So by now, you’ve probably heard of Bill Nye’s Netflix series, Bill Nye Saves The World. If you’ve heard about it, you’ve probably also heard about this total masterpiece of scientific information known as the “My Sex Junk” slam poetry/rap thing performed on the show by ‘actress,’ Rachel Bloom. If you haven’t yet, well, here’s an opportunity to view it for yourself. If you’ve just eaten, I may suggest you skip the video in order to prevent projectile vomiting.
In case you don’t want to listen to it, we’re going to go over the lyrics anyway… and then point out more problems with Bill Nye, so strap in.
DJ: This one goes out to all the bipeds who identify as ladies!
Rachel: This world of ours is full of choice
But must I choose between Only John and Joyce?
Are my options only hard or moist?
First thing to notice here is that these people are stating sexuality is a choice, not a biological happenstance. I know this is a problem for progressives because if something is a choice, then you can’t really fight for legislation to create ‘special rules’ for a choice. For a long time now, the progressives left has been pushing the LGBT is just ‘born that way.’ Remember Lady Gaga’s song that all about just that. They fought vehemently about it being a choice, so now are we switching back to it’s a choice? For the most part, I think it’s a mixture of nature and nurture, but that’s a discussion for another time. I don’t want to get distracted from the topic at hand.
Going back to the last line of that stanza (if this is considered slam poetry?), yes, hard and moist are the only actual options because vaginas are moist and dicks are hard and there are literally no other reproductive parts. Even if you wanted more choices, a vagina being on someone who looks like a man is still a vagina and a dick on someone who looks like a woman is still a dick. They don’t transform into new options or new body parts based on the owner of those parts looks like. I guess if you want to be literal, then a vagina on testosterone is drier and a dick on estrogen is softer, but that doesn’t transform the parts, that just makes them dysfunctional…
Is this supposed to be a science show like, at all? I get the title of the show isn’t “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” but I was under the impression by the lab coat and resume, they’d want to stick with what Nye was known for?
Let’s go look at what the blurb says about this show and see how they classify it, eh?
So it claims to be scientific… I don’t see anything scientific in those first few sentences… Think it’ll get any better? I know it doesn’t. Next lines:
My vagina has its own voice.
Not vocal cords, a metaphorical voice.
Sometimes, I do a voice for my vagina.
Please, don’t tell me I’m the only one who does that.
This sounds like an attempt to be quirky funny like Flight of the Conchords or other entertains with playful, awkward lyrics. But instead, it sounds pathetic, forced, and more like a clingy feminist girlfriend being retarded.
Again, I don’t see anything scientific here… Moving on.
‘Cause my sex junk is so, oh, oh, oh
Much more than either-or, or, or
Power bottom or a top off
Versatile love may have some butt stuff
So this is sort of like the chorus. We’ll see the first to lines of this a couple more times in the following lyrics, but the bottom two lines will change. I guess it’s just because Rachel can’t stick with the same bottoms for too long. It makes her feel like a bigot.
This feels like an LGBT propaganda video played to children and teenagers in an attempt to coerce them into having sex with older people. It doesn’t sound like education and it certainly doesn’t sound safe. It sounds overbearing and pushy and just like the older sex predator who might want to bang someone who is just under legal age and is trying to convince them it’ll be fun.
It’s evolution, it ain’t nothing new.
There’s nothing taboo about a sex stew
Just add salt or Gérard Depardieu
So, this is directly contradictory to what they’re saying. Butt sex isn’t evolutionary. If it were evolutionary, then there would be no one alive now. Evolution is the idea of the survival of the fittest, the most adapt to survive move on. Butt sex doesn’t produce children, so it’s not evolutionary. Those who only practice anal sex are actually the ones to go extinct. Only recently with artificial insemination and surrogates are those who practice nontraditional sex able to produce offspring. Up until modern science, if that’s what you did, your clan died.
There are also plenty of sexual practices that shouldn’t be endorsed by society at large. There are actually taboos, and some of those things include pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, incest, and rape. Like I wrote on Monday, there is a reason that shame should be taught and felt by people. There shouldn’t be over-shaming to control people over normal things, but a healthy level of shame keeps society in check and from disintegrating into little more than animals with technology.
If Rachel Bloom, Bill Nye, and the other people on this show seriously think there is nothing taboo in the sex world, they have seriously destroyed their moral compasses. The five items I mentioned above aren’t even the only things I’d deem as unacceptable practices.
