JMeganSnow Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 Fortunately we've got the "No Fat Chicks" Clause to prevent such a bill from passing! Yeah, to go along with the "No Stupid Guys" clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01503 Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 Fortunately we've got the "No Fat Chicks" Clause to prevent such a bill from passing! Yeah, to go along with the "No Stupid Guys" clause. Aren't those somewhere near the "General Welfare" clause? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kainscalia Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 I hate to be the bearer of bad news, john, but it's already happened. One of the clauses of the New People's Constitution from that terrible third world country I escaped from, Ecuador- which should now be called The People's State of Ecuador- lists the right to orgasm among one of its 200+ items. I believe it's close to the one that gives plants and nature the same rights as human beings. *sigh* One of Miss Rand's essays (I don't have my stuff at hand so I can't check which) noted that you've been pre-empted by 40+ years. She wrote (in a disgusted tone) about how someone waxed poetic about in the future people will have legally recognised rights to good orgasms and the like, which was a conclusion of a certain line of thought regarding the proliferation of bogus rights. JJM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McVey Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 I hate to be the bearer of bad news, john, but it's already happened. One of the clauses of the New People's Constitution from ... Ecuador, which ... lists the right to orgasm among one of its 200+ items. I don't know Spanish so I can't read the official text. The news articles I find say that there is no right to orgasm but a recognition of a woman's rights to pursue her own sexual happiness. It's a bizarre way of putting it, but women's equality and their ownership of their own lives is of course legitimate, and I am not even sold on the idea that such a thing shouldn't be in a Constitution. The 'right to orgasm' schtick sounds like a beat-up and a mockery of strange expressions that I figure are attempts to dance around what they really mean without openly saying it. In short, it's a trial-balloon for the advancement of abortion and divorce rights in a Catholic country. Not everything that socialist filth propose is to be rejected out of hand merely because it is they who propose it. I looked up the reference from Miss Rand I had in mind. It's in "Egalitarianism and inflation," published in June 1974 (so it's 34 years old, not 40+, but who's counting?) JJM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.