The Age of Consent

OK, So yesterday I said that I was going to start the rants again in hope to get to 100 by the time the blog turns One in November.  That is only about ten per month, so that seems doable.  I figured that I would start with the one that seems to me to be one of the most controversial: The Age of Consent.

Even thought that this is a gay oriented blog, I don’t want to talk about JUST the age of consent for sex, but rather the age of consent for everything.  So first off, lets talk a look at what most of the consent ages are.  Please keep in mind that since this blog is based in the United States, I’m going off those numbers.

• To get your drivers license – 16
• To vote and smoke – 18
• To join the military – 18
• To drink – 21
• To have sex – 16 to 18

We live in Los Angeles, and there are a ton of teen drivers around here, and if you have ever visited, the I-10, 5, 15, 405, 110, the CA-91, 210, 60, and areas like the Orange Crush are not nice places to want to start your driving career.  Heaven forbid that Nick will be soon and that I’ve had about four years of experience and it still freaks me out at some points.  But here we are saying that you’re old enough to get behind the wheel of a few tons of steel, head out on the open roads, yet we are not going to let you vote or smoke yet?  According to the CDC on the website Car-Accidents.com 36% of all deaths in the age group of 16 to 20 come from driving.

So we are going to let this age group kill themselves 36% of the time from driving, but we wont let them vote of smoke?  All but three states according to Wikipedia you have to be 18 in order purchase tobacco products.  The three exceptions being Utah, Alabama, and New Jersey, where you have to be 19.  But now here is the really stupid part: Most countries do not have a minimum age to be able to smoke in public.  So while you could be arrested for supplying a 15yo with his cigarettes, it’s not illegal for the 15yo to smoke them.  So here there really is NO age of consent to smoke.  We are saying it is totally fine for them to make up their own mind to smoke or not, we are just making illegal to supply them with the means.

Right now I can see keeping the voting age at 18, but just from my experience there are a lot of younger people who are very knowledgeable about what is going on in their town, city, state, and the Federal government.  Sure I do believe that if we were to open voting to 16yo’s that they would just pick a box without to much consideration.  But if a kid can join the military early with parental consent, how about some sort of constitutional test that a minor can take to earn early voting rights?

Now the drinking age is actually one that I think should be raised!  25 maybe?  Everyone is always worried that young people like ourselves can’t make informed decisions, and I’ve seen that just get worse when people drink.  People drink, they get into car accidents, they get too drunk, and like the girl in the news the other day who was 21, tried to walk home in shorts and a tank top, in below zero weather, and froze to death a few blocks away.  You become aggressive and start fights that you regret later.  And don’t get me going on the few frat parties that I’ve been to.  None of this is responsible drinking.  Personally I think it would help to lower the amount of underage drinking.  21 and 22yo people DO hang around with underage people, they are still part of their social group.  I’m 20 and I have friends that are 14 the youngest I can name off the top of my head to about 25.  So when I turn 21 and am able to have drinks in my apartment whats not to say that if a younger friend were to come over over and ask for a drink that I might allow him to have one?  Anyone who knows me of course knows that is not going to remotely happen.  But it doesn’t mean that someone else my age who has younger friends wont.  But the probability of a 25yo having friend to hang out with and supply drinks is probably lower.  Hopefully you can see where I’m going there.  But what is also strange here is that it is illegal for a minor to be in possession of alcohol, but it’s not illegal to be in possession of tobacco.  Seems to me that if it is illegal for someone to purchase something then it should be illegal for them to possess it too.

Take for instance the California law on the possession of firearms.  California prohibits the purchase to anyone under the age of 21.  HOWEVER, a minor can possess one where the parent or guardian has consented, and is present.  But there is no minimum age to possess a rifle or shotgun.  So why not let a minor smoke with the consent and presence of his parents?  Why not let let kids drink with the consent and presence of their parents.  At least with the consent and presence of the parents there would be that additional time to teach about the effects of smoking and drinking.  And while we are at it how about sex with minors being OK as long as you have consent from your parents?  I mean, come on!

And then the biggest one, having sex.  This has to be one of the most messed up age of consent laws that are out there.  Though I can understand their purpose, they way they are written sometimes makes you want to pull your hair out.  Take a look at this CHART and tell me you don’t agree.   The age of Consent in the United States is all over the place.  I was getting a headache just trying to read that list, and it seemed like someone cut and pasted the information from a law book.  But here are some of the one that really stood out out to me:

• Delaware – Can have sex with 16 and 17yo as long as you’re under 30
• Florida – Can have sex with 17 and 17yo as long as you’re under 23
• Maine – Can has sex at 14  as long as your partner isn’t over 5 years older
• Minnesota – Can has sex at 13 as long as your partner isn’t over 4 years older
• Ohio – Can have sex at 13 as long as your partner isn’t over 18
• Oregon – Can have sex at 12 as long as your partner isn’t over 3 years older
• Washington – Can has sex at 12 as long as your partner isn’t over 2 years older

Now remember I AM NOT A LAWYER. This is just how I interpreted what I read. I am not in the least bit advocating that everyone start going to have sex with minors.  But here is where I think the laws are dumb.  Some states are giving consent to very young minors, while others don’t.  If this is the “United” states, then crap like this should be consistent over ALL the states.  Basically what all this is saying is that kids can consent to have sex with other kids, but they can’t consent to sex with adults.  And I’ll have to do a Rant on that in the future, but kids are not stupid!!  They want to learn about sex, they want to learn about their sexuality, but the only people we are saying that they can do that with are other inexperienced, unknowledgeable, kids. And that, in my eyes, is stupid.

