Thursday, November 12, 2009

Singing nude in the rain.......



Ah! Master Husband got his kinky wish! We finally had a nice rainy day yesterday, and Maste and his slave got to test out her brand new BRIGHT RED raincoat. As ordered she wore nothing underneth. As promised Master made sure it was such, it is 100% waterproof, so this slave was quite happy with it! Also, if this slave gets lost or falls into a ravine, the search and rescue team will have no trouble finding the slave. "cheery thoughts" This jacket is seriously seriously bright. And does glow in the dark and so light and slightly transparent when dry. We had a great rainy-day dog walk in the woods. Master said his slave was funny in the rain, this slave likes the outdoors time, but she doesn't like it if the rain gets in her hair or on her neck - so she points them backwards in a really cute way. Stevie Wonder does care at all - Master said his slave just comes to life in the woods. It's really beautiful.

Islam : peaceful indeed......Cartoon protest leader guilty of soliciting murder


Islam = peaceful indeed......Cartoon protest leader guilty of soliciting murder


Muslims protest in London after the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad in Danish and French newspapers.
Muslims protest in London after the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad in Danish and French newspapers. Photograph: Ian Langsdon/EPA
A leader of a demonstration in protest against cartoons of the prophet Mohammed published in Danish newspapers was yesterday convicted at the Old Bailey of soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred.
Umran Javed, 27, of Birmingham, was found guilty yesterday of soliciting murder and stirring up racial hatred during a demonstration outside the Danish embassy in Knightsbridge, west London, in February last year.
The protest had been called following publication of a number of cartoons in Denmark which portrayed Mohammed in various unflattering forms. The original protesters were later joined by between 200 and 300 others, who had marched from the Regent's Park mosque.
Police monitoring the demonstration took video footage of the protesters and Javed was arrested later after more than 100 complaints had been made by members of the public. The court was told that Javed had used a loud hailer to address around 40 other demonstrators.
"He appeared to be one of the leaders," prosecuting counsel David Perry QC told the jury. "He addressed the crowd in terms which encouraged killing and incited racial hatred ... He said Denmark would pay with blood."
He was also alleged to have shouted: "Bomb, bomb Denmark. Bomb, bomb USA." Mr Perry said the crowd responded to his calls with similar calls and chants.
Mr Perry told the jury that the case was not about the issues of freedom of assembly or freedom of speech. The words used were plainly criminal, he said.
Earlier, Javed told the jury: "I regret saying these things. I understand the implications they have, but they were just slogans, soundbites. I did not want to see Denmark and the USA being bombed."
There were angry scenes in the public gallery as the verdicts were announced and Javed was remanded in custody for sentencing in April.
The conviction was attacked last night by Muslim activists who said that a fair trial was not possible in the current climate in Britain. They said that the demonstrators had merely been expressing their anger and not literally calling for murder.
The cartoons were not published in the United Kingdom but have since appeared in publications in France and are available on the internet.






Watch the youtube video  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2epvSAGuLc  and this one: The Dark Side of Prophet  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPjVCwec6oQ&feature=related   ehhh! religion is disguising...including Christianity....ugggg!!!   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MbdiXxJWRI&feature=related

http://youtu.be/lj3Su3BGIAI        disgusting

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

What kind of people is Collarme Made up of?

What is cm made up of? Let's see... 85 - 90% males........or contains roughly 60% males (Doms), 20% male subs including 10 to 15% of them pretending to be female subs.. 1 or 2% are female (subs including lesbians)  2%female dommes. 4 % gay males (doms and subs). 1%lesbian females ( dommes and subs). .. 5% either/or unknown, trans, etc. It is just a guess so for those that like to be critical, dont thats not what your here for.

Now I do believe that out of the 60% Male Doms that about 90% either are wannabe Doms or pretend to be experienced Doms at leaset they think and say they are but haven't gotten a clue what it takes to be a Dom....My Husband calls them slow typists...(people with one hand on the keyboard and the other one on the you know what).....  A few fakes/bots/flakes/retards will always make it through.

I also believe that out of the 2% Subs that about 70% are not really true and are experimenting or part time...seeking fun..but would never want to get involved in RT with a dom..the other 20% are the fakes/bots/flakes/retards, dont ask me why this is so different but it is.the remaining 10% are true subs and slaves that do seek a life.

The other 5% well honestly they are just there and probably happy doing whatever it is they are here to do.

So if you have read this far your probably asking what the fuck is this slave talking about. Well here it goes short and sweet. You are either a Dom/Sub/Switch, say it mean it and realize we are all here to learn/play and have fun. If you think your going to find "The One" it could happen but odds are it will not, however give it a shot and see.

Guess what I am saying is, damn realize what this site is for and about, meet some people have some fun and if it goes further great if not, had fun lessons learned so fourth and so on.

Monday, September 7, 2009

My take on Collarme users.

What is cm made up of? Let's see... contains roughly 60% males (Doms), 20% male subs including 5% of them pretending to be female subs.. 6% are female (subs including lesbians)  2%female dommes. 4 % gay males (doms and subs). 4%lesbian females ( dommes and subs). .. 5% either/or unknown, trans, etc. It is just a guess so for those that like to be critical, dont thats not what your here for.

I also believe cm is made up of 70% Republicans....and more than half of who would proudly claim they are about family values and would stick to ethics....claim there is too much sex on t.v, movies. About BDSM? What is BDSM?, what D/s, or Master/Slave games....was that not outlawed in the U.S?  ...(giggle...Yes...Republicans...You are two faced bigots...if not outright mornons)

Now I do believe that out of the 60% Male Doms that about 90% either are wannabe Doms or pretend to be experienced Doms atleaset they think and say they are. A few fakes/bots/flakes/retards will always make it through.

I also believe that out of the 6% female subs about 70% are not really true and are experimenting or part time...seeking fun...the other 20% are the fakes/bots/flakes/retards, dont ask me why this is so different but it is.the remaining 10% are true subs and slaves that do seek a life.

The other 5% well honestly they are just there and probably happy doing whatever it is they are here to do.

So if you have read this far your probably asking what the hell is this gal talking about. Well here it goes short and sweet. You are either a Dom/Sub/Switch, say it mean it and realize we are all here to learn/play and have fun. If you think your going to find "The One" it could happen but odds are it will not, however give it a shot and see.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

The Grand Old Party of Racism

Once upon a time, there was the party of Lincoln. It was devoted to the idea of emancipation and 40 acres and a mule. Over the last 150 years, how times have changed. Today, in order to secure their electoral base, the Republican party has lowered itself to the lowest common denominator of its rabid base. It has become the Grand Old Party of racism.
Since the Southern strategy became the bread and butter of Republican electoral politics, a key shift happened in the party. As new (more Southern) elements gained power in the party, racism began rearing its ugly head from time to time. The most toxic of these outbreaks was the Louisiana politician, David Duke. A former Grand Wizard of the KKK, he ran semi-successful candidacies for the House (1989), the Senate (1990), governor of Louisiana (1991) and president (1992). While much of the national party repudiated Duke’s racism, his ability to collect votes in Louisiana pointed to a demographic and a fact just beneath the surface of the Republican Party.  At the heart of the base (especially in Southern states) people with predominantly racist beliefs form the core of the party that Republicans rely on to get elected.
In recent years, the American electorate has basically broken itself down into thirds. About 25% of the electorate is liberal/progressive and about 35% of the electorate identifies as hard-core Republican/conservative. The remaining 40% or so occupy the mushy middle of non-ideologues, independents, libertarians, greens, and others. 40% might seem high, but that mushy middle has a tendency not to come out to vote. They are notoriously unpredictable. For much of the 1980s and 1990s, Republican electoral strategy was pretty simple. To win elections all you had to do was get out your base, and focus on enough single, hot-button social issues to swing key constituencies who might be found in that mushy middle. For example, you might go for the Catholic vote by focusing on abortion. Additionally, Republican strategists also tended to focus on negative advertising as a means of voter suppression. If middle-of-the-road voters were not breaking your candidate’s way, you could always swing enough mud to turn those voters (who were not very likely to vote anyway) off. Meanwhile, Democrats would have to both excite their base and manage to pull enough of those 40% to get a plurality.

