Posted by
Mykel Board
• 01.08.13 09:00 am


Yes! It’s so rare to find a girl who’ll do your balls. One like her…right now…sucking first one, then the other, between her lipsticked lips.

I sit over her, my feet on either side of her head. My throbbing five inches alert…at attention…as she runs her tongue over my hairitude.

Releasing my twin robin’s eggs, she moves her tongue through the taint, to the sensitive brown hole. Pick… pick…poke!!

Yowsa! Not only does this girl do tea-baggin…she’s a rimmer too! I’m in love!

“Marry me!” I shout. “Quick marry me, before I come!”

Fortunately she can’t answer. Her tongue is busy on other matters.

 
Part One: I’ve squirted screed against marriage ever since I first took chisel to rock to write for MRR. It didn’t help. More and more screamed out for “the right” to marriage. Even homos got in the act.

These days, if I get an invitation to a wedding, I no longer fork over the tens of dollars necessary to buy some exotic gift…like a Veg-O-Matic. For what? A temporary team that’ll break up in two years? I don’t think so. Sorry, from me, you’ll get a five-pack of beer-savers resealable bottlecaps. That’s it.

But what if the problem isn’t marriage at all? What if it’s the Shakespearean…the John Donne…the Harlequin Romance. What if it’s the WAY we get married, rather than marriage itself?

Type feminist and arranged-marriage into the BING® search box that Microsoft® forced on you. You’ll get 2,760,000 results. Most will be like: Arranged marriages: a subversion of feminism.

The idea that someone’s parents or a professional matchmaker should choose a mate is repugnant to Personal Freedom®. To me, that’s like saying the idea of someone else choosing your slave master is repugnant to personal freedom. We should be free to choose our own slave masters, right? I vote for ending slavery…but that’s another story.

Even if you think there’s something wonderful about marriage—that a family is the best way to raise some stinking brat who’ll end up hating you anyway—even if you believe all that, look at the numbers!

If marriage success is determined by the length of the marriage, marriage-for-love loses. The US, land where love rules, is first in divorce. (Or second to Sweden, depending on whose statistics you use.) The most stable marriages are in India, country of arranged marriages.

It’s logical. People fall out of love. Their partners change. What they used to like about each other, they begin to hate. Or something’s empty. Marriage—or even dropping puppies—isn’t like they imagined. After the rim job, there’s still someone else’s dirty underwear on the floor…and that dingleberry on your tongue. People fall out of love. They don’t fall out of an arrangement made by their parents.

 
Part Two: One of the few other columnists that I actually read criticizes me as being a Free Speech Absolutist®. Like the muckrakers of old, it’s an epithet I wear proudly. Let’s check out the alternative view. I’ll call it, No-free-speech-to-those-who-would-deny-it-to-others®.

The Scene: The big square in front of City Hall in Republicanville, Kansas. A rally…at least 50 people from Nazis for Romney. The speaker, a short man with deep-set eyes and Frida Kahlo eyebrows stands at a makeshift podium. He addresses the crowd with a little click of the heels.

“My fellow white Americans,” he starts.

There’s a commotion…some shouting…a scream. Some people charge into the crowd from the back…fists flailing…there’s a chain…ski masks…black leather jackets. They push through the crowd to the small podium.

One of the attackers, a tall guy with catcher’s-mitt-sized hands, grabs the little speaker by the upper arm. He spins the man. BLAM, a fist to the little guy’s jaw. He’s down.

The big guy shouts into the microphone. “NO FREE SPEECH TO THOSE WHO WOULD DENY IT TO OTHERS!”

The cops come…there’s a melee…blah blah blah. You got it.

Then the papers. More publicity for Nazis for Romney…more sympathy than they would’ve gotten if nobody cared. But there’s a deeper issue—a moral issue.

If I say “No Free Speech to those who would deny it to others,” that means I want to deny free speech to some people. According to my own logic, since I want to deny free speech to others, my own free speech should be denied.

See where that goes? It’s like the Hatfields and McCoys. EVERYBODY is denying free speech to someone, and then—because of that denying—is in turn denied by others. Only the strong can say anything.

Bad/stupid/wrong speech is best countered by good/smart/right speech, not by censorship. Not by government censorship. Not by The People’s® censorship.

 
Part three:

MAP (Mothers Against Penises) marches down Market Street in San Francisco. The women, mostly walking advertisements for Sensa, hold aloft cardboard signs showing pictures of deformed babies. One is missing its arms—just stubs at the shoulder. Another shows an almost normal baby except that in the middle of its head is one enormous eye. The babies look dead, though the enormous eye is open. Under the various pictures is the logo: IF IT WEREN’T FOR PENISES, THESE BABIES WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BORN TO SUFFER.