Yes, there are bad people out there that we want to protect the kids from.  Believe me, in my old line of work, I ran into a few like that.  But not everyone out there who would enjoy a relationship with a younger person is not a rapist.  They are not out to “abuse” minors.  And most of the time society even gets they name of what they are trying to accuse people of wrong.  Having a sexual relationship with a 14yo is NOT pedophilia.  That is when you’re attracted to pre-pubescent boys generally 11 and under.  The term hebephilia is used for those attracted to the early adolescents of 11 to 14 generally, and the last one is ephebophilia who are attracted to late adolescents of 15 and up.  So even society can’t get their terms straight when making adults look evil.

Do I believe that there can be healthy sexual relations between and older person and a younger person?  Yes.  Do I believe that there are a bunch of asses out there that DO take advantage of younger people? Absolutely!  And I’ll probably end up doing a Rant on just this subject in the near future, but in just like anything else, it is the few bad people out there that make it hard for the rest of us who are trying to do good.  A few bombers and we all have to take our shoes off at the airport, a few religious zealots and everyone thinks EVERY Muslim is out to get them, a few illegal immigrants and everyone wants to ship the entire population out.  And the news and the internet make the issue seem 10 times worse than it is.

OK, so that was a little long winded.  But as you can see the age of consent is like a jig-saw puzzle.  First you have to figure out what you’re doing, then you have to read your state laws to find out if what you want to do is illegal or not.  Last I checked not to many people have law libraries in their houses, and the last thing you want to do is to call up a lawyer and say “hey I’m 22 and I’m dating a 14yo. Is it OK for us to have sex?”.  Though if you want to keep your butt out of a sling, it’s probably a good idea to do.

Yes, I know I have a strange take on this subject, just like I do most everything that I Rant about.  But I never say that I’m right.  These are always just my opinions which are always open for debate.  Do not take this as Gospel.

Love to you all as always!

~Ryan

 

When Should it Be OK for Authorities to Seize Your Property

Law enforcement officials in Oklahoma are distraught about a bill to reform civil asset forfeiture.

I’m sure nobody is going to like it when they get their house, car, money, or other things seized by the authorities because they think, or are investigating, you because they think that you are doing something illegal.  To me this seems to be “guilty until proven innocent”.  I have always been under the assumption that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

Now, interestingly enough the U.N. has it in their Universal Declaration of Human Rights under article 11:  “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”  But the Constitution of the United States “does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. [Wikipedia]

Now the 5th Amendment is the one that deals with the Grand Juries, Double Jeopardy, Self Incrimination, Due Process, and Takings.  This is where we get the “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.  So right here we have the Constitution telling us that we cannot take a persons property with out first the due process.  I really don’t care if you are suspected of engaging in illegal affairs, or flat out know to be.  If you are not convicted of a crime, then the government should not be able to take your possessions.  Now remember we are just talking about the government seizing and KEEPING your property.  It is still certainly OK for them to issue a warrant for it if there is probably cause.  And then if you are found innocent you get it back.

Now Wikipedia was also citing the 6th Amendment, but I really don’t see what they are talking about.  This one is just the right to a speedy trial (yea, right), right to witnesses and counsel.  So we will skip this one.

With the 14th Amendment we are now extending the rights of the 5th to naturalized citizens of the United States.  Now the Amendment says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” so we basically have the Constitution saying TWICE what the 5th Amendment said earlier.  Can’t get any more clear than that, can you?

The bill that was presented to the Oklahoma legislature was brought by State Sen. Kyle Loveless (R).  This is one of the few things that I would agree with a Republican on.  One of the things that the article says is that the state doesn’t have to have a definitive proof of a crime before seizing the assets.  Wait, what?  So because they think that that you might be involved in some sort of illegal activity, without proof of it, they can seize your property?  So I think I’ll stop unloading all those legally purchased televisions from the back of a U-Haul at 2am into my rightfully owned run down building on the docks.  Just Kidding btw.

A report from The Institute for Justice said that nearly $100 million from seizures from 2000 to 2014 was taken in.  And the authorities are saying that if they get less money from the seizures that they will have less to work with in order to catch the criminals.  Well, shit yea you will, but you’re taking the money it what appears to be an illegal fashion anyhow.  Cut down on some other excess spending, get your budget under control, and maybe you can make up the difference.

As a tax payer, and one who likes the idea of the police keeping the bad guys off the streets, I don’t mind them using my money for legit things.  But if you are using my money to illegally seize property, even if it is from criminals, that’s when I have an issue with it.  There is always that “fruit of the poisoned tree” thing that the cop shows are always talking about.  That is where if you illegally search property, or seize it, then any proof of guilt that was discovered because of the illegal activity can’t be used in court.

One thing that the article talks about and is part of the focus of the legislation is that when the assets are seized that either they are being sold, or money seized is being used prior to the conviction of the criminal.  But keep in mind that you cannot be labeled a criminal until after a conviction.  Up until then  you are just an innocent person accused of a crime.  Selling the property and then using the funds prior to a conviction is just flat out plain wrong!!  What if it turns out that the person is innocent?  What if it turns out that the person is acquitted, and wants their stuff back?  You have just opened yourself up to a whole bunch of lawsuits.

