BEHIND ENEMY LINES: WHAT’S AN UBERSEXUAL?
This is yet another conversation taped by The War Rooms undercover Agent Starr. It took place on October 12, 2005 as the “Mother” is picking up her daughter, “Apple” from an elite elementary school somewhere in the urban Toronto core.APPLE: Mom, what’s an übersexual?
MOM: What?
APPLE: An übersexual?
MOM: Where did you here that word?
APPLE: In school.
MOM: Well, according to the enlightened folks at J. Walter Thompson, it’s the next phase of masculinity or “M-ness” where males embrace the qualities that are positive about being a man such as compassion, leadership, confidence and respect for women. They reject those qualities which are bad, such as lack of respect for women, emotional emptiness, beer, sports and the Toronto Maple Leafs.
APPLE: Who would be an example of übe…über…?
MOM: Übersexual. Well, Bono and Ewan Macgregor.
APPLE: That’s Obi-wan Kenobi. I like him. Apparently he’s such an übersexual that that had to digitally erase his übersexuality in a movie he did last year. We learned about that in media class.
MOM: Übersexuals are the type of men you should try to attract when you grow up.
APPLE: Who else would be übersexual?
MOM: Bill Clinton. He’s the most übersexual man of all.
APPLE: Didn’t several women accuse him of rape?
MOM: Only poor, white trash women. They don’t count.
APPLE: Well, what happened to the metrosexual?
MOM: That was a fad whose time has come and gone.
APPLE: But wasn’t metrosexuality supposed to be the peak of man?
MOM: But then we realized that peak was represented by Carson Kressley and the boys from Queer Eye.
APPLE: Is Carson Kressley an übersexual?
MOM: No. He’s a homosexual.
APPLE: Can a homosexual be an übersexual?
MOM: I’m sure most like to think they are. But that’s not really what we’re talking about.
APPLE: But we were taught in Mr. Jones sex class today that the height of male sensitivity was for him to have a sexual relationship with another man.
MOM: You were! Who is this Mr. Jones?
APPLE: He’s our sex-ed professor. He’s a Raelian.
MOM: That makes him omnisexual. I guess that’s alright.
APPLE: Omnisexual?
MOM: They have sex with everything.
APPLE: Everything? Even vacuum cleaners?
MOM: Everything. He should have taught you that. I’ll have to write a letter to the board of education about that.
APPLE: What about bi-sexual? My friend Lisa said she might be that after taking Miss. Ryan’s female studies class.
MOM: Bisexuals are people who are very confused. Homosexuals hate them for straddling the line and omnisexuals hate them for holding back. Your little friend has a tough road to hoe ahead of her.
APPLE: Is George Bush an übersexual?
MOM: No. He’s asexual. And evil.
APPLE: Where do heterosexual men fit into all of this?
MOM: They are a dying breed. And thank Gaia for that too.
APPLE: What did heterosexual men do to make them so hated?
MOM: They did bad, evil things like play with guns, hunt deer, watch Clint Eastwood movies, eat pizza and whistle at women while they worked at their menial jobs on construction sites.
APPLE: But they sure lasted a long time.
MOM: But their time has come and gone.
APPLE: But ultimately isn’t it heterosexuals who most women want to fall in love with.
MOM: Not anymore. Not if we get 24/7 government daycare and a turkey-baster.
APPLE: A turkey…now I’m confused.
MOM: Don’t be. It’s all perfectly natural.
APPLE: So lemme see if I can put this together. An übersexual is the most desired of male species but even they can be accused of rape.
MOM: Yes.
APPLE: Metrosexuals are really closeted homosexuals who can’t really help out the female species.
MOM: Right.
APPLE: An omnisexual likes everything except for the bi-sexual who is even disliked by the metrosexual and the homosexual who can’t relate to the übersexual.
MOM: I’m so proud of you.
APPLE: And a heterosexual is most needed for women but they’re time has come because the government will finance our Thanksgiving dinner.
MOM: Not quite…but I’ll let that pass.
APPLE: So I think that leaves me with only one option about my sexuality when I grow up.
MOM: What?
APPLE: The convent.
posted by Nicol DuMoulin @ 10:00 AM
3 Comments:
NDP NADINE:
Thank you for response…but this time I’ll have to dissect a few things. I appreciate that you are passionate about this. So am I. But I have to live in the world I live in, not a politically correct world that does not exist.
First off, you accuse this ‘rant’ of being homophobic yet…define’ homophobic’. Sadly, like terms such as ‘racism’ and ‘misogyny’ the definition of homophobia is transient. It changes from person to person and how can someone not be ‘homophobic’ if one cannot clearly define what ‘homophobic’ is. Ten years ago someone was ‘homophobic’ if someone feared homosexuals; now someone is ‘homophobic’ if they merely acknowledge the power that the gay lobby has in our society.
Shouldn’t you think this is a good thing?
