Letters to the Editor
NicoleShield
Published Letters: 146 Editor's Choice: 5
-
If this is being held from him, one can't say he is consenting to the sex
[Read the article: Our friend got drunk and went to a hotel room with a bunch of Marines]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't believe anybody would suggest withholding the info from the boyfriend. That they would blame him for getting a disease because all sex carries a risk.
Yes, all sex carries a risk, which is why we do things like wear condoms, or form monogamous relationships. If Jan was poking holes in the condoms they were using, would you people still be saying it's the boyfriend's fault? I can't believe the callousness of you people.
Diseases do exist, I do know people who have died of AIDs, or who have to deal with herpes, or have had warts. They aren't imaginary and in the realm of after-school specials.
Suggesting that the boyfriend is being wronged is hardly "church lady" morality. For all I care, she can fuck the entire country, but as long as her boyfriend isn't told about it, he is not giving informed consent to the sex they are having. This is tantamount to rape. He cannot consent to something he does not know about.
Maybe it makes me a "church lady". Maybe there's something to be said for nice, middle-class matrons. As far as I'm concerned, using the "church lady" slur is misogynous bullshit. You can only dream of having the wisdom and common sense the church ladies have. Your emperor is stark naked.
-
Bob
[Read the article: Are men victims of forced abortions?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, there is proof of too much immigration being a bad thing. The current social unrest in Europe is evidence. I'm predicting a major backlash. Remember the riots a few years back? And now British lawmakers are contemplating a parallel Sharia law system. Not to mention how much harassment from immigrants that many women experience if they walk around alone in the evening. (Even when dressed modestly.). Then there was the killing of Theo van Gogh.
I don't think it behooves anyone to deny the ways in which massive immigration will change a society. It isn't necessarily for the better. But these things need to be discussed BEFORE the immigrants come in. Perhaps the locals will decide Sharia law, or Spanish-language options, or whatever other changes are a good thing, or at least a different-but-ok thing. This needs to be a conscious choice, however. Denying that changes will happen, and putting on rosy all-multiculturalism-is-better glasses, does nothing for anyone.
Which is not to say that in the end people will necessarily say to to immigration. Just that people need to think it through a little more. It's not racism to want to preserve certain parts of your culture.
-
Immigration influences
[Read the article: Are men victims of forced abortions?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There, they have an undigestable mass from a single country of origin that they refuse to make any accommodation for and treat as forever alien. You have third and fourth generation Turkish "guest workers" in Germany, little Algerias in France that are being compelled to become Frenchmen, albeit eternally second class Frenchmen, and parts of Britain that look a lot like New Delhi, essentially because they aren't welcome at the local pub.
I think a big part of that is the government allowing in tons of immigrants, against the wishes of the native population. You can't force people to accept hordes of unknown strangers.
However, bear in mind that in France immigrants get great social services and free education, unlike the States.
Here in North America, both the US and Canada have shown that there is much better way of doing things. Both countries have much higher immigration rates than the Europeans, and much less strife and tension. Why?
Mostly because we are much less scared of strangers.
Let's not kid ourselves. We can accept more immigrants because we have more space. If you take a train across Europe, you'll see that just about every bit of land is accounted for, it is entirely cultivated. In America, you can drive (not many people take the train) for miles and miles without seeing anyone. I think we need to account for that before we start congratulating ourselves.
"It's not racism to want to preserve certain parts of your culture."
Well, that kind of thinking pretty quickly does lead you to racism. Either your culture is attractive and decent and productive enough that other people will want to join it, which has been the North American experience so far, or it is exclusive and repulsive and racist, in which case you will get riots.
Just because it can lead to racism, doesn't make it racist. What would happen to gay rights and feminism if large groups of people from a conservative country came in?
And the thing is, immigrants don't necessarily come in wanting to join the culture. Many only come to make money, but they don't want to join the culture because they hate the culture itself. They just like the money. Which is understandable, from their point of you, but not very good for the native population.