I have no idea why Gérard Depardieu is mentioned, but based on this song, all I can think is he’s guilty of some sexual scandal? But who knows. Apparently, he doesn’t like tourists and thinks the French are selling out France though.
‘Cause my sex junk is so, oh, oh, oh
Much more than either-or, or, or
If they’re alive, I’ll date them
Channing or Jenna Tatum
I’m down for anything
Don’t box in my box
Give someone new a handy
Then give yourself props
Good to know your degeneracy knows some boundaries bounds, will not bang the dead, but children, horses, your father, and forced penetration are all good? You probably think pain, humiliation, and cuckolding are also healthy aspects of every relationship. At this point, I’m certain Rachel Bloom has no sense of morals and she comes.
It blows my mind that people like this advocate for literally just slutting around, and then I bet you she’s the same type of person who could be found at the slut walk getting mad at people for calling her what she is.
Give a handy to someone new? Then give yourself props? Are these the kind of virtues you really want to be teaching people? I thought feminists had a problem with random guys pulling out their junk. I thought feminists had a problem with guys just spreading their freaking legs for air when they’re sitting. You know if you build a reputation as someone who just gives random people handies, you’re going to have random, sleazy people pulling out their junk. You’re going to have pushy people saying, you gave X and Y a handy, why won’t you give me one?
You’re going to get a lot of young men and women in trouble, you’re going to destroy the ability to make meaningful relationships with others by devaluing the physical connection created through sexual acts. Ask any legitimate psychologist and they’ll tell you the act of sex creates an emotional connection between the people involved. By legitimate psychologist, I don’t mean the actors you bring on your television show, Bill Nye & Co. We know you’re not real scientists. We know you’re not even qualified to taste test food at Costco.
Every time a person has sexual contact then cuts off the relationship with someone, they damage themselves emotionally and make it harder to form real relationships in the future. Studies also find that the more sexual partners someone has prior to marriage, the less likely they are to have a happy marriage and the more likely they are to divorce.
You’re encouraging bad behaviors that will doom people for life and make them unhappy. What is wrong with you?
Prashanth: Oh, you think you’re so smart
Did you learn gay in college?
Rachel: Chill with all that
While I drop some knowledge
Sexuality is a spectrum
Everyone is on it
Even you might like it
If you sit up on it
This sounds like sexual coercion to me. How is this any more acceptable than someone, say, at conversion therapy telling a gay person that if they just have enough vagina, they’ll like it. That they don’t know they don’t like vagina because they haven’t had it yet. How is this any better than that? This is conversation therapy through coercion to make you feel like a bad person if you’re straight.
No, sexuality isn’t a spectrum. You have 3 options: Straight, gay, or bisexual. Everything else is made up and I can tell you, if people are firm in their attractions, they are not moving. I know plenty of gay men and lesbians who will never have sex with the opposite sex. I know plenty of straight people who have literally zero interest in the same sex. If you have an interest in either, even if some days you prefer ladies more and some days you prefer men more, that doesn’t put you on a spectrum. That’s just bisexual. That’s like saying, “well somedays I want to eat so much pizza, and some days I don’t want to eat any pizza, so my enjoyment of pizza is on a spectrum.”
This idea is ludicrous.
Drag queen, drag king
Just do what feels right
You’re a tall pansexual flirty wood sprite?
Who enjoys a Fleshlight In the cold moonlight?
So if children feel right? If infants feel right? If her “screaming no, no, no” feels right then:
Is that what you’re saying?
And just holy crap, can we get any more ridiculous? Where is the scientific study of what makes you biologically a freaking pansexual flirty wood sprite? If you were to die and be buried and your remains were found by some archaeologist in the future, how would he test and recognize you as a pansexual flirty wood sprite? He wouldn’t because none of those things are scientific.
Prashanth: With a sad clown Skyping via satellite?
Rachel: Damn skippy, home slice
Sing it with me all night
Sex how you want,
It’s your goddamn right
‘Cause my sex junk is so, oh, oh, oh
Much more than either-or, or, or
Get off your soapbox
My sex junk’s better than Bagels with lox
With lots of schmear
There’s so much propagating of degeneracy in this song and then it hurts me that at the end of it all–AT THE END OF IT ALL Bloom dares to say, “Get off your soapbox,” meanwhile, this song, and legitimately this whole show, is nothing but a soapbox for disgusting progressive values. They’re not teaching science here. They’re not teaching thought or questioning, or facts, or measurement. What they’re basically teaching here is, “If you say carbon monoxide is oxygen, then it is because you say so.”