Believe me, I get that the police and the investigators need more money to do their job and that they are looking for anyway to get it.  But this way is not only wrong, but it is unconstitutional, and the Constitution says it in two places as we talked about above. I agree with Senator Loveless and if I was in his district I would vote for this, even if I am a Democrat.  Let’s take a good look at all the ways that the state, not only Oklahoma, but all all of them, are wasting money, rearrange the budget so we are spending on things that need to be funded, and not spending money on “bridges to nowhere”.  Even then I think the police are not going to have enough to do what they want, but hey, every little bit helps right?  And now we are doing it legally.

And let me just finish this Rant with a Big Big Thank You to all of you out there that have served as police officers, or have friends and family that are part of the police organizations.  You do a hard job, and one that I do not envy.  Keep up the good work!

Love to you all!

~Ryan

The GOP Debates….and Debates in General

So as of this writing I have not yet watched the 3rd GOP debate that was on 10/28/15, but I have it queued up to watch as soon as I get this Rant done. But there has been so much writing about it in the news I figured that I could pull off this Rant without actually watching it yet.

Let me first ask you: Do the debates in general even make sense to have? Period?  Think about this:  The candidates on the GOP side want to limit the time of the debate to two hours.  TWO F***ING HOURS!!  Two hours to debate critically the issues of the nation and the world between 14 candidates. Let’s do that math on that one.  Two hours = 60 minutes.  Divide that by 14 candidates and you get a whopping 8.57 minutes for each of them to tell us how they are going to lead the country, and the world.  That is just nowhere near enough time for that!!!  Let’s not kid around.  And if each one of them gets one minute for opening and closing remarks (because they never stay within their guidelines) and leaves just 6.57 minutes to get to saving the country and the world.  Now I think that they are planning like 10 GOP debates so that is 65 minutes total debate time.  Fuck me, why watch?!  I’d rather listen to them on their stump speeches where they get more time to talk about what they are going to do, and then just compare that to the other candidate and then make up my mind on who to vote for.

Don’t get me wrong though.  I am not in the least bit going to vote for any of those monkeys on the GOP side.  But you know what?  They do have legit concerns that even I agree about after just READING about the mess of the CNBC one that I’m about to watch.

I think that a candidate should have as much time as he or she needs to answer the question that was asked, or to rebut a comment from another that was specifically addressed or mentioned them.  Not just a 30 second bit.  Is that going to draw out the time that the debate takes?  You betcha!!  But it would give move validity to their answers and really let the voters know what they are thinking.

But here is something that I think should happen with the debates.  You can’t give the candidates questions that they are prepared to answer.  You might have just as well have them write a speech for that.  So I think that the GOP debates should be moderated by the liberals, and the Democrats moderated by the conservatives.  Just imagine what kind of questions and answers you would get!  I also think that there should be no rules in the debates.  No questions or topics that would be off limits.  And by having the other party moderate the debate you wouldn’t get that sense that the candidates own the debate and they are dictating to the moderators what questions get to be asked.  Just imagine a Democrat asking what their opinion on marriage equality, or a woman’s right to choose?  Or a Republican asking the Democrats about cutting back on defense spending limiting the size of government?  Don’t those seem like they would be better debate questions?

I would love to put all 14 of them in a room together at 9am, and then have them debate the issues all freaking day.  No holds barred style.  Let them answer the questions being asked.  Let them yell at there opponents.  We are talking about the fate of our country, and the leader of the free world.  And if the GOP gets their way it’s either going to be Trump and his casino empire, an ex-neurosurgeon, or an HP executive.  Do you really want to let these guys have their finger on the nuclear trigger, setting foreign policy, rolling back progressive reforms, without really knowing who they are and what they are really about?

This 2016 election is all about a change in leadership style.  Nobody right now is leaning toward anyone that has been a life long politician with the exception of Hillary Clinton. She is the only top tier establishment candidate that right now has a viable chance at winning.  We have gotten to know her through being First Lady, New York state Senator, and then Secretary of State.  But everyone else is like “who are these guys”?

I certainly don’t want to vote for a republican.  But I would like them to have a fair debate to get to know them, what they are like, what their policies would be, because then, Hell, you never know.  The place just might freeze!!  But all I see right now is just mess, a bunch of complainers who are acting more like school children than Presidential candidates, and I wouldn’t vote for any of them.  I don’t know how the networks are going to solve this issue.  At least on the Democrat side there is only four of them.  That is a ton more manageable.  In the mean time I just recommend taking the debates with a grain of salt and listening to them on their stump speeches and then comparing what you hear to make the best decision.

All I know is that we’re screwed if one of the GOP gets elected.  And I can’t run for another 15 years.  Gives me great time to built up my base!  Team Striker 2032!! Your first out as gay, ex-hustler, GED earning, President!  Imagine that!?

Love to you all!

~Ryan

Changing Democracy

Supreme Court Case Could Upend the Way Democracy Works

This is an article that was posted to the Huffington Post on 10/08/15.  And wow, could this one be a doozy!!  The question that the law suit of Evenwel v. Abbott is asking is whether or not to draw legislative districts by the number of the total population or by the number of eligible voters.  In the United State every ten years is the National Census which afterwards the new districts are drawn to compensate for the increase or decrease in an areas population.  So to me what these idiots are asking is who gets representation in congress.  It is only registered voters?  Or is it the entire population, which would include childern, inmates, former felons, and possibly illegal immigrants?

The first line of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution; Section Two reads: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.”  Now to me that means EVERYONE!  That means from newborn babies all the way up the almost deceased.  Everyone living at the time of the census deserves representation, not just registered voters.

