this is another letter of complaint from my website of (homo)sexual assault that is
"When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it." - Madonna
back to the menu
dear sir or vagina:


as the webmaster of a satirical e-zine known as, i believe that there is as much wrong with gambling as there is with drinking, with homosexuality, as well as with the "women on top" sexual positions. sure, too much drinking can lead to harm done to the drinker (and, quite possibly, to anyone killed by the irresponsible drinker's inability to drive responsibly). sure, too much homosexuality can lead to AIDS and other diseases spread throughout the gay community (as well as the bisexual community and, therefore, the heterosexual community). sure, too much of the "women on top" placebo used in the bedroom can lead to a false sense of reality given to the shorter/smaller/weaker gender (which would lead to the unsubstantiated acceptance of the "a woman can do anything a man can do" mantra, as well as the very google results retrieved from entering the phrase "female soldiers dying in record numbers"). NONETHELESS, these realities that label gambling and drinking and homosexuality and feminism as problematic are problematic, themselves.

first and foremost, though, it's all a matter of "the nanny state". god in heaven has given everyone free will to do as they please, to live as they please and to die as they please. i, for one, don't need a faux-nanny to protect me from losing money by mandating that i am not allowed to gamble, be it in online in my room or offline in a casino. likewise, i don't need a faux-nanny to protect me from losing good health by mandating that i am not allowed to drink vodka. furthermore, i don't need a faux-nanny to protect me from dying on account of a one-night thrill with a superstud named josh lane, joel borzotta or dave steinmetz (though the likelihood of these men having AIDS is next-to nothing, given the fact that these men are all the man that they need - these men are therefore not lacking any sense of masculinity or feeling a void that would make them curious enough OF masculinity to want to inspect masculine bodies).

to continue, i don't need a faux-nanny to protect me from losing my life after the "anything a man can do" li(n)e has motivated me into hiring a group of female bodyguards to protect me from harm on a journey through "the hood" that's full of big and mean negroes who are intent on harming a member of the superior race (whether or not the negroes' anger of the white race stems from "affirmative action" naming the black race as inferior enough to require special compensations).

i don't fault the people who DO feel that they require a nanny to protect them from harm, but for the government to criminalize online gambling is just as ludicrous an idea as criminalizing adult beverages, homosexuality or feminism.

please don't get me wrong, i understand the need for laws. i am not against criminalizing the practice of anyone driving drunk, for that practice leads to the death of other people. though the practice of, say, hiring female bodyguards would also lead to death, it would lead to the death of no one but the person who trusted female bodyguards to provide an "anything a man can do" type of protection. therefore, hiring female bodyguards for protection from death would lead to a self-inflicted death, whereas the death of somebody killed by a drunk driver would not be self-inflicted.

speaking of self-inflicted deaths, i believe that if "death by aids" or "death by homosexuality" isn't considered homicide, and if freddie mercury wasn't said to have been murdered, then "death by suicide" shouldn't be a crime. in each case, whether or not freddy mercury (or any potential victim) actually intends to die, this victim should know that there is only a chance of dying. i have tried many times to commit suicide, and in more ways than simply by having gay sex, to know that neither is a guaranteed slam-dunk method. in both cases, it IS a gamble as to whether or not one is actually going to die. likewise, if gambling with regards to something as big as keeping one's life isn't a crime, then gambling with regards to something as comparatively small as keeping one's wealth shouldn't be a crime.

getting back to the realities that label gambling, drinking, homosexuality and feminism as "problematic," i would maintain that these "realities" are problematic within themselves because it's only in certain instances that they would be able to be considered "problematic". gambling isn't always a problem - many a gambler comes out "on top" and he comes out a winner...gambling is only a problem if a gambler loses more money than she needs to live.

likewise, i'd maintain that drinking isn't always a problem - many a drinker can "hold his own" and not be a danger to anyone...drinking is only a problem if a drinker can't "hold her own" and she IS a danger to others. furthermore, though society leads us to believe that homosexuality isn't a problem if done with the right protection from diseases, i'd maintain that homosexuality isn't a problem if it's not done in excess or as a weekly method of helping one through his semi-charmed kind of masculine existence. let me expand upon that idea by saying that i'd maintain that homosexuality IS a problem if a man is personally slighted enough to feel incomplete without the naked intimacy of another man in his life. or, more apropos, the naked intimacy of a "real man" in his life.

finally, i'd maintain that the "women on top" aspect of feminism isn't always a problem. it's only a problem if a member of the lesser gender believes (or even states, advertises or markets) the "a woman can do anything a man can do" li(n)e.

dylan terreri, i
sheldon cooper, ii
"When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it." - Madonna
*** Get Your Free E-mail Address At
*** Yet another production of, LLC

check out my site, , unless you're there now