Strange? Maybe, but their logic is based on fact. For these babies to have been born, a penis was involved. Even if the mother was artificially inseminated, you need a penis to milk the semen from in the first place. Eliminate penises, and you eliminate birth defects. It’s logic. It’s science. It’s easy, right?

Add history to logic and science and you get the atheist/materialist trinity that radical and feminist intellectuals have been praying to ever since Karl Marx gave Catherine MacKinnon her first rimjob.

I’m reading this book called Lies My Teacher Told Me. It’s an alternative® to modern textbooks. The author complains that those gloss over the evils of American history. They don’t mention that Thomas Jefferson had slaves…or that the British did not civilize a barren land but destroyed an already present civilization…or that people spoke Spanish in America much before they spoke English.

I’ve never read On the Use and Abuse of History for Life but, from the title, Nietzsche got it half right.

History itself is abuse. When books use it to gloss over the “bad parts” of American history, it’s abuse. When books such as Lies My Teacher Told Me use it to prove a point, it’s abuse.

That book, for example, in an attempt to make it seem like the Civil War was fought about slavery, picks a quote from the South Carolina constitution. If it were honest, there’d be a pro-slavery quote from the Articles of Confederation. There isn’t. The only mention of slaves in that document is the 3/5 voting rule…same as in the US Constitution. Not much of a reason for war.

The reality? A bunch of reasons…a complex web…with the rich and corporate as the spiders.

To some, history is a series of big moves made by great men. It is presidents, generals, people whose achievements Changed the Course of History.® That, too, is wrong.

If I get a particularly good blowjob…one that includes my balls…that changes the course of history. My history, at least. EVERYTHING changes the course of history.

Maybe history is a series of misdeeds and revenge, then revenge for the revenge, then revenge for the revenge for the revenge. Each time a different side wins, the winners rewrite the history, making themselves the good guys. I dunno.

We can look at the past and see things from other vantage points. History is an interesting task, and it may be able to shed some light on the present. But it doesn’t teach us what to do in the present. Neither do logic or science.

With free speech, the answer is not to ban it, but to provide a better alternative. With history, the answer is not to provide alternative history, but to let it go.

Penises make birth defects is logical, scientific, and historical. It is also wrong.

What we need instead are absolutes—like free speech. We need some basic principles that we can judge are right. Then we work from those principles. I propose the following as starters:

  1. People have the right to say whatever the fuck they want, though THE PLACE and VOLUME they say it (like during the scary part of a horror movie) can be slightly regulated. Any regulation must apply equally to everyone. Content of the speech cannot be a criterion.
  2. People do NOT have a right to riches or money. It’s the duty of the government to insure everyone has a basic level of existence: food, housing, clothes, healthcare. The government can and should do this by taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor.
  3. Other countries have other systems of government. Ours should not interfere in other systems except to allow open and unlimited entrance to people who want to leave those other systems.
  4. Consenting people have a right to do anything among themselves as long as it doesn’t physically hurt anyone outside their group.

Other suggestions are welcome.

 

—MYKEL BOARD

 


Comments
  1. Chapter After says:

    mixing sex and politics is so … so … well, now that I think about it, same as it ever was.

    nice.

  2. zigmundroid says:

    The right to choose the means or tool for self defense.

    The right for a mother to choose to kill her unborn child. (I may need to explain this)

    Only the mother can make that decision. It actuality, no one has the right kill. Only a few have the “authority” to kill. The State, and a mother. And she only has that “right” because the kid ain’t here yet.
    I fully understand the concept of “natural born rights” and also understand that the founding fathers enumerated and specifically protected the first ones a tyrannical government will try to infringe.

    But the kid ain’t born yet. So his mothers rights trump. No one else’s can trumps the kids.
    As bad a decision as abortion is, I understand a mother has that right to choose.

    I mention this right because it is the only one where an action majorly encroaches another “unconsenting” humans rights (like to live). The rights of the unborn cannot trump the rights of the born.

  3. tim says:

    Healthcare should not be for profit.
    Insurance should not be for profit.
    Banking should not be for profit.
    This does not mean the people working in these industries don’t get paid, it merely means that there are not investors looking to squeeze profit out of these systems.
    No worker, including ceo’s, can make more than 5 times the lowest paid worker. Surely noone is deserving of more than five times what another gets.


Leave A Reply