While favorable for many years, the demographics began to slip away from Republicans after 2000. Primarily in Southern states, Hispanics have become the new force to deal with in politics as the Hispanic population in the U.S. has soared.
Enter Karl Rove. Rove’s strategy was quite smart. He took into account the growing Hispanic nature of the electorate and chose to directly address them in Bush’s 2000 campaign. His improved slice of the Hispanic pie (35%) was just enough to help push him over the top in several key states in 2000, especially Florida. In 2004, Bush did even better with national security dominating the campaign. That year, Bush managed to get around 44% of the vote. But then, the bottom dropped out for Republicans with the Hispanic community. What happened?
The answer to that question is simple. In June of 2007, Bush’s Immigration bill, which would have established a path to citizenship for up to 12 million illegal aliens in the country, went down to ignominious defeat, largely at the hands of conservatives in his own party. Key conservative senators, such as Jim DeMint (R-SC) and John Cornyn (R-TX) led the charge. Bush’s "Big Tent" had been scorched just in time for the 2008 elections. When all the dust had settled on the McCain campaign, he managed to receive only 31% of the Hispanic vote. Obama was able to pull together a powerful coalition of minorities, liberals, and people in the middle who simply wanted a change in the country’s direction. Obama easily won election as he managed to flip key states like Florida, North Carolina and Virginia from red to blue. However, in massive defeat, the Republican party didn’t change course. Instead, Republicans at the state level got involved in the process and Arizona passed a “show me your papers” immigration bill that pushed even more Hispanics into the D column. The Republicans were facing electoral apocalypse. So, what to do?
Unfortunately for them, the solution will most likely be their undoing. Since 2008, Republican party strategy has shifted to give the nativist, "know-nothing," bigoted wing of the Republican party exactly what they want. In primary after primary, they have pushed the extremist candidates of choice. Rebranded as the Tea Party movement and endowed by the wealthy supporters of Republican think tanks, they have systematically purged the Republican party of any moderation. In 2010, the new Republican strategy became clear. First, your base must over-perform in the polls. You do this by giving them red meat in the form of concessions and an enemy in the form of President Obama (more on this later). Second, you take advantage of a ruling (Citizens United) by your bought-and-paid-for Supreme Court that allows corporations to dump unlimited money on campaigns. You use that advantage to suppress Democratic votes in any way possible, be that hiring thugs to scream at town hall meetings, or massive negative campaign buys. The result was rather predictable: in an off-year election (2010), when moderates are less likely to vote, the Republicans managed to gain control of Congress. The trouble is that now their strategy is locked in for 2012.

In 2012, no Republican who significantly disagrees with the base will come close to being nominated. What’s worse, the concert of racism that was once conducted with dog whistles is now out in the open. It is slowly exposing itself as the racist strategy that it is. Since 2008, Republicans at all levels have used the Obama birth certificate as a code word for race. It gave birth (pardon the pun) to the weaselly argument of, “I take him at his word, but people have raised questions.” Time and time again we heard this talking point from the Republican leadership. Tea Party leaders, like Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), were even more open with their doubts about what President Obama was trying to hide.
Enter Donald Trump. Over the last month, Mr. Trump has managed to stir up huge free publicity on this non-issue to help put forward the central idea of his non-campaign for president. When not challenging the president’s nationality, Trump has been busy touting his, “great relationship with the blacks.” Trump's constant verbal diarrhea merely reveals what has been there all along: the attacks on President Obama and his birth certificate were always about race.
While you might dismiss Trump as a “barker” for the Tea Party sideshow as President Obama so eloquently described the situation, the Grand Old Party of racism just keeps rolling along. State by state, the Koch Brothers, ALEC and other groups have been systematically pushing their racist agenda. Across the nation (Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina and other states) Republican legislatures have all put forward curiously similar bills, all designed to make it harder to vote. For example, in Florida, those most likely to move by demographic are the poor and minorities. The bill would make it much more difficult for registration groups to work with these individuals, even leaving non-partisan groups like the League of Women Voters thinking they will have to suspend voter drives under the threat of fines. With more people voting provisional ballots (of which only 48% were counted across the country in last fall’s election), voter suppression is a certainty as voters forgo the long lines created by the shortening of early voting.
In Oklahoma, the mask has completely fallen off and Republican legislators seem to be empowered these days to say exactly how they feel. Upon the passing of legislation to put Affirmative Action up to a vote by the electorate, Rep. Sally Kern (R-Oklahoma City) decided to let it all hang out.  In an interview with the Tulsa World she said, “Minorities earn less than white people because they don’t work as hard and have less initiative.” She went on to add that, “We have a high percentage of blacks in prison, and that’s tragic, but are they in prison just because they are black or because they don’t want to study as hard in school? I’ve taught school, and I saw a lot of people of color who didn’t study hard because they said the government would take care of them.”

The GOP needs to ask itself if they still want to be the party of Lincoln. Right now, they are looking an awful lot like the party of David Duke and ‘Bull’ Connor.

Article Author: Jerald Cumbus

Jerald Cumbus is a professor, administrator, blogger, political activist, writer, poet, blogger and critic. Originally from Florida, he now works and resides in the United Arab Emirates. A long-time blogger, he was an early member of the Democratic …

Saturday, July 25, 2009

What is the Hanky Code?

What is the Hanky Code?: "The hanky code is a signaling system used by gay men and members of the fetish and BDSM communities to indicate sexual preference. Signals in the hanky code are conveyed by wearing a handkerchief of a specific color or pattern in either the right or left back pocket, conveying preference to anyone in the vicinity who is familiar with the concept of the hanky code. While wearing a hanky, someone is said to be “flagging,” and the hanky code is known as flagging, the bandanna code, or the handkerchief code.

Some people have suggested that the basics of the hanky code may go as far back to the 1800s, when men in isolated regions of the American West would wear red handkerchiefs to indicate that they were willing to take a woman's role in a dance. However, this is probably apocryphal, and has never been verified. More solidly, the seeds for the hanky code appear to have been sown in the 1970s, when gay men first started wearing handkerchiefs according to guidelines published in The Village Voice, a newspaper in New York City."


There are a number of advantages to the hanky code which explain why it endures to this day. In the 1970s, when the gay community was less outspoken, the hanky code allowed gay men to communicate with each other without attracting attention, and allowed men to more easily scope out potential dates. In communities where the hanky code was prevalent, men knew that pursuing men who weren't flagging could be risky, and they could seek out partners on the basis of preference by checking their back pockets.
This code also turned out to be handy in crowded environments like gay bars, where the noise and crowd could make it hard to establish a connection with someone. As the hanky code spread in the gay community, it began to be picked up more generally in the fetish and BDSM communities, and complex permutations of colors, patterns, and placements began to proliferate.
As a general rule, someone who flags in the left pocket indicates that he or she is a top, while someone who flags in the right pocket is a bottom. Bottoms prefer to participate as recipients in sexual and fetish encounters, while tops prefer just the opposite.
Knowing about the hanky code can be useful if you are traveling to an area with a large queer or fetish-oriented population, as you might unwittingly send out a signal if you leave a handkerchief in your back pocket. However, many people rely on other social cues beyond the hanky code; if you happen to have, for example, a gray handkerchief in your right pocket while innocently riding the subway, you are unlikely to be ravaged by eager bondage tops, although someone might approach with a courteous introduction.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Republican Fairytales.



Just as disturbing as spreading lies is the ClusterFox/Republican meme that all Muslims are terrorists. The GOP is being exposed for being the purveyors of hate and lies, based on this poll. However, their being busted in one unscientific poll does not eliminate the damage they’ve already done, nor the havoc they’re trying to create.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Come on B.S. with Jesus - Pastors will moderate = Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

In Virginia, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is exploring the limits of when preaching crosses over the line into politics. It requires a bit of digging into state law, but the line he identifies looks fairly clearly, at least at first glance.
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli spoke to the approximately 250 church leaders on Thursday, outlining for them what they are allowed to do when it comes to political engagement.
A personal endorsement of a candidate is permissible under the law, he said at the Virginia Christian Alliance’s “Christian Citizenship and Godly Government Breakfast.” But they cannot use their church to endorse anyone.
“The biggest no-no of them all, do not put your church’s name behind any candidate,” he made clear as he pointed out that churches that endorse candidates could lose their 501(c)3 tax exempt status.
If we stopped there, it sounds like the AG is pulling out the separation of church and state argument with guns blazing. However, he goes on to put a few more qualifiers on this which come close to the exact opposite.
Churches may also distribute voter guides explaining the issue positions of candidates, as long as those guides do not also contain the positions of the church on those issues.
Cuccinelli assured the pastors, though, that speaking out on political issues is not only legal, but appropriate.
“When you became a pastor, you didn’t leave your First Amendment rights at the door,” he clarified. “Continue to be good shepherds to your congregations – and don’t be afraid when your shepherding includes giving guidance on issues that fall in the political world, because those are the same issues your congregants face each day in their world. Let your voice be heard. Speak out and guide your flock toward what is right and what is true.”
You’ll pardon me for observing that the Attorney General, speaking in his official capacity, isn’t sounding particularly secular there. But in any event, he’s not exactly breaking new ground. This is one of the biggest gray areas in the country when it comes to the intersection of politics and faith.
On the one hand, it’s not difficult to imagine that when your pastor hands out an “issues guide” reinforcing the church’s position on each item, it doesn’t exactly require a double major in theology and political science to put two and two together and figure out which candidate is which. But does that cross the line in terms of non-profits – including churches – staying out of elections?
That depends which state you’re in. Without re-writing a single law, one state could choose to bring the hammer down when the leader of the congregation so much as mentions the word abortion. Across the state line, the next governor could have policies allowing priests to do anything, providing their not actually handing out “Vote for Bob” bumper stickers along with the communion wafers.
The real question to be wrestled to the ground here is, when is influence undue and when is it appropriate? On the one hand, the entire purpose of structured religion is, in part, to influence your behavior. (At least as far as influencing you to lead a moral life.) Surely the way you vote is part of how you interact with the rest of the world and conduct your affairs.
But contrarians will note that religious leaders carry influence beyond what any single adviser or guide could wield, since they implicitly carry the fate of your eternal soul in their hands. Should that level of what is literally “the fear of god” influence be brought to bear on voters’ decisions? This will raise the usual hackles on both sides of the debate, but don’t expect any clarification from on high any time soon. In fact, it will continue to swirl as events like the Texas “Day of Prayer” make the news.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Study: Liberal brains bigger in areas dealing with complexity, conservative brains bigger in area of fear

Liberals have more gray matter in a part of the brain associated with understanding complexity, while the conservative brain is bigger in the section related to processing fear, said the study on Thursday in Current Biology.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

The Acid Tests (Sorting real Tops from fakers)

The Acid Tests (Sorting real Tops from fakers)


Note by DrSpankenstein over 2 years ago


This is an article I wrote for 'Power Lines' back in 1998, it's somewhat dated now but I'm still surprised how many requests I get to repost it. Since I have space here to do it, I thought I might as well for convenience sake. It still expresses some philosophies and opinions I hold personally valid.