You seem to take issue because the piece I wrote presumes that homosexuality is taught in schools. I do not know about the school curriculum where you live but I live in Toronto and I can assure you that teaching about homosexuality is a part of it. Please, don’t blame the messenger. Again, shouldn’t you enjoy this?
Earlier in the year a group of Muslim parents were upset to find their kids being taught about the gay lifestyle. They complained and Dalton McGinty inferred that they were ‘intolerant’?. Does that make Dalton McGinty a racist? I remember another case in a school board NW of Toronto in the mid-nineties where parents complained about the gay content in the elementary school curriculum. They were labeled as ‘homophobic’.
I remember the Marc Hall case against the Separate School Board. The day his decision was to be read there was a picture of him going to court in the Toronto Star. He already had his hair dyed bright purple in anticipation of winning and he had a big cocky grin on his face as he winked at the camera. I remember thinking that this was hardly the face of an ‘oppressed’ teen. This was the face of a teen who had the media, the judiciary, the government and capitalist corporate Canada in his corner and used them for publicity and popularity.
Earlier this summer there was a government sponsored campaign aimed at curbing ‘homophobia’. The campaign posters were plastered all over the downtown Toronto core. They featured the face of a baby and under it the caption “Presumed Heterosexual-A Family Reality”. Now, I must ask, what message are they trying to convey by showing a baby on the poster?
Had it been a photo of a disenfranchised teen or college student…I could understand. Why a baby? I think this is a valid question. What is the inference about what parents should be teaching they’re babies? As far as I’ve always known, babies are not sexual. Why then was there a baby on the cover of this government sponsored poster? I find it very disturbing.
As for Ian Scott; he is a highly partisan source and he testified at the Senate hearings for SSM. He even at one point inferred that gay teens could be traumatized by the debate in parliament alone. Again, what is he inferring? That debate in a democracy is bad and ‘homophobic’?
Nowhere in my piece do I say anything negative or derogatory about homosexuals. I also take a shot at the cliché of heterosexual men as beer swilling, pizza munchers.
What seems to bother you is the fact that I start from the presumption that homosexuals are in fact not oppressed. This is at the core of what is Orwellian about Marxist Oppression Theory which is of course the root of political correctness. People get power from saying they are oppressed and therefore can never acknowledge the accomplishments they make. Indeed, the more oppressed they claim to be the more power they get.
Oppression is not how many people disagree with you. We all have people who disagree with us. Vehemently. I was conducting business the other day with a man who insisted that all Christians were rapists. Literally. I kept my mouth shut.
Catholics, Evangelicals, homosexuals, heterosexuals, women, Muslims, men, blacks, whites, Jews, Buddhists etc. all have people who disagree with them. What makes someone oppressed is; ‘who are the powers that be aligned with?’ If we define the power structures of modern society as multinational corporations, school, government, media, popular culture, news, the courts, etc. how can anyone possibly say that homosexuals are oppressed in the West?
I reject the information that Ian Scott provides. How could he possibly know this number? I have studied statistics and this is statistically impossible. But, let’s assume for the sake of argument that it is true; that many gay people feel ‘oppressed’ even when all of the power structures of the modern western society are aligned with them. I propose it is because leftists keep convincing gay people that they are oppressed…that the world is stacked against them…even when it is empirically not so. Who then benefits? The (usually) white, New Left politician or leader who says he/she is the only solution even though they never provide it.
I don’t doubt there are gay people who feel put upon. There are also many Catholics, Evangelicals, Muslims and Orthodox Jews who feel put upon and they don’t have capitalist multinational corporations (like Microsoft and Kodak) and the government backing them like the gay lobby does. They don’t get government grants either.
Consider this; the gay lobby in Canada was able to redefine the thousands of years old definition of marriage in just a little over two years in the mainstream publics eye. No other group or cause in Western history has accomplished its goals this fast.
Not women’s suffrage;
not the ending of slavery;
not the emancipation of America from the British colonies.
None.
And they did it with the help of the most powerful capitalist multinationals and media conglomerates and the guaranteed help of the Canadian government. Meanwhile the “oppressors” get thrown up against hate crimes tribunals for disagreeing.
As always, I welcome your comments and opinions. Nevertheless, I am bothered by your statement that my saying things you disagree with is ‘unacceptable’. This goes against the grain of free debate in a democracy. Given that Jack Layton just ensured that Bev Dejalais did not receive her NDP riding nomination, I have a grave fear for the future of free speech and freedom of religion in this country.
As always, I wish you the best.
Sammeyparker,
Thank you for your kind comments. Yes, this was meant as a commentary on sexual labels and how absurd we have gotted over it.
Thanks again.
"Not anymore. Not if we get 24/7 government daycare and a turkey-baster."
That was classic!
You aren't going to believe this website! If you really like 18 chloe gallery then this is even bigger than you can imagine!
Twins Twins Twins! Free sample pic here at my blog:
Milton Twins !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And feel free to post at my blog too.
Post a Comment
<< Home