Cycle of Violence within Politics

This tool is needed THORN it needs your help, DONATE to help stop child sexual abuse.

The-crucifixion-in-The-Life-of-Brian-1290006

Mrs. Bill Clinton gave me this idea and I wanted this so badly, I got this idea from thinking about her and watching her speak in the past. I got this idea from writing about them as a married couple. That the cycle of violence is on her and her husband, all they wanted to do was discuss laws and figure out what works in this country.

The crucifixion was about political speech. What do you think Jesus Christ was doing? He was walking around giving his political opinion without running for office. And he never had the vote for a Roman senator for his region of life. Nor did Jesus Christ have the ability to shape the laws of the land without giving his opinion openly. Which he did give his opinions to the point of a conviction with the death penalty.

The luxury about the Clinton’s is that they have the right to run for office, they have the right to their political opinion without the fear of violence against their bodies. That law is in  place to protect them, but the cycle of violent political speech continues even in this modern day.

Hillary Clinton could be crucified just for one bad political decision, that we put her in office to make. Her political future could die based on that. She risked her future and her families future to have that ability in the first place to make that bad decision. Prison can be a fate of an American politician, and it seems rare, right now, but it is the truth.

It was not extreme speech that places people in the cycle of violence in politics today, it is simply talking about preferences now from the preference of trees in a parking lot, to speaking of war to defend the country to protect resources of people and property, that political speech can lead to rocks in windows or threats to families. That is the cycle of violence.

The give give that was suggested is where political speech has to happen, but how when people want to force their own will and not hearing out how their will HURTS MANY!!!

Mrs. Clinton does not want many to be hurt, but she does want a give and take, you do this this reward happens, you do that the correctional facility is for you penalty. Budgets are the same way, you do this the money is there for you, you do that the correctional facility is there as a penalty. Give give is that simple, it takes away the threats of violence.

Mrs. Clinton is the best example for this blog post, because she has gone through so much politically, she is indeed like Jesus Christ. I will go over her record later, I am betting some already know what I can praise her for, just like Jesus Christ.

 

 

Loving Consent

PYthaguros

I fell in love with a polyamorous woman. That does not mean I am a lesbian but it does. I  know that sentence means I want to talk about communication about sex, and I  know there is no secret word from my readers to tell me stop. Remember I am into BDSM and safe words because I am not into sexual abuses.

It was not hard telling her I could not come into her family, where she had two men with her at the time. I lived a few states away. I just wasn’t ready. And I was living far from her at the time. She lives closer to me now, I haven’t seen her in decades, but that is closed. I maybe polyamorous too.

I am not going to seek her out, and hers was a deep loving writing friendship, her love for me was in her writing and I saw that. She was there during my divorce when I needed her the most, and when I found out about polyamorous relationships it was from her.

Yes, she was my first polyamorous love. But I am the one that cannot commit. Just me, I am not into commitments. I am into my self-denial and celibacy, which is my Masochism. I was not practicing my masochism when I told the wonderful polyamorist lady that I could not join her closed family. I was being honest and I had hoped communicated well.

Masochism is when a person takes pleasure in self denial. I am not certain about humiliation, it is added into masochisms definition, I do not think I am a person that gets pleasure from being humiliated. But who knows maybe that is a truth I am not ready to face yet.

Example of a masochist, a comedian, Jimmy Fallon.

I want to make certain everybody knows a polyamory is NOT AN OPEN RELATIONSHIP WHERE EVERYBODY JOINS. It is a closed private relationship like monogamy.

Is it sexually abusive writing about sexual preferences? I don’t think so. But since this is about how people communicate. Masochism isn’t self abuse, people might think it is, but most are very cool with who I am in public. Privately if they have issues, I hope they keep their opinions to themselves, but if they do not, well my opinions are very public.

Being in a polyamory could feed voyeurisms. I am big into voyeurism, I go to the movies when I can and my collection of movies is extensive. I understand people into voyeurism can be exploited by the movie industry and it does this to us all the time. Providing interesting things to watch, so the industry is something I as a person into voyeurism loves.

I am not into sexual abuses of any kind, that is my BDSM and I want to go into that now. Explaining polyamory is a closed relationship is VERY important to me, what is also important to me is to speak on how to stop verbal abuses, again I am not one to speak right, I have to admit to being human and we all have speech issues when it comes to forming language when some terrible mean emotions come about.

Bondage Dominance Sadomasochism  is not about being into abusing.

IF YOU ARE INTO ABUSING PEOPLE YOU ARE FETISH AND NOT BDSM.

BDSM is into CONSENT. What is consent? It is permission to do what you want to a persons body by that person.

IF YOU ARE INTO NONCONSENT, there is a district attorney waiting to meet you and a judge to sentence you to a correctional facility.

ALL BDSM PEOPLE HATE NONCONSENT PEOPLE, consent is the sexual kink in BDSM. AND it is re-enforced in the teaching of BDSM. The safe word in BDSM is to stop any abuse that might be happening or perceived. And that word, as long as it is USED and respected, makes certain consent is right there at all times.

I am going to talk about my voyeurism because Ashton Kutcher did mention what Thorn does do. AND people using children to try to exploit me  and use my sexual kink need life time prison sentences.

I am BDSM, and as I wrote consent is my kink, tell me when a child is OLD ENOUGH TO CONSENT!!!!! They never will be.

I’ll watch Aston Kutcher on screen for Spread. That is voyeurism. I will not watch what Mr. Kutcher mentioned in his testimony, when he was talking about what he founded to catch and free children from sexual abuse: THORN. I refuse as a voyeur to even seek that viewing out.