Introduction

The term ‘Acid Test’ is an old prospecting term. A powerful acid can dissolve most base metals in a matter of minutes. However, gold will stand up to most acids. So the ‘Acid Test’ was an easy way for people to make sure they had a real nugget of gold and not a lump of the ‘fool’s’ variety. In the same way, these tests are meant to be quick ways to identify fake Doms. Passing all these tests is no guarantee either, there is no replacement for getting to know your prospective partner as well as possible before you even meet in person.

Now most of these tests are designed in mind for a submissive female trying to sort through men claiming to be Doms online. They are largely based on the many questions I get asked by my female friends still searching for a Dominant partner. Some of them can probably be used by male subs as well, but for the most part, these tests are best for ferreting out male fakes. Vanilla males are usually after ‘easy sex’ and this motive makes them easier to identify than a lot of the fake Dommes out there.

Step One: Do the Math

Various estimates and surveys have placed the ratio of real (i.e. natural) male sexual Dominants to female sexual submissives at about one to ten. However, a quick count in any given BDSM oriented chat room would lead you to believe that male Doms outnumber the subs at about two to one. Now if there is actually only one male Dom for every ten female subs, that means that 19 out of the 20 “Doms” you see online have to be fakes. Keep this in mind. There is a 95% chance that any man you talk to online claiming to be a Dom is no such thing. This leads us to our first rule, a rule that all statisticians and scientists already know by heart: “When in doubt, throw it out!”
Your search for a suitable Dominant partner (especially if you are seeking a serious long-term relationship as well) could easily take years. That’s hardly surprising, most people spend years looking for that special lover, be they ‘vanilla’ or otherwise. So don’t be disheartened by all these drastic ratios. But don’t waste your time either. If any of the prospects you are chatting with online makes you feel uncomfortable for any reason, drop him. Don’t give him ‘three strikes’ or ‘extra chances to win.’ Block out his screen-name and move on. There was only a one in twenty chance he was legitimate anyway. Trust your instincts!

Step Two: Know Your Enemy

We call them Snerts. We call them HNG’s (Horny Net Geeks). We call them Wannabes. We call them Control Freaks. And sometimes, tragically, we even find some that can only be called rapists and predators. They are all your enemy. Don’t bother thinking they are anything less. Even a more or less well meaning Snert can land you in a hospital. Real BDSM is not for dilettantes or amateurs: Not, no, and never! Even if he turns out to be a more or less nice guy, if he’s not a Dom, he’s not going to give you what you really need. He will likely give you many things you don’t need, like medical bills and other assorted headaches.

Snerts are basically looking for easy sex. They are counting on the (highly inaccurate) assumption that sexual submissives are simply sexually promiscuous. Nothing could be farther from the truth, but that doesn’t deter them at all. They are typically middle aged to somewhat older men. They are often married. They are usually trying to bolster their flagging vanilla sex lives with some casual screwing around. They target submissives because they think that they won't make demands on there sexual prowess (another bad assumption). They can be easily spotted because they almost always demand or at least emphasize sexual intercourse being a part of their ‘scenes.’

HNG’s are usually the most harmless (and yet often the most annoying) of the enemy types. Most are teenagers and young men looking for some quick cyber-sex or even phone-sex. They are usually pretty sophisticated about their BDSM jargon and the ‘scenes’ they describe to you can be pretty elaborate. Geeks do their homework. They scour the porno sites for ideas, and hang out in BDSM chats for hours on end learning the lingo. The are most easily spotted because they want to move on to cyber-sex and phone sex very quickly. They like to offer online collars, and spend hours on end in chat rooms ‘playing’ with their ‘subbies.’ Don’t waste your time with them.

The second most dangerous type of enemy is the Control Freak. Control freaks are what most psychologists and therapists call ‘controlling personalities.’ They are basically obsessed with control of everything around them, especially the people in their lives. They want all their family, friends, and even coworkers to behave exactly as they say. They are extremely manipulative people. These men can be dangerous because many really have convinced themselves that they are Dominants as a way to justify their dysfunctional lives. Many inexperienced submissives find themselves ‘naturally’ attracted to these men because outwardly they seem so ‘in command’ of things all the time. The truly ironic (and sad) thing is, a controlling personality is actually the closest thing to the opposite of a sexual Dominant.

Controls Freaks can be spotted because they often talk about ‘taking care of you’ and also ‘knowing what’s best for you.’ They almost always try to play on your emotions; especially guilt. They also usually criticize and even resent the advice you get from other people. They often talk about 24/7 BDSM relationships without going into any details about what kind of actual scenes they play. They are fond of telling you that they prefer the ‘mental aspect’ of Domination and submission. They tend to be both demanding and argumentative. Nothing you do will ever be quite right. While all this may seem very repulsive and easy to avoid, be on your guard, the average control freak often seems very charming initially. Once they have their hooks into you its very hard to get untangled.

The last and most dangerous type of enemy is the rapist or predator. These are the men most likely to damage or even end your life. The truly frightening thing about these evil men it that there is NO easy way to spot them. Rapists can be anything from bums to bank mangers, and anyone from family members to total strangers. One in four women has suffered an attack from this vile creature, and one in seven men as well! Their motive is violence. The best defense is never make yourself too vulnerable.

To defend yourself from predators, learn all the ins and outs of setting up a good Safety Net. Follow these procedures religiously. Most important of all take your time getting to know your prospective play partners. This is good advice in any case. If you know your partner well, you’re more likely to have a good time with him, because you will feel more comfortable during that first scene. Predators are more likely to move on in search of easy prey, they do tend to be impulsive. If a ‘Dom’ you have been talking too suddenly seems to loose interest in you after a period of time, you may have just saved your own life. Don’t go chasing after anybody. A true Dom doesn't need to play ‘hard to get.’

Step 3: Know your goal!

Take the time to figure out what you want. It’s often hard for newbie subs to do this because sometimes they lack knowledge of what choices are available to them. So arm yourself with knowledge! There are many fine publications, books, and internet websites that cater to sexual submissives. So start reading! Learn about the different types of play and how they should be conducted. Learn everything you can about how to set up a Safety Net. Learn all the dos and don’ts of meeting others and playing safely. Decide what your Limits are and set them down on paper. This may seem like a lot of homework to do in the name of fun, but also keep in mind that that it’s your ass that’s (literally) on the line here.

Know what a real Dom acts like. Remember, you are probably a sexual submissive because you are in control the rest of the time. You are strong! Likely even ambitious as well. You have a career, or goals, or a lifestyle that demands this high level of energy and control. So giving away your control is a beautiful respite from everyday life. Your power and energy are things you only want to give to someone you trust, and in intimate situations at that. It’s a very personal thing to you!

Well guess what, sexual Dominants are usually the compliment of this. We are often strong people too, and we do tend to be intelligent. We are often highly trained professionals or skilled craftsmen. However, we tend to avoid lifestyles and careers that demand we be in control all the time. We tend to be easygoing. I have never in my life met, or even heard of, an uptight sexual Dominant. We like being in control in intimate situations. It’s a respite from the way we live our everyday lives. We are not really the opposite of you, but we are the ‘puzzle piece’ that fits next to you snugly. In another words, don't look for a Dom that’s exactly like you. You won’t find him. Don’t look for a Dom that wants to run your whole life; he doesn’t exist.

Above all, if you’re prospective Dom seems like a generally nice guy, you’re likely on the right track! Take the time to get to know him. Don't let the five control freaks on the other side of the chat room demand your attention. A real Dominant isn’t likely to make ‘demands’ until its time to play.

Step 4: Memorize the Acid Tests!

Test #1: When in doubt, throw it out! Don’t waste your time with people that make you feel uncomfortable. Even if the guy was a real Dom, if his personality makes you feel uncomfortable, he’s not going to be fun to play with.