If we say that only registered voters get representation then how are underage, the inmates, and former felons supposed to fight for their rights?  Are we then saying they have no rights?  That is ridiculous.  Think of it this way.  What if a part of a city has 100,000 in total population, but only 20,000 of them are registered voters.  Are we really going to tell the other 80,000 that they have no representation because they are either to young, ineligible, or chose not to register?

Yea, I get that it sucks that the U.S. has such a low registered voters and voter turn out yet 100% of the people bitch about the government.  according to Statisticbrain there are 218,959,000 eligible voters yet only 146,311,000 are registered.  That is only 66%.  And only 57.5% of Americans voted in the 2012 Presidential election.  Yet the other 42.5% don’t stop bitching about the way the government is going.  That is always my first question when I start an argument with someone about politics.  Did you vote?  If they say no, then I end it right there.  You want to bitch, go vote!!

And though I really hate it, those that choose not to register, or worse yet register but not vote, do deserve their representation in Congress.  The Constitution guarantees that right. And what the article is saying is that if they lawsuit goes then it would shift the power away from the cities which have more immigrants, children, and Democrats to the rural areas which tend to be older, white, and Republican.  So you can see what this really is.  It is an attempt by the Republicans to shift even more power their way and to stop the progressive nature of the United States.

Are you fucking kidding me!!??  The Republican party can’t get their shit together to elect a Speaker of the House, have the worst possible candidates for President, and we want to consider something that would give them even more power?  How fucked up are we becoming?

And with this law instead of the census they want to use a survey that asks just a random amount of people, and not everyone to determine how these lines are going to be drawn.  Please read the full article to get more info on that as I wont do explaining it any justice compared to the author of the article.

But I can see that if this law passes, combined with the horrendous Citizens United that we might as well kiss democracy good-bye.  At that point in time it will be in the hands of the 1% rich, white, Republicans who want to take the country back to the 1800s.  There is no way that I want any of these CEO’s or Ex-surgeons running the country.  I haven’t made up my mind yet, but I am leaning more towards Bernie Sanders, but I still haven’t given up on Hillary Clinton.  I know that she is part of the government establishment, but I do think that it is time for woman to be President.  But fuck no, not Fiorina.  And no fucking way to I want Trump to have his fingers on the nuclear codes.  And even if I had been remotely thinking about Carson he lost all hope when he suspended his campaign to go on a book tour.  If you want to be President, then act like it.  You don’t see Obama going on book tours as President.  That kind of crap can wait until you are out of office.

So I know that it is too late to get on the email to your Congressman about this since its in the hands of the Court right now.  But heaven fucking forbid that it gets passed, you had better have them on your email contacts to start up a Constitutional Amendment to really define who gets representation in this country.  Too many people are about to be left in the cold.

OK, so Love to you all!!

~Ryan

P.S. – Sorry that I haven’t posted a Rant in quite a while.  It has been a busy month here in sunny Southern California.  No the Great Earthquake has not struck yet, so we are still around.  Just with moving down the street to this absolutely great apartment, my work, Nick’s work, and his school, and my closing in on the GED, it has been a busy month.  But things should be calming down around here now to get back on the schedule.  Thanks all for being patient.  And as always comments and debate are always welcome!!

This is America! There is no requirement that you have to speak English.

GOP Candidates Say Immigrants Don’t Learn English, But Report Proves Them Wrong

I get so sick and tired of hearing about the right wingers who say that they love the Constitution of the United States, and want to protect it from the evil left wingers, but then seem to not know what the hell the damn thing says!  There is nowhere in there, and no law made otherwise, that makes English the official language of the United States.  If these right wingers were to get there way the United States would become the 2nd Berlin with walls against the Mexican and Canadian borders, and English would be the official language.  We might as well take down the Statue of Liberty that is in New York Harbor since her quote would no longer apply.  

I have no problem with people who do not speak English.  But yes, I do agree that if you live in a place that speaks a different language than you do, it would help in communication if you were to learn the local language.  It would be like me moving to Brazil.  They speak Portuguese and I don’t know one lick of that.  So if I didn’t have anybody to translate for me, or learn some of the language beforehand it is going to be very hard to do shopping, find an apartment, or get a job.

I’ve seen people get upset at foreigners (and remember that EVERYONE in the U.S. could be considered a foreigner) for speaking their own language while eating at a restaurant, or standing in line waiting to be served.   I’ve heard people yell “speak English, this is America”.  Yet it is fucking funny as hell when they get up to the counter and they can speak English pretty damn good.  She’s right!  This IS America, where you can speak any damn language you want to.  Make one up if you want to even!

When the United States was first started, it seems to me that the Government WANTED to be all inclusive.  They didn’t want for everyone to have to become molded into the society.  Didn’t they used to call the United States the “Melting Pot”?

What is so wrong with someone speaking another language anyhow?  How do you know that these people that you are yelling at for not speaking English even live here?  What if they are tourists?  How would you feel if you went to France and were waiting in line at McDonald’s (there is no way I’d eat at a restaurant there that I could eat here.  You’re in France for God’s sake!) and some French woman started to yell at you and your boyfriend in French for speaking English?  You’d be a little upset.  So now put yourself in the shoes of those here that do not speak English.

If you grew up somewhere else, like Spain, where Spanish is your first language and English is your second language sometimes it just might be easier for someone to speak their first language with those around that can understand it.  Ever think of that?  They still might be able to speak pretty perfect English, but if it is just easier to speak your first language there is nothing wrong with that.