Voyeurism is seeking out for sexual pleasure something to watch. I have found females very silent about their voyeurism needs, I am guessing it is because of Judeo-Christian family values that women and women’s magazines do not write about Females into voyeurism. I can get away with mine because of the industry, the movie industry. In the past women just were in orgy’s right for their voyeurism?

Anyway, I need to sum this up. People now know more about where I am coming from. I am completely into consensual sex and consensual non-abusive communication. I have not told how I got this enlightenment, just who I am… keep reading, because more women and men will communicate better before I die.

 

 

Men are Not Women

menandwomen

There is so much I want to say about this one topic. And others can too, men are simply not women. In 1920, Men gave women the vote. That being said it is like a Christmas gift that was begged for by women for decades since the revolutionary war. Men are just not women.

So begging is woman?  Yes, that is the truth, begging is what it seems to me what women had to do to get to 1920. That is abusive thinking on my part right.

That is cycle of violence thinking? Women begged and men were reluctant to grant a human right to women to own property and to vote? So is the honeymoon over after the vote was given in 1920, are women willing to stop the calm buildup and explode to get back to a honeymoon with men? I don’t want the first woman president to be a gift after women get mad!!!

I don’t want to be in a power struggle with men. I want power sharing. Not a communism because I am a capitalist by admission a long time ago, and I read the Communist Manifesto, by Carl Marx, and it is a concept that simply does not work in practice, when does the supreme dictator step down? To form the democracy? According to the manifesto the dictator sets up the democratic commune and then steps aside. It is a violent way to set up what we have currently, but the USA was not set up by a dictator but by a group of men…a Polyamory.

Our system is a republic, and other systems being elected parliaments work because people are forced or volunteer to step aside. So these systems work in practice, and I with others happily support.

Now I mentioned Polyamory as the way the USA was started, it was a group of men that loved discussing freedoms and not liking zero representation on taxation. That group of men founded this country. Our congress and senate are a true polyamory now, and open non-violent discussions ensue daily about what law needs to be in this home called the USA.

A Polyamory family might be able to get more women into office without abusive communication. Again going back to how women begged for the vote which is truth. There was no open communication, arrests happened on women’s rights leaders, and the cycle of violence happened. It is historic cycle of violence.

While this country was founded on non-violent discussion, the constitutional congress, but had to fight to escape the violence of not being able to have peaceful discussions. And it was violent and bloody escaping a person/country that wanted to control every aspect of the colonies, while the men came from a place/country of semi-peaceful elections to have representation.

Men currently are Great Britain to women, we have some representation but not… Men handed us the taxation representation we wanted but didn’t, the vote with no representation. There should not be a revolution, I don’t want a new country, with what land would women claim, there is no Greek amazon here in the USA. But there is violent abusive political discussion, and I am knowing I am in this political cycle of violence and I want out… I want representation.

 

 

 

 

Divorce is new harem Revisted

imagesclock  Harems are old fashion, very conservative, and so not apart of modern American, why am I writing about them again. It is a liberal idea one man and one woman for the rest of your life. Yes monogamy is a liberal idea and not conservation one.

Some might not have heard of, or let alone read http://www.useless-knowledge.com, or even read the article Divorce is the New Harem, so the concept of the article was simple, man conservatively wants multiple women for maximum amount of reproductive success, divorce allows for this publically.

I was wrong about Divorce being apart of the conservative male mindset, it now moves to the liberal male mindset column, which might frighten the herd male who wants all the females to himself with very little sharing.

I thought it was a conservative value divorce, and then having the second and then third family.  You see harem has formed another woman and then possibly another woman with maximum possibilities of reproduction.

The herd is the most conservative sexual value of a male. A herd of horses might have 30 females and 3 males maximum, again read that once if that information changed I do not know. In the herd a fowl would be born, a female had a better chance of staying alive, but the tiny new born sperm producer might not, this is on video numerous times about many different herds and groups like walrus’s. THE MALE CHILD, SPERM PRODUCER, BABY BOY, MIGHT NOT SURVIVE.

The Harem, for humans, is just another form of the herd, and it does the same thing but one, MALES, MEN, SPERM PRODUCERS might survive, human reproduction accomplished with maximum success of passing genes on. The MALE LIVES YES!

Divorce might produce more male and female offspring, by getting another female involved, hoping the first female does not remarry… that is the catch, the first female does not reproduce again and never is touched by another man might be the hope of a divorced male.

So here’s my retraction article, a divorce is not a new harem for the male, it is the start of a Polyamory. A polyamory is a relationship of multiple males and females that has the possibility of new communication about sexual intercourse and reproduction.

A divorce starts a polyamory family.

The male and female might as well bring the new partners into the lives of the home and children right away, this is to discuss the former marriage, problems it had and introduce the new partners Men and Women to one another in a non-hostile emotionless way.

I like polyamory, I am polyamorous, not into polygamy. I am into pansexuality, new term, I might be a lesbian.  These terms are a part of women’s politics. They need exploring by women’s candidates with Man’s support. Because these new families exist, they are divorced but might have just communication problems because a new little one by another man for the woman for example needed to come into the world. Why not come into the  world having two dads with one mom? Polyamory is divorce.

So I apologize to my old readers and new, I was wrong, Divorce is not a new harem for males. It is the start of a new liberal idea for PANSEXUALS, Polyamorous individuals, and women.