Test #2: “You’d better call me Sir!” is the mating call of a HNG or control freak. Real Doms don't have to ask for titles, we earn them. Most real Doms will say things like “please, call me Mike…”

Test #3: “I want you to take my collar before you play with me.” This is another common demand of fakes, most often made by control freaks. They have to isolate you from other people and their advice, and sometimes a little ole “cyber-collar” is just the thing! Cyber-collars are worth less than the leather required to make one.

Test #4: If you get an Instant Message that says something like “On your knees you [slave, slut, bitch, whore, etc.]” This is the mating call of the HNG. Use some common sense here. Why waste time with somebody that’s not even polite? There’s a time and a place for these endearing terms, and it isn’t online!

Test #5: “I don't have to answer that question!” or “It’s not proper etiquette for you to ask a Master that.” are examples of some the dangerous lies that control freaks and snerts use. This is the Acid test I personally think is the most important! A Dom had better be ready to at least try and answer every question you have, and honestly at that! It’s literally your ass that’s on the line! Never forget this!

Test #6: “It’s my way or the highway!” or words to that effect, are the mating cry of the common control freak. Doms can have Limits too, but it’s your Limits that count FIRST. Don’t let any would-be ‘Dom’ tell you differently. Don’t let any of the wannabe subs tell you differently either. Where Male Dom/Fem sub play is concerned, it’s always lady’s choice!

Test #7: Don't bother with online collars. Don't make decisions about a prospective partner based on his online play style. It’s a very simple test if you think about it: would a real life Dominant waste much time on cyber sex? Please take my word for it; the answer is no. Forget it, once you’ve done the real thing, cyber is just too damn dull
.
Test #8: Ask your prospect if he’s ever made any mistakes during a scene. If he says ‘no,’ run for your life! If he says, ‘very rarely,’ at least be suspicious. Everyone makes mistakes, even if they are experienced and skilled. Sometimes submissives have Limits they don't even know about, and even the most careful and skilled Dom the world will trip over these occasionally. Remember, according to our good friends of the Christian faith, the last perfect guy to walk this planet got nailed to a tree for his trouble. So expect competence, but not miracles.

Test #9: “I’m a [bank president, captain of industry, combat photographer, self-made millionaire… yadda yadda yadda.]” Wouldn’t it be nice to meet a rich Dom too? Sure it would! But use some common sense too. How many captains of industry have hours to spend in an AOL chat room? Also, think about this personality profile; if this super successful, always-in-control person is really into BDSM, he’s likely a submissive! Worse yet, it could very likely mean he is a control freak. I have met a lot of submissives that fit this ambitious profile, but not one Dom yet!

Test #10: “I’m 33 years old, and I’ve been a Master for 15 years.” Gimme a break! What are the odds? When you ask about a Dom’s level of experience (and it’s a good idea to do so) remember to do the math as well. 18 year-old boys don’t care about the intricacies of BDSM; they want to get laid. Trust me on this one Ladies, I was an 18 year-old boy once! I personally believe that people do become what they are (be it gay, straight, Dom or sub) very early in life, but it takes maturity and training to be a Master. What are the odds a person became a Master when they were still using clearacil?

Test #11: Ask for references! Especially if he claims to be ‘very experienced.’ Talk to the references on the phone. Lots of HNG’s have female screen-names set up to act as ‘references’ for them! I notice that a lot of newbies seem to have trouble with this concept. Which is understandable since in the vanilla world it’s considered rude to talk to a guy’s ex-girlfriend. However, in the BDSM Scene it’s the opposite, experienced Dominants should accept and accommodate this kind of request gladly
.
Test #12: “I have three real life collared slaves right now, but you can't
talk to them.” Okay, when you consider the ratio and all, this sounds possible. What makes this an acid test failed (and failed miserably at that) is the last part. I have met couples (and even triples) that really were looking for an extra person to add to the mix. This is not uncommon at all in the Scene. But these couples were looking together. If a ‘Dom’ has anyone already collared to them, you probably ought to talk to her first!

Test #13: “I don't need safe words.” Well of course he doesn’t! If he said this he’s likely a snert and therefore he’s never really been in a scene! Of course he might be a predator too, and then he wouldn't need safewords either. Need I say more?

Test #14: “My slaves trust me to set their Limits for them.” If you hear a ‘Dom’ say this it’s most likely because these slaves only exist in his mind. Or worse still, his ‘slave’ is simply the victim of spouse abuse. Even so called TPE (Total Power Exchange) and other sorts of 24/7 (i.e. full time) BDSM relationships should involve careful and thorough negotiation.

Test #15: 'I'm Married, my wife can't know about us' If I have to explain this one too you, you've got problems. I have played with many married submissives in my time, but only with the express permission (and more often than not, participation) of their husbands. Safe BDSM requires complete honesty. You can't build a good Scene on lies. There are plenty of people that will be willing to tell you differently; but please note, they will all turn out to be adulterers (and hence, liars) themselves.

Test #16: Insert your own Acid Test here: You will learn much from your mistakes and missteps. If you form an online contact with a 'Dom' that falls through, analyze why it fell through. Don't make the same mistakes twice if you can help it.

Step 5: It’s not just the men you have to screen!

Finding some female submissives to be buddies with you on your quest is a very good idea. Especially if they are experienced players; they can give you unique perspectives, emotional support, and even references to legitimate Doms to play with. They can also, most importantly, provide a Safety Net for you during those first meetings with the men you meet. The benefits of teaming up with other women in your search should be obvious!

However, be just as cautious about what you hear from other women online as well. If you are so inclined to search for a Domme for instance, the Acid tests should apply just as well. Be very cautious about the women you meet online that claim to be submissives as well. There are a great number of female HNG’s who live their BDSM lifestyle in the vacuum of cyber-space. Their advice and experiences are not only useless in the real world, they can be dangerous. Another class of “female enemy” is even more tragic and dangerous; the Victim.

A Victim is just that; a victim of physical and/or mental abuse that uses BDSM as an excuse to continue denying the reality of her tragic situation. These people are disturbingly common as well. They are dangerous to you too! These women are not just full of very dangerous advice, but they are usually very vehement about telling you that their lifestyle is the only “real BDSM.” They can fill your head full of doubts faster than one of the male enemy types.

Spare little sympathy, tell them to get help, and stay the heck away from them (in exactly this order). It may seem mercenary, but it is in fact the right thing to do. This is my training as a CASA (Citizens Against Spouse Abuse) volunteer talking. An abuse victim can only save herself, and then only when she is ready to do so. If you let her vent her frustrations and fears on you, she will then go back to her familiar little hell, leaving you emotionally drained and likely scared too. Your quest for safe play partners is going to be tough enough as it is. Avoid Victims completely if you can, and if you can't, urge them to get help. It’s not your job to save the world, keeping yourself safe and happy is enough work.
In Closing

This all seems like a lot of work. It is. Some of it sounds awfully scary too. It should. So why bother with this quest at all? Why not just stick “cyber only” in your profile and BDSM? Why not just drop it all together? I can give you only one good reason; when it is done safely, and it suits your needs, it can be the one of the most profoundly fulfilling experiences in your life! I used to cringe at terms like “sex magic,” but now that I know the spells, I’m an unabashed Wizard! Besides, any student of psychology can tell you that denial has its own dangers too. The easy roads are not the ones that lead to interesting places. So arm yourself with knowledge, find yourself some trustworthy friends to share the journey, and start walking. Just don’t forget to bring your Acid Tests too!

