International Fetish Day 2025 is on Friday, January 17, 2025: A lot of people are wearing purple, does that mean they are gay?

Friday, January 17, 2025 is International Fetish Day 2025. International Fetish Day is a day supporting the BDSM community. It originated in the United Kingdom as "National Fetish Day" and was first held on 21 January 2008. The first International Fetish Day was held on 16 January 2009 (the third Friday of the year).

International Fetish Day is a day supporting the BDSM community. It originated in the United Kingdom as "National Fetish Day" and was first held on 21 January 2008. The first International Fetish Day was held on 16 January 2009 (the third Friday of the year).

International Fetish Day was on Friday, 15th January. This event is marked by people wearing purple...

It was Not a gay event

essay on international adoption?

1) As you mentioned, you are separating the child from their home country, which is not a minor detail. Different countries have many, many different customs, and depending on the age of the child, this can cause a culture shock, in addition to a feeling to disconnect as the child grows.

2) We have many, many amazing, remarkable, perfect children right here at home, and sadly, not enough homes for them. In fact, in Canada, there are so many children in care that children are being LEFT in extremely abusive situations, or returned to extremely abusive situations because there is otherwise no where else for them. When my daughter was an infant, she was in foster care for a few days, and since there was nowhere for her to be, two social workers had to sleep in a hotel room with her.

3) Child trafficking. Madonna and other “do-gooder” celebrities are collecting children from around the globe as trophies for their own public images. They ignore the laws of these countries and appeal to their governments to release the children for adoption in exchange for “aid”. It’s disgusting. These children’s lives are being treated as worthless. Even if one is not a celebrity, the release of these children for adoption is often a political move for these countries to maintain positive foreign relations. To which I say: Yuck.

4) The notion of “gratitude”. International adoption is looked at by many as the “newest, coolest” charity. No child should ever be born with a job. Every child is entitled to love, care and respect, regardless, so to “rescue” a child is not a correct attitude with which to enter the very difficult job of parenthood.

international adoption MAKES YOU FEEL LIKE AN ALIEN from another planet

- youre almost always in the spotlight: either total strangers will be squealing in delight about how cute you are gushing about adoption or asking probing questions they would never ask if you were white.

- people will have ignorant expectations based on stereotypes about you, and you will always have to explain your background, your lack of history,and your lack of culture to people.

- you will be hounded by people with a fetish for the exotic.

- you will learn about your culture but it will be ACADEMIC and you will be torn between its added imposition and a yearning to fully know it, which is impossible unless you repatriate.

- you will be surrounded by a sea of white faces so your whole world is white faces. you will stop and pause when people approach you differently or respond to you differently. you will dismiss this. and then when you catch a glimpse of yourself in the mirror you will be horrified to want to treat that image differently as well. you will be horrified that the image staring back at you is not the image you are used to seeing. you will despair. you will be always the odd man out. you will want to seek out more like yourself, but you will be embarrassed to be seen with them. because there are no images of your kind in popular culture. because you see how that kind gets treated and you think you are somehow not like them. this is called internalized racism.

international adoption MAKES YOU FEEL ISOLATED

- you will meet other adoptees as children and be thrown in together, but actually youve nothing in common.

- you will meet other people of your culture, but theres no way to connect to them. they will speak to you in their tongue. you will awkwardly explain you cant speak in their tongue/your should-be tongue. they will walk away, disappointed in you and sad for you.

- you can not entertain searching for your birth mother, because she is buried deep within another country, a country where you cant communicate, a place teeming with those people.

- your parents will be proud of themselves and what they did by getting you. because you are different looking, you will have to suffer that pride by your very presence every time anyone sees you together.

- your parents will want to talk about adoption, but you know they cant handle anything negative you might feel about it. and youre too young to verbalize it. you suck it up because you have to. you have to deny the reality of your difference and thereby negate any of the problems associated with being different. you have to fabricate a false front that can handle everything with cheery optimism. you become the good will ambassador for adoption, but its a lie. thats a lonely place to be.

international adoption eventually MAKES YOU ASK QUESTIONS

- why did my parents have to rip a child from its culture?

- what kind of rescue fantasies did they have, and are they valid?

- what does charity mean? how charitable is adoption, anyway?

- what is my birthmothers story? was my adoption ethical? did my parents check into this?

- what were they trying to gain/proove by choosing this radical route?

- who did they think they were?

- was i just a toy for purchase?

Do you feel the US Constitution is far too reactionary and needs to be completely updated?

Actually the constitution is not altogether a "far right" document, although alot of libertarians would like us to believe it as such, and alot of evangelicals would like us to buy into the idea it was divinely inspired , ala the 10 commandments.

The most clear example of how it is NOT a conservative document is the degree of interpretation and use of the "common good" clause of the bill of rights. Secondly , is the notion of a free press, while clearly Fox News and other media outlets can in fact lie to consumers about information provided "as news" (See the Monsanto / Fox ruling - 2003).

Journalism and News "the press" specifically are protected enterprises, and as such , EVERYONE has an implicit right to publish and display information. It's why we have a fundamental right to communicate here. This question - could become very popular, it might get Google hits and come up as a searchable footnote, but it's your question and possibly my answer to your question - there for everyone with internet access to see.

That's not a conservative value - it's HUGELY liberal in the fundamental sense of the word - that's a HUGE right and privilege that does not exist in many other countries on the planet, so while we may judge these freedoms to be self-evident - clearly a nontrivial percentage of the rest of the planet STILL - 230+ years later does not have this right guaranteed.

Consider again the tendencies we see at Fox and other media outlets - the freedom of speech it not a right that is viewed in the monied conservative classes as particularly - value added, at least not at the personal level. So omission, deletion or suppression are everyday occurrences on stations like Fox, distortion and fabrication the occasional treat, and more power to them.

Their consumers / viewers absolutely LOVE the programming, and it is their right to consume it, but when presented with facts in a public , international or scientific forum, these viewers consistently test as being among the most seriously misinformed - and that does have negative consequences for our nation from a policy perspective.

So while some today would enjoy turning the constitution into a conservative/evangelical fetish item is not REALLY the intent suggesting we are not "worthy" to alter the holy of holies, that's precisely what was intended.

It was intended that the citizens would in fact change the document over time, MANY of the amendments, were in fact efforts to do exactly that. So from Prohibition to any other number of things, if it becomes abundantly clear that the constitution needs an adjustment, perhaps we need to.

So - for another example, let's say in the near future, machines become sentient, - fully self aware and start being a whole lot smarter than humans. Do such machines have rights? Do such machines NEED rights, spelled out in the law. So in this little exersize, perhaps my home artificial intelligence station has some rights, but my smartphone does not, neither does my toaster or my coffee machine.

Can a machine be considered a citizen or is it property? Current law would suggest a machine is property - clearly. But would a sentient machine have rights under the 13th amendment, Section #1.

The ammendment is written in such a way that machines - could be considered covered, and if a machine filed a petition to be considered a citizen by applying as such - does the constitution allow for that currently?

So obviously, we might have a need to adjust rights and or define rights more clearly.

This is a good example of whether the constitution should be adjusted , clearly the answer is yes, the founders DEFINITELY viewed it that way, and were clear that they intended the constitution to be appended and updated since the founders certainly didn't anticipate an electromechanical device to petition for rights.