The place that I work at has a LOT of people where English is there 2nd language.  So sometimes it is hard to figure out what they want, but most of the time if they don’t speak English well they usually have someone there to interpret for them. And again there is nothing wrong with that.

All in all these fucking right wingers really need to go back and study up on what America was built on.  I may be young, but I’m not stupid.  These people want to change America, but they are changing it for the worse.  It is unfathomable to think of how many people agree with them.  We should ship all of these people to Siberia where they can all be alone together, Speaking English, they can build their walls, and keep all of the progressive people out.

Like I keep saying, we need to be more supportive.  Fling the doors wide open!  Let’s help the immigrants enjoy the American life rather than shunning them away.

Love to you all!

~Ryan

Art Vs. Pornography

One of the great mysteries in life is when does art become pornography, and when is pornography art?

I think before we can even discuss this we have to look at what the Dictionary.com definition is for both art and pornography.

Here is the one for Art: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance; the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings. 

Here is the one for Pornography: obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit.

People have a bad habit of calling works of art pornography just because the drawing, painting, photograph, or sculpture happens to show penis, vagina, breasts, or buttocks.  They are not looking at the full scope of what the artwork is meant to represent.  In layman’s terms, pornography is meant to be sexually arousing, something to get off too, while art is meant to take in not only the subject of the work, but the surroundings as well.  Art is meant to tell a story, while pornography is meant to get you off.

Go into any art museum and I guarantee you will see more that one painting or sculpture that depicts a nude man, woman, or child, and nobody is calling that pornography.  Go to Europe and there are plenty of statues out in the public that depict nudity in artistic fashion.  One of my favorites is the Boy with a Frog (Link to Pictures of it on Google) that use to be in Venice, Italy.  It was removed May 9, 2013 and replaced with a street lamp.  HERE is the story about it’s removal that makes it seem like it had nothing to do with the fact that it was a naked preteen boy.  But as the story says, the statue did have it’s detractors.  It doesn’t make mention of the reason, but since the kid is naked, that is probably at the top of the list.

White Statue of Boy With Frog

Photo by: Todd Heisler/New York Times

But to me here is where it becomes art.  Take a look a the location: He is on a point, surrounded by water.  And what kid doesn’t like hunting for frogs?  I did when I was about that age or so.  I just wasn’t eight feet tall.  And what about his nudity?  The body is not something to be ashamed of.  Young, old, man, woman, slim, or obese.  Remember that according to the Bible (OK) that Adam and Eve were walking around for quite a while buck naked and perfectly fine with it.  It was only after the eating from the tree did they realize that they were naked.  [And by the way, if God is supposed to be this All Knowing entity how come he had to ASK Adam if he had eaten from tree? [Genesis 3:11] And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”]

Now here is another work of art that is nude: David by MICHELANGELO.  Nobody is calling this porn!

Statue of David by MICHELANGELO

It seems to me that the only time that things get classified as pornography is when they are photographs.  And yes, when you troll online there are plenty, and I mean PLENTY of websites and do nothing but feature pornography.  I’ll let you just Google the word porn on the images side and you’ll know what I mean.  But so now that I’ve given a few examples of how nudity with statues isn’t considered porn, now let’s take a look at a couple of photographs:

Boy Outdoors With Dog

This photo, like the statue of the boy and David is not meant to be sexually erotic.  It is supposed to showcase the naked naked body in natural surroundings.  It is a photograph that makes you think:  What is he looking at?  What is he pondering?  It is almost like the statue of The Thinker by Auguste Rodin, which is a nude as well by the way.  Yes, the photographer took the shot as a full frontal nude.  But now think if this was a statue sitting on a pedestal and made 300 years ago, would we call it art or pornography?

Out in Nature

Here is the second picture that I wanted to show.  Here is boy standing in pose in a natural setting.  What if this was turned into a sculpture and placed on the point where the Boy With Frog stood?  Would we call it art, or would we call it pornography?  And what if the men in the photographs had been the age of the Boy With Frog?  People would be screaming child pornography, the Boy With Frog stood there for four years.  It is people that do not have the appreciation for the naked body who will see every naked body as porn.  Hell if you would ever catch them at a nude beach!  Heaven’s there are naked men, women, and children all over at those places.

Yes, there is a very very fine line between art and pornography.  And each person is subject to his or her own opinion.  If the work is tasteful, and is done in a way to showcase not only the body but the surroundings, then I would consider it a work of art.  If the work is meant for the viewer to get aroused, and focuses entirely on just the body, then I would consider it pornography.  But there are also photographs that showcase just the body, with no surroundings that I would still consider art.

But from what I can see from what I read, see online, or at museums, is that the world is getting more and more uptight about the naked body.  There is nothing to be ashamed of.  Yes, there are people out there that will see a great artwork and get off on it.  Nothing we can do about those people.  But I think there are more people who know, or want to know, how to admire the body like it was intended to.

And before I go on this one, just two more photographs of statues and how weird some people can be, and believe:

Boy With Golden Penis – Prague Castle

This is an artwork at the Prague Castle in the Czech Republic.  It is supposed to give you good luck if you rub him where it counts.  Hence the fact that the statue is dark, but his penis and scrotum are shiny bronze.

Naked Angel Crying – Island of Tears, Minsk, Belarus

On the island of Tears in Minsk, Belarus is this statue of a crying angel.  It is said that brides come to the island on the wedding day to rub the angels penis to be bless the marriage with fertility and a male son.