GLOSSARY

BDSM - an acronym that combines abbreviations for Bondage and Discipline, Domination and Submission, and Sadism and Masochism (B&D + D/s + S&M = BDSM). It is meant to be an all-inclusive term for these related erotic fetishes.
B&D – abbr. for Bondage and Discipline.
Collar - a symbol of possession used to denote some sort of committed relationship between a sexual Dominant and a sexual submissive.
Control Freak - slang for a person with a dysfunctional personality type usually referred to as a “controlling personality.” See section 2, paragraph four.
Credo, The – (a.. k. a. the BDSM Motto) The BDSM Credo is usually taken to be “Safe, Sane, and Consensual.” All of these ideals are generally considered to be of equal importance and interdependent. It is worth noting that the Credo’s definition of Sanity, rather than delving into psychology, goes thus: The only Sane reason to do BDSM is for the mutual enjoyment of all people involved.
Cyber - slang for being online. Often refers to Cyber-sex.
Cyber Sex - interacting with another person online for the express purpose of sexual arousal.
D/s - abbr. for Domination and Submission.
Dom - abbr. or slang for a (usually male) sexual Dominant.
Dominant - (i.e. Sexual Dominant) A person that derives sexual and mental satisfaction from taking control of intimate erotic encounters. They are often simulated by using techniques such as sexual sadism, bondage, domineering role-play, and generally taking a commanding role in intimate situations.
Domme - abbr. or slang for a (usually female) sexual Dominant.
HNG - acronym for “Horny Net Geek.” See section 2, paragraph two.
Limit - something that either partner in a BDSM relationship will not do, or does not like. Basically, a specific preference concerning BDSM play. The submissive’s Limits should always take precedence over the Dominant’s. Limits should always be discussed and set out before a Scene ever starts. Respecting Limits is not an option, it’s a requirement.
Master - A title of honor for a (usually male) sexual Dominant that usually denotes either a high level of experience or competence. Also used (voluntarily) as a title of respect for Dominants that have served the BDSM community as a whole. Alternatively used as a term of endearment for the Dom in a Scene featuring “Master/slave” role-playing, or in the context of a long-term relationship. Similar titles include Sir, Lord, and Daddy, etc.
Mistress - A title of honor for a (usually female) sexual Dominant that usually denotes either a high level of experience or competence. Also used (voluntarily) as a title of respect for Dominants that have served the BDSM community as a whole. Alternatively used as a term of endearment for the Domme in a Scene featuring “Mistress/slave” role-playing, or in the context of a long-term relationship. Similar titles include Ma’am, Lady, and Momma, etc.
S&M or S/m - abbr. for Sadism & Masochism, or Sadomasochism.
Safe Word - a code word used by the submissive to signal his/her Dominant partner to either stop, slow down, or even completely end a Scene. “Safe Signals” must be substituted when the submissive is gagged or cannot otherwise speak. These are not an option for safe play, they are a requirement.
Safety Net - a person or persons who take the responsibility to make sure that your real life meeting with a prospective play partner is safe. This can range from actually “chaperoning” the meeting to setting up “safe calls” and so forth. This is a requirement for submissives, not an option, as it is the only defense they have against predators, rapists, and con artists. Learn how to set one up and set them up religiously. Even vanilla women should learn to do these things when going on a blind date!
Sexual Masochist - a person that can experience profound arousal and/or euphoria from controlled doses of pain and other extreme stimuli. Such stimuli outside the context of a consensual or erotic experience are not usually enjoyable to a sexual masochist.
Sexual Sadist - a person that can experience profound arousal and/or euphoria from inflicting carefully controlled doses of pain and other extreme stimuli on sexual Masochists. They DO NOT generally enjoy inflicting pain for its own sake. Nor do they enjoy using such stimuli on people that do not find it enjoyable.
Slave - a title of endearment and ownership given to sexual submissives that are participating in Master/slave lifestyles or role-playing. This usually signifies that the submissive wears the “Collar” of a particular Dominant. Alternatively used (voluntarily) as a title of respect for submissives that have served the BDSM community as a whole. Similar titles include, boy, girl, or sissy, etc.
Sub - abbr. or slang for a sexual submissive.
Submissive – (i.e. Sexual Submissive) A person who derives sexual and mental satisfaction from having control taken away from them in intimate situations. They are often (but not always) sexual masochists. They often derive pleasure from bondage, and generally taking a subservient role in intimate situations.
Scene - slang for relating to BDSM. As in “Yes, she’s a legitimate player in the Scene.” Also slang for a specific session of BDSM. As in “I was in this wonderful Scene last night.” Often used as a verb in the same case; “They Scened at the party last night.”
Subbie - common endearment for a sexual submissive, usually (but not always) for a female submissive.
Vanilla - slang for things that are not “kinky” or not related to BDSM and similar fetishes.
Victim - a victim of abuse that claims to be in a BDSM “lifestyle” to rationalize/legitimize their tragic situation. See section 5, paragraph 2.
Wannabe - derogatory; most often refers to a person that pretends to be a legitimate real life practitioner of BDSM, while actually having little or no practical experience.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

My official pussy inspector....

Hello TGIF Again!. The day for shaved legs, sweet lips, dropped panties lewd and lascivious behavior.. me likey lookie..waite.... TGIF very much......and..Finally Hooooorah!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
I think I am going to write a book...."The art of ignoring your Master"....if I don't get spanked tonight.....pussy be damned! I have already been far too busy during the past week wrapping my lips around the sacred canon.
Ostensibly humorous catchphrase that I brought up this morning... translated by hubby into “complete the task.” order or else....from Master hubby...Some like pleasurable sex, while others need to feed off of humiliation, surrender! and sexual predictment and...As of Wednesday...he became my official pussy inspector.....with a Badge to prove it....( didn't know they made one...or there was a market..or who makes that kind of badge Granted..Men are the inovators of the world.. ......And here is a picture of it...http://thesubmissivelife.blogspot.com/2011/04/thoughts-on-being-submissive-wife.html and No...I am not going to post a pic of my belted pussy just yet...
And finally for some of my own lashing......After the Republicans...comes my dig at the Loathsome Feminists.....Nasty creepy crawlers....Like the Republicans....Who given a chance...would ruin everybody's weekend if they could...
I have been hounded and bullied all week by Republican men and feminist women and their coat-trailing pussy whipped 'new men.'....How much of a turnoff can that be.... A lot really...

----------------------------------------------------------
Sadly, my mostest fun gf who knows about our kinks is leaving for another job (actually, to get the hell out of her current sucky job). We’re the only thing each other has to keep us sane, and have decided we’ll have to call each other on the phone to insult each other. Yes, we are quite a cunt that way….

----------------------------------------------------------


describe your first time in five words?
braided:
isabelthespy:
nezua:
jhameia:
maevele:
jamesfrancoisacunt:
coldbitterness:
kittenunderwear:
kinoona:
daesungimnida:
ronronhani:
jinkerbell:
weixini:
professortreeoak:
weird, before the football game
i think he felt obligated
“do it before I puke”
“why are you so hard”
“let’s get under the coats”
“do you wanna lie down?”
kindergarden, under the swing set
In a K-Mart parking lot
game of spin-the-bottle, shamefully enough
Older guy, at bus stop
Hurricane took out the electricity.
Mistook for spitting attack; dodged.
after we dropped the L-word.
Had braces; sort of bitey.
to make them shut up

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Darwin Hrarmless....

Voicing the conviction that God is a fiction.

Argumentum ad Consequentiam

Posted: February 25th, 2011 | Author: Darwin Harmless | Filed under: The Conviction That God is a Fiction, Uncategorized | No Comments » If there is one argument for the existence of God that always strikes me as particularly stupid it is the argumentum ad consequentiam, the argument that we must believe because not believing will have bad consequences.  Not believing will make people behave badly.  Or not believing would be too frightening.  Too scary, mommy.  I hear this argument frequently.  In it’s most common form it sounds like this:  But if I didn’t believe in God I’d have nothing. 
Okay.  So you’d have nothing.  What’s your point?
Aside from the fact that this isn’t true – atheists find many things to believe in and feel joyful about, usually things that are reasonable to believe or things for which there is at least a little evidence – even if it WERE true, what’s their point?  Don’t they care even a little bit about truth?  Or have they decided that reality just gets confusing when they think about it, so why bother.  Believing something because not believing it is scary seems so very strange to me.
The argumentum ad consequentiam pops up in many forms and variationsI heard it in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed“ , the hate fest pseudo-documentary promoting Intelligent Design directed by Nathan Frankowski and hosted by Ben Stein.  In that disgusting bit of intellectual pandering to the lowest common denominator, the argument was presented as:  We must not believe Darwin’s theories because to do so will lead to atheism and atheists contributed to  fascism, the Nazi Holocaust, communism and the Gulag, eugenics and everything else that’s been evil since Darwin was born and before.
Ignoring the hate propaganda, and the obvious lie, it’s hard to find a stupider argument for not believing something.  The intellectual integrity of the movie matched it’s moral integrity perfectly.  It truly saddens me to see how much money that piece of sputum generated at the box office, grossing $2,900,000 in its first weekend.  Proof yet again that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public.
I also hear the argument from consequences from religious relatives who tell me they can’t abandon Catholicism because… well, where would I go?  Where would you go?  Well, maybe go to some other belief that isn’t killing people in Africa by discouraging condom use, persecuting gays, or protecting child raping priests.  Or don’t go anywhere.  Just be.  Why on earth do you feel you have to go someplace?  And anyway, that’s not the point.  You don’t believe things just because it’s uncomfortable not to believe them.  That’s called delusion.  If you do it on purpose, that’s called willful delusion.  Or maybe denial.
The latest Jesus and Mo takes a look at this argument, inspired by an article by Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie.  As always, the strip nails it.
So what’s the counter to this argument.  You can’t believe things just because you want to believe them, or not believe things just because you don’t want to believe them.  That would seem the logical thing to say, but I’ve never seen it affect a believer or change a belief.  Ideas, anybody?

What’s With Modesty?

