women,
our civilization would fall apart, not to mention come under the
slavery of the raiding hoardes of MEN, or didn't you notice dearie?

     You think an American Army of women could do well against
a Russian Army of men?  Right.  Any more jokes?  The nights not over

>fact that this is not the accepted norm doesn't mean it's wrong or
>unnatural.  The reason humans have survived as long as they have is
>because of their ability to adapt to changing environments and
     Also to face the truth, which surely means that you are on your
way out.

>     The whole question of women getting along without men or men
>getting along without women is not even worth considering.  There
>would be no men or women without the other.  Men and women are
>complementary beings.  Men could get along without women and women
>could survive without men, but what about the species?

     You evade the question of PERSONAL survival and dependance by
talking about the species.  The species would die with out CHILDREN
too, but that does not mean they can survive WELL without women.
Same goes for women.  They might make it, but their standard of
living would be VERY MUCH BELOW PAR.   Must admit though, everything
would neat and clean.

>     History can tell us why things are the way they are.  By using
>our brains we should be able to figure out that as our environment
>changes men's and women's roles should change to fit the conditions.
>One role isn't superior or inferior, they are complementary.
    If this is true, then the child's role is not inferior either,
and is also complimentary.

    Which is fine with me, but is also besides the point of who needs
who more at the level of personal individual surival.

>     Well, that's enough for one day.

     Thank God.

 Homer               Adore-l list        10/02/89 No subject