So artwork verses pornography?  It really comes down to how you view the subject.  If a photograph was a statue would you consider it art?  If a statue was a live person would you consider it pornography?  It’s a fine line for sure.  But as an appreciator of the human body I hope that there is a lot of great artwork yet to come.

Love to you all!

~Ryan

EDIT: I found this picture about a half hour after the original post and really gets to jist of what I was trying to say.

There was no credits on the original post that I found.

These two are almost identical.  Are they both art?  Are they both Pornography?  Or is one art and one pornography?  To me they are both art.

Morals – Who Says Mine Are Wrong?

So this is a “suggested” Rant by one of my followers on Tumblr.  He suggested that I do one on morals.  Since today there is a lot of activity surrounding this.  There is the war going on in Syria, the Presidential election season here in the U.S., for a couple of examples.  One way or another we all try to push our own morals onto everyone around us.

What are “morals”?  According to Dictionary.com “morals” are: of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conductor the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.  2.expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work.  3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations. 4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.  5.

conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral ): a moral man. 6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste. 7. of, relating to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.

The subject came up because of the County Clerk in Kentucky, U.S. who just recently was found in contempt of court and was ordered to jail.  Her crime?  She withheld same sex marriage licenses after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality.  The reason?  To her, it is morally wrong for two people of the same sex to get married.  It is her religious belief that made her not go against her morals, and went to jail instead.  Now she has two choices to get out of jail.  #1 is that she can start to issue the licenses in accordance with the Supreme Court, or #2 she can resign.  I’m hoping that she takes option #1, but if she is willing to go to jail for her morals I’m thinking it will be #2 in the end.

What are some of my morals that I have?  I think it is morally wrong to have the death penalty.  Sure, I get that who ever is on Death Row is there because they committed murder on someone else.  But the reason I am morally against it is, now this is going to sound really stupid coming from me for those that know me, is the Bible says “Thou Shalt Not Kill”.  I’m not a big firm believer in the Bible, but this is one thing that I think it got right.  And “Thou Shalt Not Kill” includes anybody.  For any reason.  Including the punishment of murder.  Another moral that I have is that I am against slavery.  And no I’m not talking about the U.S. Civil War type of slavery.  I am talking about any type of slavery where there are people that are being held to do things that are against their own wishes and they have no control over it.  That would include pimps and their prostitutes, warlords taking people and forcing them to fight or be human bombs.  It would be the coyotes of Mexico, or asian countries, who will take people across the border, but them make them work for them to pay off the debt.  That is the type of slavery that I am morally against.

I think that morals are things that get deeply ingrained into our culture from hundreds, and sometimes thousands of years ago too.  Take the whole “one man, one woman” marriage thing for example again.  We here in the U.S. see it as morally wrong to have more than one wife, or husband. Yes, I’m talking about polygamy.  But when you look at it, is there anything that is humanly wrong with it?  I don’t think so.  Is it possible for one man, or one woman, to be married to several people of the opposite sex and have everything work out fine?  I’m sure there is.  Just look at the compounds that you see out in Utah with that radical wing of the Latter Day Saints church.  One man being married to several women seems to be working out there.  Of course what got that guy in trouble, and other like him, is that he started to marry the underage girls, and having sex with them.  Whow, stop your horses right there!

Morals may be a great thing to follow, but unfortunately, laws still trump morals.  Going back to our Country Clerk, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage equality is now the law of the land.  If your morals are going to interfere with the performance of your job, then you’re going to need to find a new job.  With the guys out in Utah who’s morals say for them it is OK to marry someone who is underage, laws trump again.  You may be able to love them as your wife, but you’re going to have to hold off on the sexual relations and the marriage until they turn 18.

And when you look at the world view of morals, I think you’ll be like me and realize that it is morals that have been behind pretty much every war there has ever been.  Think about this:  A country is doing something that we here in the West thing is morally wrong.  So what do we do about it?  We would probably hit them with some sort of sanction to get them to follow what we think is right.  But they may have been doing there there for thousands of years.  How about the story, and sorry I don’t have the link for this one, recently about the woman who was stoned to death for having an adulterous affair?  If I remember right it was a Middle Eastern country that this happened in where their morals about adultery are way more extreme than they are here in the U.S.  Here if you have an adulterous affair and get caught, the worst that happens is you get slapped with divorce papers, and you end up paying alimony and child support.  The militaries morals about adultery are a bit more severe where you can still go to jail if caught there because of the impact it can have on the job.  But in the Middle East where they still take adultery very seriously, you can be put to death.

So morals are what we as individuals think is right and wrong.  And every person, every country, every region, is going to have different morals.  What I think is morally right, may totally offend you.  And what you think is morally right may totally offend me.  But the trick is to get along, and try to understand everyone’s morals before just going off on the deep end over them.  But if the law counters what your morals are, then you are just going to have to work to be sure your morals don’t cross the line, because unfortunately the laws are set by the majority.  And if enough people with your same morals comes into the majority, then we can change the laws in favor of your morals.  Do I hold anything against the County Clerk for believing in her morals and standing up for them?  Absolutely not.  This is a great country where you can stand up to the laws in a civil defiance like hers.  The only thing she did wrong was because she is an elected civil servant who is supposed to adhere to the laws of land, defied them.  For that, you are going to get punished.  Hopefully she doesn’t spend to much time in jail.  Honestly, I haven’t checked in the last few days, hopefully she is out even as I write this.

This was kind of a long winded Rant, but I hope I got my point across.  Thank you for the suggestion for the Rant.  If you have something you would like to here my opinion on, then just send me an Ask, or a Fan Mail.