Posted: February 21st, 2011 | Author: Darwin Harmless | Filed under: How Weird is our Culture, Opposing bigotry, separation of church and state, The Conviction That God is a Fiction | No Comments » If she's wearing that from choice, what can you say?  Modesty sucks? Which one of these outfits do YOU see as gross and indecent?Chatting with a friend the other day he mentioned that he respects Muslim women who have made a choice to wear the traditional garments because he appreciates their modesty.  If others see it as oppression of women, he says, then those people have a problem with the way Muslims dress.  That got me thinking about modesty.  What is modesty all about?  I’m afraid I’m not much of a fan.  Our acceptance of human skin is so very culturally conditioned.  Hang around with naked people for a fairly short while and you stop reacting to skin as if it’s gross.  One starts to take the body for what it is, just something we all have in various shapes and sizes.
When I was a child, I wasn’t allowed to come to the dinner table without a shirt on, even in the heat of summer.  My mother explained that other people didn’t want to see me with no shirt.  So what is the message there?  That there’s something wrong with a child’s body?  That somehow the child is ugly unless draped in cloth?  Once we internalize this attitude, we end up with modesty.  A desire to stay hidden, lest we be ugly or otherwise offend.
I remember a famous journalist and television personality, Pierre Berton, who commented that he would never show shame about being nude in front of his children.  My father was outraged.  My father could never articulate why he was outraged, but the notion that nudity was OK was just unacceptable to him.  Poor fucked up old dude.  I see it all as part and parcel of the Christian attempt to deny that we are animals, to say that we are somehow different from animals, created in the image of God.  What a concept.  So I have no problem with people dressing any way the feel like dressing.  If they’ve been brainwashed to think that modesty is important, that their body should never be seen by anybody, probably including their husband or wife, that’s fine by me.  But I do think they are a bit sick in the head.  And I sincerely feel sorry for them.
I read once that most people would rather die than be embarrassed.  Thinking about this, I realized that thousands of people DO die every year, rather than be embarrassed.  Somebody has a problem with their butt hole, but it’s just too embarrassing to talk to the doctor about it.  So they hope it will go away, until it gets to the point where they simply have to do something  Then the doctor shakes his head sadly and tells them that, had they come to him a few months earlier, there might be some hope.  Go home and put your affairs in order.  You’re about to leave the party.  What a stupid reason to die.
There are times when I just hate my culture, any time somebody pushes modesty at me like it’s a virtue.  What a fucked up, stupid, denial of our humanity that is.  Show me a person who doesn’t fart or shit or occasionally have bad breath and I’ll show you a corpse, and that will get smelly pretty soon too.  Each one of us is, in the words of Douglas Adams, an “ugly bag of mostly water”.  Get over it.
Have I always been like this?  No of course not.  It’s taken years of reflection and introspection to get to the point where I could walk out on stage without a stitch on, or show my asshole to the world.  In high school I didn’t like sleeveless shirts, because I had an armpit hangup.  I remember my gorge rising at the sight of my female German teacher’s hairy European pits.  I still marvel over the fact that eyebrows are okay, even attractive, but nose hair is somehow gross.  But now I don’t give a flying frog.  Take the most beautiful man or woman in the world and get real close to him or her and you’ll find the same bag of body fluids and nastiness that all animals must have.  Covering it all with a business suit or a full burqa is not going to make much difference, except to our illusions.
The issue of the burqa, and various attempts to ban it in France and elsewhere,  is bound up with anti-Islamic feelings, Modesty comes in all flavours, I guess.  I like this flavour myself.Islamophobia, and xenophobia.  That’s on the bad side.  On the good side, it’s tied into concerns over the oppression of women and the efforts to ghettoize a population, prevent assimilation, and maintain patriarchal power.  Anything I’ve every heard from Muslims about their attitude toward women sound fucked up and sick to me.  If somebody is forcing a Muslim woman to wear the burqa, she should rise up in revolt and I’ll do everything I can to support her.  I will tut tut with the rest of the world when athletes are executed for wearing shorts, surely the scariest extreme to which a demand for modesty can go.  But I’m not about to start telling people what to wear.

What Would Jesus Do? He’d Think of Something.

Posted: February 18th, 2011 | Author: Darwin Harmless | Filed under: How Weird is our Culture, The Conviction That God is a Fiction, Uncategorized | No Comments » I have a relative who sends me religious crap.  I think it’s now being sent just to wind me up.  Recently this delightful Power Point presentation landed in my inbox.  MIRACLE_IN_EGYPT
A short time ago I would have written this off as a parody invented by a non-religious person to see if they could suck in some believers and go viral.  I’ve changed my mind about this after reading on Greta Christina’s  blog about an orthodox Jew who can’t tuck in his seven year old daughter’s blanket without performing a purification ceremony, and refuses to touch a woman or spar with one even though he’s a martial arts instructor, for fear of getting woman cooties.  So if people can let that kind of bullshit run their lives, they will believe anything.  Maybe this really did come from believers, and not scoffers trying to suck them in.  Of course SOMEBODY had to make this up.  We know that much.  And the story as invented says a lot about the limits of Christian imagination, or the imaginations of those who would promote Christianity, or some nameless hoax writer.  The whole Jesus story is hardly bullet proof  plot structuring, what with the death that isn’t really a death and the sacrifice of God’s son that isn’t really a sacrifice, but it’s super real and powerful compared to this.
This is what the hoax slayer site (http://www.hoax-slayer.com/egypt-murder-miracle.shtml) says about about “Miracle in Egypt”:
####### start of Hoax Slayer assessment ########
“This widely circulated email relates the story of two little Egyptian girls who survived 15 days buried alive due to the intervention of a supernatural saviour with white clothes and bleeding hands who is later identified by rescuers as none other than Jesus Himself. If I'm in trouble, please don't send Jesus.  He's not much help.©iStockphoto.com/Joshua Blake
There is no credible evidence whatsoever to support an email story claiming that two young girls survived for fifteen days buried alive because Jesus visited them in the grave every day and fed them. (No evidence? Well, no shit, Sherlock. – DH)  As well as circulating via email, the piece has also been posted to innumerable religious forums and blogs where it has generated substantial and often heated debate.
According to the story, a Muslim man in Egypt murdered his wife and then buried her along with his still living daughters, one 8 years old, the other still an infant. However, Jesus came to the children every day, feeding the eight year old and “waking” the dead mother so that she could nurse the baby. It was not until the children were discovered alive and rescued from their premature grave 15 days after being buried that the miraculous experience came to be told. Or so this wildly fanciful tale would have us believe.
Not surprisingly, there is not a single shred of evidence to support the story. I could find no credible news reports about such a miraculous rescue, nor any information about an Egyptian man who murdered his wife and buried his children alive. Naturally, if true, such an amazing event would have certainly garnered a great deal of media attention, not only in Egypt, but around the world. And a miracle like the one described would also have been thoroughly investigated by both Muslim and Christian organizations. The total absence of any credible confirmation of the story along with the absurdity of the claims mean that the story is surely a work of pure fiction.
Even if entirely fictional, religious parables have their place and can serve to strengthen the faith of believers and effectively illustrate a particular worldview. However, rather than being a parable designed to reinforce a Christian ideal, this particular piece of nonsense seems more intent on denigrating and undermining the Muslim faith. In a world troubled by faith-based violence and misunderstanding, false stories such as this can only add to existing divisions and circulating them will serve no good purpose.”
#############end of Hoax Slayer assessment##########
You’ll notice that Hoax Slayer seems sympathetic to religious myth making in general, as if inventing nonsense stories that “serve to strengthen the faith of believers” is a good thing, and doesn’t address the central absurdity of this story.  While believers have no limits on their imagination when it comes to making up stupid stories, with racist, divisive overtones and not so subtle threats – He who denies me before men,  I will also deny him before my Father in heaven? – they have a severe limitation on their imaginations when it comes to creating credible superhero actions. I mean, what would Superman have done?  Or Batman?  Or even the very human Green Hornet?  Here we have an all powerful deity who visits these poor children, trapped underground in a grave, so he can feed the older child and bring their mother back from the dead to nurse the baby.  What?  He brought her back to life?  How many times?  To feed her baby?  That is just creepy.  But he doesn’t do anything to get them out of the hole!!!???  He doesn’t tell anybody about them!!!???  For an all powerful superhero who “is still controlling and turning the world”, he’s pathetic.  If he were real and a human, he’d be charged with something.  I don’t know.  Contributing to the abuse of minors?  Accessory after the fact?  Lawyers could nail him with something, surely.  Jesus the doofus. 
And the believers think spreading this poisonous nonsense will help their cause?  No, it has to be a parody.  Even believers can’t be that stupid.  But… okay, there’s evidence that they can be that stupid.  Solid evidence.

Sauce for the Goose

Posted: February 3rd, 2011 | Author: Darwin Harmless | Filed under: How Weird is our Culture, Opposing bigotry, The Conviction That God is a Fiction, Uncategorized | No Comments » What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  Such a wonderful archaic expression.  I’m not even sure what it means, but I’ve heard it used in the context of : Any rule for a woman’s sexual behavior should apply to men too.  That’s not what brought it to mind on this occasion.  I was reminded of the phrase when thinking about Tony Perkins and his rant about the terrible terrible oh so terrible results to be expected from the repeal of Dont Ask Don’t Tell.