They have the gall to call this show scientific when there are no scientific facts offered, no citations, no references. I went to Netflix to read over some of the comments about it. Thankfully most of them are bad, but there are people in there defending this show as, “You don’t need to show scientific evidence, studies, statistics, or facts and citation because that stuff’s all boring. This show isn’t about being boring.”
If this show claims to be about science, then you will find a fun way to deliver the facts or you need to not be making this show. You cannot claim a show as science and then make excuses that ‘facts and citations are boring’ to avoid actually citing your WORK. How do these people not see how insane that is?
So after viewing this, and hearing about the other discussions on the show, I’ve constantly been wondering who this show is aimed at. Some people have said it’s meant for adults. I’m thinking if it’s meant for adults, then it was hoping the adults that grew up with Bill Nye are so retarded and stuck in nostalgia that they’d just jump on anything Nye did without questioning.
I mean, public schools for the last few decades have been teaching critical thinking less and less. One of the major lessons they teach in school is don’t ask questions. Just do what you’re told, accept what you’re told, mama government will take care of you bb. I’ve heard some people say that this is aimed at kids. Based on the presentation and the way Nye and the others interact with each other, it feels much more like a kid show, but when you look at the content, you can’t help but scratch your head because none of this is appropriate for children.
of this should be taught to children, but it’s only highlighting the bigger issue at large: this new ‘sexual revolution’ mixed with the ‘transgender revolution.’
Last year, as National Geographic prepared to launch their first 2017 issue, which would feature a 9-year-old child claiming to be transgender on the cover, a number of notable pediatricians stepped forward to condemn National Geographic and give their expertise on what all of this really is.
Michelle Cretella, MD, is the president of the American College of Pediatricians. She told LifeSiteNews that National Geographic is “promoting a political agenda over science and the wellbeing of innocent children” by featuring a young transgender kid on the cover.
Promoting a political agenda over science? Now doesn’t that sound familiar…
“’Affirming’ so called transgender children means sterilizing them as young as 11-years-old,” said Dr. Cretella. “Puberty blockers plus cross-sex hormones causes permanent sterility. And biological girls who ‘transition’ to male by taking testosterone may have a double mastectomy at age 16. The life time use of cross-sex hormones also puts these children at risk for stroke, heart disease, diabetes, cancers and more.”
Cretella argues that public support of “transgenderism” in children is tantamount to “child abuse.” “When academic, medical and other public institutions propagate the lifetime use of toxic hormones and the surgical removal of healthy body parts as healthcare for children they are engaged in institutionalized child abuse,” she said.
So as Bill Nye, Rachel Bloom, the progressive left, and Hollywood push this transgender agenda, what they’re really doing is pushing the idea of sterilization, of eugenics, and the support of child abuse. Children are always wanting to be something they’re not. If your kid goes to play and says, “Mom, I’m a horse!” are you going to saddle your daughter up and toss her some oats and an apple? “When I grow up, I want to be daddy.” Your daughter might say. This doesn’t mean she’s transgender and to give children this deciding ability over their body when it comes with such costly prices and they don’t have the mental capacity to think through these decisions as asinine.
It’s disgusting to see that someone, who was once held as a beloved figure for teaching basic science,
Is now just about pushing political agendas that include:
- Teaching sex isn’t scientific or measurable, but is something you just decide
- ‘Climate Change Deniers’ should be thrown in jail
- People in the ‘developed world’ should be punished for having kids
No ability to question the scientific community. No argument to back it up and let your argument and facts stand up to the dissent. Nope. Just jail and punishment from the dictatorial left.
The final straw in all of this (at least in this blog post) is the nerve of these people to call anyone else anti-science for questioning their claims, not backed up by facts. Trashbag of a ‘newspaper’ Slate, had this to say:
So basically, you believe what they tell you and nothing else. No questioning it, no providing facts, statistics, or realities. If you do any of these things, if you even so much as sneeze that maybe there are facts that prove contrary to their claims, you are uneducated. You are anti-science… meanwhile, they can’t help but, on their science show, feature a panel that rarely has ACTUAL SCIENTISTS on it and create each episode around political, opinionated trash that’s unmeasurable in scientific method–but they’re all for science yo.
Science is love. Science is life.
It was a punchline to have this come out on “Earth Science Day.” It was a punchline to have this man, and the group that thinks there are 87 genders lead science day against the ‘science deniers.” And it’s a joke that there’s anyone on the planet who can find something defensible about any of this.
At least Mr. Rogers didn’t stick around long enough to be put through this disgusting progressive machine. Could you imagine the neighborhood in a remake now?