Love to you all as always!

~Ryan

How Exactly Do the Elections in the United States Work?

So somebody asked me today if I had made up my mind yet if I am going to vote of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in the General Election next year.  First off, it’s not until July 7, 2016.  So what’s the rush for me to make a decision.  There is still a lot of things to think about, because each of them has their own good merits.  At this point, I’d vote for both of them.  But that got me thinking.  What exactly is the Primary Election for if it is the delegates at the Democratic National Convention who end up voting for the person who get’s the parties nomination?

I have been all over Google and to numerous websites and can’t quite still figure out what the purpose of the Primary Election is.  I think I should finish my GED and then go on to study elections.  Because from what I can find out is that it is the delegates at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions that actually vote for who will end up with the nomination.  Then in the General Election it is another group of delegate that actually vote for the President from what is called the Electoral College.  And no, it is not a place.  You can’t walk into it like you can UCLA.  It is a process, not a place.

But here is something really stupid that I found and can really twist your brain.  The delegates to a party are supposed to vote for the candidate of their party should they win the popular vote in the state.  So just as an example: if Hillary Clinton were to win the Democratic Party nomination, and then she won the popular vote here in California, then the party delegates would vote for Clinton from the Electoral College.  Here is the kicker – THEY DON’T HAVE TO!  They could, in fact, vote for the Republican candidate instead.  According to Archives.gov “there is no constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states.”  It also says that though it is rare that the delegates don’t follow the popular vote, “no Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.”  So essentially we are putting the entire Presidential election in the hands of 538 people who can vote however they want to.  So whats to say that we all like Clinton and the Electors like (heaven forbid it) Donald Trump?

I know that I have a long way to go to figure this whole thing out, and maybe by volunteering with the Democratic Party will lend me some education on the subject.  The thing is, I don’t want to volunteer and end up supporting anyone.  I want to volunteer to figure out how the whole thing works.

From what I have figured is that the state’s Primary Election determines how many delegates a candidate wins in that state.  Then those delegates go to the Party National Convention where THEY vote for the candidate.  Then in the General Election the winner of the popular vote wins the number of delegates for that state who are supposed to vote for their candidate, but don’t have to.

To put it another way, we are voting for people, who will vote to nominate the candidate at the conventions.  Then we vote again for other people to vote for the President in the General Election.  Wow, does that sound totally messed up when you hear it like that.  So now I’m on a quest to find out how one becomes a delegate, and what the hell do they actually do.

Nope, haven’t made up my mind who I am going to vote for in the Primary yet.  Let me get a few migraines trying to figure out how the Primary works first, then I’ll let you know.

Love to you all

~Ryan

What a Waste of Court Time and Money

Ruling in Tom Brady Case to Come Tuesday or Wednesday

So do you remember the big stink in American football last season when Tom Brady, and the New England Patriots, we accused of deflating footballs during the American Football Conference (AFC) Championship game?  It was suspected that the deflated footballs somehow gave the Patriots an advantage over the Indianapolis Colts, and let them go on to win the game.  After the allegation Tom Brady was given a four game suspension to be handed out for the first four games of the season that is about to start.  Tom, not happy with the suspension of course, appealed the decision and it went to court.  In the article it says that the losing side is expected to appeal whatever the decision is.  Of course they would.  But that is a subject for the next Rant.  It would be appealed to the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.  WTF?!

This is the dumb side to sports.  You fuck up, you get caught, you get punished for it.  You would get punished if you were caught taking drugs because that is cheating.  How would deflating footballs be any different?  It is just another form of cheating.  Whether or not Tom and the Patriots actually did deflate the footballs, I don’t know.  Quite honestly, I haven’t paid too much attention to it because I thought the whole thing was stupid to begin with.  Tom should just man up, take his medication, and go on with the game.  Game!  Did you not here me?  Football is a freaking game!

According to Spotrac, Tom’s salary for the 2015 season is a total of $14 Million.  $8 Million for a base salary, and an extra $6 Million for a signing bonus.  Now divide that by 16 games on the schedule comes out to be $875,000 per game.  Now each game is allotted 60 minutes.  With all the standing around time that is “on the clock”, I’ll be generous and say that there is a total of 42 minutes of actual playing.  Of those 42 minutes, lets be generous again and say that the offense is on the field half the time, so 22 minutes.  $875,000 by 22 minutes comes out to be $39,772 per minute.  Does anyone else see that as an obscene amount of money for playing a game?  With how many games he has played in the past, I think he is more than capable of giving up four games worth of money.  Even if it is $3.5 Million.

But that is not really the reason that I wanted to get on this Rant.  This is supposed to be about how the f*** did a sports dispute end up in the tax payers court?  Fuck me, if you don’t like the punishment given, alleged or not, then maybe you shouldn’t be playing the game.  I thought sports greats like Tom were supposed to be role models?  I think a great role model would have taken the suspension in stride, and go on with the game afterwards.  To me all this is just saying that if you don’t like the punishment that you are given for cheating, there will always be someone to appeal to.  What if you get caught cheating on a test in school and the teacher gives you an “F” for that.  Now you can appeal that to the principal, and if you don’t like his decision, to the school board.  If you don’t like being held accountable at work by your boss, now you can take it up with the CEO, then the Board of Directors?

I agree with the article, and Jay Feely, a member of the NFL Players Association Executive Committee, that said they need to keep this kind of thing in-house with an arbitrator.  I certainly don’t think that my tax money should be wasted on a petty little dispute like this.  Yea, I realize that this is Tom’s “job”, and maybe the whole deflategate thing was an accidental thing. But really?  Man up!!  Take it, and move on.