Jesus loves you, Reverend Tony Perkins.  We think you're an asshole.Headlined: My Take: Ending ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ would undermine religious liberty,  the argument is so specious, and so well refuted by all the comments beneath it, that it needs no comment from me.  But I’ve been provoked and can’t resist. Here’s what it boils down to: The good Reverend Perkins is upset because the government wants to take away the “right” of good Christians and the military to call us evil and to marginalize LGBT people.  Taking away this right will somehow undermine their loving Christian ability to practice their religion.  Duh.
If I weren't an atheist I'd be SO embarrassed to see this man standing behind a cross.
Like so many on the religious right, Mr. Perkins is all for freedom, as long as it’s only for him and his bigoted beliefs.  The pity of it all is that he can get any national attention. Of course he only gets a front page on CNN because of the reaction as reflected in the comments – outrage and disbelief that anybody could be such a horse’s ass.  If he were spreading quiet reason and thoughtful opinion, he’d be ignored.
There’s a concept.  Let’s all ignore him.  Starting now.
Thought inspired by one of the comments below the Perkins rant:  Threatening an atheist with hell is like threatening a pro wrestler with a pool noodle.

The Power of the Placebo

Posted: February 2nd, 2011 | Author: Darwin Harmless | Filed under: How Weird is our Culture, The Conviction That God is a Fiction, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
I just read a post by Random Ntrygg, and as these things so often do, it reminded me of a post I wanted to make myself.  Random Ntrygg is going on about placebos.  I have an experiment I’d like to try, except I’m too lazy unless the right circumstances fall in my lap.  But if anybody out there sees the opportunity to try this, I’d really like to hear the result.  Here’s the concept:
At a psychic fare or similar event, which attracts the committed woo woo crowd, you set up a device that looks a bit like a vibrator crossed with a kitchen colander on a custom designed pole stand so that the device is about five feet off the floor.  Beside the device you put up a poster with a write up about what the device is, and what it does.  It’s a good vibration maker, a spiritual synchronizer.  At it’s core is a specially tuned pyramid, and in layers from the core are various materials – a copper layer, a zinc layer, an iron layer.  The claim is that this invention resonates with the earth’s magnetic flux and the cosmic rays that are bombarding us all the time.  It neutralizes the bad effect of the cosmic rays, and magnifies the good effects of the earth’s natural spiritual energy, giving anybody in its vicinity a feeling of great peace, serenity, and harmony with the universe.
We could borrow some language from the Sedona energy vortexes:
“In Sedona vortexes are created, not by wind or water, but from spiraling spiritual energy. The vortexes of Sedona are named because they are believed to be spiritual locations where the energy is right to facilitate prayer, mediation and healing. Vortex sites are believed to be locations having energy flow that exists on multiple dimensions. The energy of the vortexes interacts with a person’s inner self. It is not easily explained. Obviously it must be experienced.”
Or this from the Love Sedona site:
There are several energy centers, or vortexes of subtle energy, located in the Sedona area. (In Sedona, the energy centers are referred to as vortexes rather than vortices.) The energy from these vortexes saturates the whole area in and around Sedona, and can be noticed in a subtle but general way anywhere around town. If you actually go to one of the vortex sites, which is where the energy is strongest, it can be a very uplifting experience. The energy you take in at one of these energy centers can stay with you and affect you positively for days afterwards.
     In addition to being a beautiful and serene place, Sedona has long been known as a spiritual power center. This is because the power that emanates from the vortexes produces some of the most remarkable energy on the planet. This energy is the reason Sedona is full of people that are “on the path”, that is, people who have made a commitment to grow and become as much as they can spiritually. It is also the reason that such a large New Age community has sprung up in the Sedona area, bringing with it a variety of spiritual practices and alternative healing modalities, and it is the reason Sedona has sometimes been called a spiritual Disneyland.
     We have personally found the energy centers at Sedona both exciting and growth inspiring. If you are at all sensitive to the more subtle things, the experience of standing at one of these vortexes, and letting the energy flow into you and through you, can be almost overwhelming. People come from all over the world to experience this.”
############end quotes from Sedona websites##############
Cathedral Rock Sedona Arizona a truly beautiful place without the bullshit
I can tell you, if you’ve never experienced a Sedona vortex you are really missing out on the spiritual side of life.  Not.  But to get back to my concept, once the devices is on display, with the description and hype on a poster beside it, the next step is to lay out circles, or semi-circles if that’s all the space allows, around it.  Maybe this could be done with tape if there would be a problem using paint or chalk.  With each line there should be an instruction for the visitor to pause and consider how they are feeling, before stepping to the next line closer to the device.  The lines should be labeled with adjectives suggesting increasing levels of calm, comfort, serenity, peace, and bliss.  Of course the device is completely hollow, and does nothing.  But I’d love to find out how many orders you would get from the crowd.
That would be fun.
I’m not suggesting that anybody should pull this off as a real money taking scam.  That would be to join the enemy.  But there would be no harm in taking orders, and building a case for the incredible gullibility of the woo woo crowd.  Could be a term paper in this idea someplace.  Or at least a great hoax to publicize.
Before I leave this subject, I should point out that I actually believe that very few of the people at psychic fairs are con artists.  I think most of them, maybe even all of them, really believe what they are doing or selling is real.  It’s like the dowser crowd.  The Amazing Randi has done scientifically controlled tests of dowsing, and offers his million dollars to anybody who can demonstrate that it works.  The dowsers always fail.  But James Randi reports that not one of the dowsers believed that the test invalidated their belief.  They all had a reason why the test failed, but were steadfast in believing that dowsing is a fact of life.
I have little doubt that my placebo demonstration set up would work for a huge number of people.  Were I the type who could believe my own hype, I could probably sell a lot of home made devices at psychic fairs.

The Power of Prayer

Posted: January 26th, 2011 | Author: Darwin Harmless | Filed under: How Weird is our Culture, The Conviction That God is a Fiction, Uncategorized | No Comments » Not even the devout believers really believe it works.I have a fundamentalist friend who sometimes sends me jokes intended to tickle the funny bone of the believers, and, apparently unintended, to further convince all us unbelievers that the whole religion thing is a total crock.  The last batch he sent me included a joke that I found VERY funny, because it’s very true, not necessarily true in fact as a real event, but certainly true in principle:
Joke:
In a small mid-western conservative town, a business owner  began to construct a building for a new bar. The local  Baptist church started a campaign to block the bar from opening with petitions and prayers.  Work progressed, however, right up until the week before opening, when a lightning strike hit the bar and it burned  to the ground.
The church folks were rather smug in their outlook after that, until the bar owner sued the church on the grounds that the church was ultimately responsible for the demise of his building, either through direct or indirect actions or means.
     In its reply to the court, the church vehemently denied all responsibility or any connection to the building’s demise.  As the case made its way into court, the judge looked over the paperwork at the hearing and commented, “I don’t know how I’m going to decide this, but as it appears from the paperwork, we have a bar owner who believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church congregation that doesn’t!”
The power of prayer: Sometimes it works.  Sometimes it doesn't.Yes.  Exactly.  That’s how believers feel about prayer.  They don’t really expect it to be effective, and actually know that it isn’t.  But it gives them something to do that quiets their minds when they have concerns, problems, or crisis.  It gives them the illusion of taking action, even when no effective action is possible.  When prayer doesn’t work, which, illusion aside, is all the time of course, they have their excuses ready: “God always answers prayers, but sometimes the answer is no.”  When the laws of probability allign with their prayers, they gleefully tell us that prayer works, and to praise their Lord.
     The psychological value of this cognitive exercise is pretty obvious, and one can see why a believer would be reluctant to give it up.  That would mean they would have to accept the great “what is”, and stop trying to impose their puny human desires on reality.  That would be the true surrender they are always going on about.
What a strange collection of dementia, illusions and self-deception is this thing called religion.  I hold the theory that, in their hearts of hearts, the believers recognize the power of prayer as totally nonsense.  This is why they object so strongly when we point the nonsense out to them.  The most obvious indication of cognitive dissonance is anger.  The believer doth protest too much, methinks.

The Banana Argument

Posted: December 28th, 2010 | Author: Darwin Harmless | Filed under: The Conviction That God is a Fiction, Uncategorized | No Comments » This post is again inspired by Jesus & Mo.  In this strip, Jesus is blathering on about how the banana is so perfectly suited (read designed) for human consumption that it could not possibly have happened by chance.  In the comments under the strip I pointed out that the banana is a human invention.  The original was inedible, and it was only when two varieties were crossbred to produce a sterile offspring that the modern banana was born.  That sterile offspring can only reproduce by runners, so all the bananas we eat are from that stock.
The banana as proof of creation is as dumb as any other.
One of the arguments I hear most frequently for the existence of God, and a world created specifically for human beings, is that so many things seem to be just so perfect for us.  Like the fact that most liquids contract when they freeze, but water doesn’t.  Water expands when it freezes.  Isn’t that fortunate.  If water did contract when it turned into ice, instead of expanding, then the oceans would be solid ice with a thin layer of water on the top and life as we know it would be impossible.  Must be God putting his hand in.  How else to explain it.  How else to explain our incredible luck in finding ourself on a planet which seems so perfectly suited for our existence.
     But as Daniel Dennett pointed out, this is a strange inversion of reasoning.  The planet is not perfect because it was made for us.  It’s perfect because we were made for it.  And don’t go jumping on that word “made”.  I only mean that we evolved in this world, so naturally we find the place salubrious.  If we’d evolved in a different place, say in a deep ocean thermal vent, we’d probably marvel at how perfect that environment is for us too as we metabolized hydrogen sulphide.
     The argument that the world is perfect for us, therefore it must have been created for us, gets everything backwards.
Update:  thanks again to comments under Jesus & Mo I was directed to RationalWiki for a complete exposure to the banana and the banana as proof of God argument.  Didn’t know that peanut butter got involved as well.  YEC sure do get silly.

Epiphany after Epiphany

Posted: December 15th, 2010 | Author: Darwin Harmless | Filed under: The Conviction That God is a Fiction, Uncategorized | No Comments » Yes, another epiphany hit me this morning.  A flash of insight.  A realization.  I’m always trying to find perspective on reality, and this morning I had a reality shift, prompted by the first comment on my post about Howard Tayler by a former Mormon.  A former Mormon?  That’s what hit me.  There is such a thing as a former Mormon.  I realized that I’ve been treating all believers as, fundamentally, fixated and beyond the reach of logic, reason, or common sense.  But most atheists, myself included, were born into some kind of indoctrination, some kind of religious wacky wacky woo woo.  In my case it was Anglican, Church of England.  Most atheists are former somethings.  So the flow isn’t all going one way, with more and more people being sucked into religious beliefs and cults.  There’s a flow the other way too, as the indoctrinated youth hit the age of reason, and start to question the nonsense they’ve been taught to chant.  So maybe the Jehovas Witless couple who knock on your door are so committed that there’s no point in talking to them but people do shrug off the blinkers of indoctrination and start to question and to think.
     It also seems that few atheists get there in one step.  Most have to investigate some other harbour of nonsense.  But seeing their own religion for what it is really helps to see the nonsense in any other religion, so the natural progression seems to be from believer to investigator/searcher to agnostic to atheist.  I remember in my teens sitting on a hill and watching a native American religious dance and celebration with great reverence.  Suddenly it hit me, another epiphany.  Why was I watching their bullshit with such reverence when I had such contempt for my own cultural bullshit.  Sorry folks. There is no Thunderbird.  No Great Spirit.  No Raven who spat out the first human.  No woman delivered from the sea on a clam shell.  Get real.
Viracocha, another silly myth from another primative culture not my own.It’s all too easy to assume, when one runs into the brick wall of stupidity while talking to a believer, that they are all beyond hope.  That’s certainly the reason I no longer debate with the missionaries at my door.  But while there may be no point in arguing with the fanatics, there is certainly a point in proclaiming the belief that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and God are all wishful thinking fantasies.  As Greta Christina says, if we say it often enough maybe somebody will be listening.

Fundamentally Dishonest

Posted: December 13th, 2010 | Author: Darwin Harmless | Filed under: How Weird is our Culture, science and technology, The Conviction That God is a Fiction | 1 Comment » A got an email this morning.  Subject line:  Fwd: EAA and the newest version of the flying car.  The link in the message took me to a video about a machine that is under development, and as the subject line suggested it’s a flying car, a slick little job that seems to drive very well on the highway and contains, packed in its roof, a fabric wing that turns it into an ultralight airplane.  The car’s inventor, a colourful character named Steve Saint,  mentions in the video as an aside that his father, Nate  Saint, the founder of Mission Aviation Fellowship, was one of the four  missionaries killed in Ecuador many years ago.  The tribe that killed them adopted and raised young Steve, who now appears to be a man in his fifties or sixties.  Now there’s a biography worthy of a Hollywood publicist on a serious bender.  Steve Saint is justifiably proud of his little flying car, which he describes as “primarily a car but it flies”.  The goal is to get it into production and mass market enough of them to bring the price down low enough that they can be used for…. oh damn: Missionary work.
The Maverick, Steve Saint's flying car.  Yes it flies, but don't think you can take off with no problems.  The Maverick flying car at gas station, drawing a well deserved crowd.
     I happen to be a total ultralight freak, though I don’t own one at the moment.  The first time I laid eyes on an ultralight airplane, at the PNE in Vancouver, Canada, I just about creamed.  It was,  bar none, the most elegant and beautiful machine I had ever seen.  I flew as a passenger on a two seater ultralight out of the Flying Crocodile Resort in Costa Rica, and decided I loved ultralights even more.  It was like riding on a motorcycle that could leave the ground.  We flew over the ocean, and watched a turtle paddling away from the shore.  Magic, or as close to magic as an atheist can ever experience.  Some years later I watched a video demonstration of a paramotor, in which young men climbed a mountain with the machines on their backs, unpacked their backpacks, unfurled the wings and flew away.  I was in love.  Next thing I knew I was the proud owner of a paraglider wing, taking short flights off the local trash heap reborn as a park.  A short while later I bought the motor and a trike to mount it on.  And that was all a disappointment.  The video had made flying a paramotor look so very easy, and it wasn’t.  Controlling the wing takes practice and the perfect conditions.  The motor was very very heavy, and hard to handle, even for a big strong guy like me.  Controlling the wing and the motor at the same time never actually happened for me.  I never got off the ground.  Which brings me back to the flying car.
     If you watch the video, you might notice that there are two things left out of the very exciting and dramatic shots.  The first is deploying the wing and taking off, and the second is packing the wing up again.  We do get to see the machine in the air, so these things are obviously possible.  But I can promise you that they are not easy.  Just a little bit too much wind, a cross wind, or no wind at all can make this machine very difficult to operate as advertised.
     I clicked on the links that took me to the company website, and to the website of Mission Aviation Fellowship:  “Our Mission:Sharing the love of Jesus Christ through aviation and technology so that isolated people may be physically and spiritually transformed.”  Uh, okay.  I wandered around in this website for a while becoming more and more depressed about the stated goals of these fundamental fuckheads.  That’s when it hit me.  The video is a perfect reflection of the people who made it:  Fundamental Christians, fundamentally dishonest.  There is no honesty in fundamental Christianity.   Sad.  I love Steve Saint’s little machine, and I think I see it for exactly what it is.  But the way he presents it matches the intellectual integrity of Christians, which is to say no intellectual integrity at all.
Addendum:  I went to bed last night vaguely troubled by this entry.  It didn’t help that my partner, and the only person on the planet (I hope) who knows my real name, described my prose as “inelegant”.  I’ve now slept on this post, so to speak, and want to explain:  It isn’t the lack of elegance in my language that bothers me.  It’s the thought that I’m being unfair to these kind, good hearted, sincere people who, after all, actually might be doing some good in this world.  It’s a difficult conflict for me.  I admire many things that Christian missionaries do.  It’s just hard for me to swallow my contempt for their dogma, and for the idea that they spread pernicious nonsense to cultures with very few defenses.  They arrive with their overwhelming sophistication of technology and resources, armed with their absolute certainty that they have the ONE answer, that all the gods before their God were a silly myth and a mistake.  They bring material aid and medical help.  They bring “education” and a vision of a larger world.  And then they poison minds with concepts such as “original sin”.  Fundamentalist Christians in Africa are promulgating homophobia, and directly or indirectly inciting draconian punishment of gays, up to and including the death penalty.  So calling them all, collectively, “fuckheads” seems completely justified.  I do wish they weren’t, mostly, such nice people.  I’d prefer them to be totally despicable.  
     A fundamentalist sees the world in black and white.  That’s one of the attractions of fundamentalism.  I just can’t go there, so I have to live with this discomfort, and accept that otherwise very nice people can be complete dicks.

News Flash – Pope Modifies his Position

Posted: December 9th, 2010 | Author: Darwin Harmless | Filed under: How Weird is our Culture, Opposing bigotry, The Conviction That God is a Fiction, Uncategorized | No Comments » For a minute I thought I would have to ease up on my criticisms of the Ratzinger.  I heard that he’s said condom use is okay, and that lead me to think that he might be pulling his head out of his ancient ass and joining our century.  Alas, this is not the case.  The Pope has said that condom use MAY be permissible under SOME circumstances.  For example, if you are a male prostitute and already headed for Hell because you suck dicks for money, there’s not really a lot of harm in using a condom though it is still “not moral”.
Pope says condoms are permissable, as long as you are going to hell anyway.
According to Fox news, the pontiff makes the comments in a book-length interview with a German journalist, “Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times.” The Vatican newspaper ran excerpts of the book Saturday.  Church teaching has long opposed condoms since they’re a form of artificial contraception, as opposed to “natural” contraception like abstinence or the rhythm method.  (That’s natural???!!!) The Vatican has been harshly criticized for its position given the AIDS crisis.  Benedict said that for male prostitutes — for whom contraception isn’t a central issue — condoms are not a moral solution. But he said they could be justified “in the intention of reducing the risk of infection.”
     So this is a very conditional approval.  Condoms are not approved because they help to solve the world population problem, or to help stop the spread of disease in the general population, or to protect women against men who might be carrying very deadly viruses.  Condoms are only for those who are going to hell anyway.  If you’ve got a shot at heaven, don’t stick anything on your dick when you fuck.
     I should be sad to see that this is really no improvement, but I must admit that a part of me rejoices.  I’d hate to have to give up my favourite whipping boy.
Condoms are okay, says the Pope, but only if you are a male prostitute.