The courts are already was overused in my opinion.  I’m sick of hearing that when ever a decision is made in court that the losing party is going to appeal.  So if the losing side is just going to appeal whatever the lower court decides, then what the fuck is the lower court there for even?  The only time that I think appeals should be made is if there was something procedurally done wrong that is discovered after the fact.  If something is wrong during a trial then it should either be thrown out, or restarted.  Appeal, yea, if you find after the fact evidence or procedural errors, but don’t just arbitrarily say you’re going to appeal just because you don’t like the outcome.  Of course one side of a court hearing isn’t going to like the outcome.  How many times have you seen both parties happy coming out of the courtroom on Judge Judy?

Think of how much time and money could be saved if issues like this never made it to the courtroom.  You just might have a lot more time to do actual, real, meaningful, court work.  I would be pissed off if I was the judge that got handed this case.  I would have told Side A and Side B that they are not leaving the room until they come up with a settlement because this type of thing should have never been in the courtroom to begin with.

So I’m going to end this one right here.  I hope that a lot of you will agree with me on this one.

Love to you all!

~Ryan

If You’re Dumb Enough!…..The Ashley Madison Hack

Hundreds of White House and Congressional Workers Implicated in Ashley Madison Hack

First, let me apologize for not having written a Rant in quite a while.  With all the things going on, Nick’s broken collarbone, getting ready for his back to school, me getting ready for back to school too, work, and life in general, it has been a pretty busy few weeks here in the Striker-Allen apartment.  But I’ll get to all that later.

To say that I was stunned when I read this article would be an understatement.  They are making a case out of the White House and Congress, but I’ll bet every profession in the country could be on that list.  Let’s face it, there is a dating site for everyone, so why not one for married people who want to have a fling.  There are ones for gays, Christians, blacks, Jewish, and the one that always makes me laugh: FarmersOnly!!  So was I surprised to find out there was one for marrieds, a little, but not entirely.  I always thought there was Craigslist for that, or just going down to the local bar and hitting on someone.

What really shocked me though was that these dumb asses were using their work computers to log into the website, used the work email addresses, and paid with a credit card.  Fuck, you should get what’s about to come to you.  Shame on the companies for letting things like that happen though.  Of course though, in the end, it’s the idiots themselves.  Apparently these people didn’t think to maybe create an anonymous email like with Yahoo, AIM, Gmail, or something.  Even I know that when you pay for something using a credit card online they keep track of your IP address for security and fraud purposes.

Are you that desperate though that you would use your company computer to go to a site like that?  I know a few people that have gotten fired for using their own personal phone when they were supposed to be working, let alone using the companies computer to do your non-work activities.  I think it would be safe to assume that when you are at work, your bosses want you working, not literally cruising the internet.  Now if your company allows you go online during your lunch hour, or breaks, I can see that.  But I certainly still would not go to a site like that.  I wouldn’t even go to Tumblr!  LOL. Check your email maybe, the news, stock reports, check to see who sent you a message on Facebook.  OK, I can live with that.  But daing of any kind should only be done when you’re not on the clock.

And the guys and girls in the military, whow!!  I didn’t know that adultery was actually illegal.  Man, you guys could very seriously loose your job.  I just looked up the maximum punishment.  Fuck Me!  Up to a year in prison, dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of retirement.  That was from 2003, so hopefully not so harsh now, but it is the military, so it probably is.

If this was my company and I found a person using the internet for personal stuff while I was paying them, I’d first give them a warning not to do it again.  If it happened again I’d put a final notice in your file.  And third strike, you’re out buddy!!  Everyone who is involved with the workplace scandals should know what is coming.  This is just common sense that apparently a lot of people didn’t have.

But should Ashley Madison be accountable for anything?  I don’t think they did anything wrong.  Wish I would have thought of the idea for the website and charge people $29.00 a month to be a member.  According to the site itself it has 39 Million members.  Say 10% of them pay for the premium that $113 Million a month.  I think I’d be OK with that.  This is what free enterprise is all about.  They cater to specific clientele who are ready to use their services.  But like with any service, buyer beware!  LOL.  At some point you just might get outed.

It’s just like me when I had the Grindr app on my phone a while ago.  I had the distance thing on and people would see my cute face and realize that I was at the mall and track me down.  Wow, lets just say that I didn’t have that location thing on for much longer.  But it was my fault.  I was using the service.  I’ve been approached by guys that I had seen at the bath house that I go to once in a while.  More for the jacuzzi and sauna now than for the sex as it used to be.  But still the same thing.

I do think though that they should have protected the clients information a little better.  If nothing else their credit card information.  Nobody wants their financials out in the open.  But going back to the information that was leaked to begin with. I’ve got to laugh.  If you were dumb enough to use the real work address, and actually pay for the service from that computer, then you deserve what’s coming to you.

A lot of jobs and marriages may be ending because of the leak.  But if you know me at all, you know that I don’t believe that men and women were ever meant to be monogamous.  So if people would just open up about their sexuality, realize that we are not monogamous, but can be committed to one person though, then this may not have happened at all.  Just ask me or Nick.  We are very open about our sexuality.  We always have been.  We have to be.  And we are very happy.  We may like to fool around with others from time to time, but at the end of the day, it is with each other that we end up in bed with.  We have sex with others, but we make love together.  That’s the difference.  Get it together everyone!!

Love to you all as always.

~Ryan