JaneQSmythe
Well-known member
I do.
I am a bad person - I rarely vote.
BUT I am seriously in the "anyone but Trump" camp.
A LOT...
Religion, politics, sex .. and other taboo subjects
- Thread starter River
- Start date
I do.
I am a bad person - I rarely vote.
BUT I am seriously in the "anyone but Trump" camp.
A LOT...
Spork
Active member
There have been times (the last Pres. election for instance) where I was just rather apathetic and didn't care to vote. Oddly, I find that I can be the opposite of many voters... Most will show up for a Presidential election, but ignore all smaller ones. My issue is that by the time a Presidential election arrives there has been so much hype that I'm tired of even hearing about it. I don't even want to think about it. But I often feel that the smaller local elections, there's a shot to get third party candidates elected and there is a possibility that politicians on the more local levels will have more impact on my life. So I know I should get out there and vote.
I hate to say it, I really would rather not feel forced to cast a vote for Hillary, I think that she is criminally corrupt. But anything...ANYTHING...to not see Trump get elected.
Like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fahIzdxyZY
Nice outfit he's wearing, by the way. I think I'd let him pound on my drum -- if he's as nice a guy as he seems to be.
Yes, that very kind of thing. I had a friend who mixed his own music and he used drum tracks from a larger troupe in one of his techno songs and it was REALLY COOL. But I often think those really powerful climaxes sort of feel the way that those big drums sound. Powerful.
Okay, since we're talking about sex, and "getting off" ... and men, along with their associated shortcomings, maturity level, etc.... Here goes. What really, really turns me on in a man is his heart, his ability to convey, share, experience real affection and tenderness before, during and after the pounding of the massive Japanese drum. If he doesn't like me a lot..., if we both don't like one another a lot, it will not be a massive Japanese drum. It will be something more on this scale.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykEd9YUsjgQ
... or maybe this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj5TZFHBn3o
Oh, and the same goes for women.
A midsized drum is acceptable, and sometimes maybe even a tiny drum. But for getting ones rocks entirely off I'll be needing profound mutual affection.
-------- edit ----------
Neither of the mini-drum players ever show their faces. Let us take this as an analogue and a metaphor precisely conveying the spirit of my post.
For me...well...I kind of agree about the connection... But it's not a direct Point A to Point B thing. Basically in order for me to feel comfortable enough to do the things that will bring me the most joy, I have to feel safe being vulnerable. Sharing my actual sexuality, being able to make sounds or say what I want or like. Really opening up that energy with a partner. If I don't feel safe to connect with the partner, then it will not happen.
And if that occurs, then in a way, it's like I'm just playing a part. I'm not really engaged, I'm almost not really even THERE.
That was a huge disconnect with my ex. He will say, "You didn't want me." It was never that simple. I did not feel safe to be truly exposed, vulnerable, to let him in to more than just using my body. He had a shell where the mind and spirit were elsewhere. What made it that way? As I got to know certain traits about him. Spiteful, vengeful ideation. Violence, a struggle to not commit violence. A belief that "might makes right." There is a bully in there, but also a man who wants to be submissive to a woman...but who hates himself and women for his feelings. A man who thinks that revenge porn is funny and isn't sure why women should have the right to necessarily say no to sex. Those are SCARY things. I cannot be safe with someone who thinks and feels that way, even if he is my dedicated protector/provider. I can only withdraw from those concepts. And a withdrawn woman does not get to experience the Big Drums.
Happy that my partners now make me feel loved and safe and appreciated. Still wish I was getting my sexytime on a bit more frequently, but it's pretty damn great when it happens.
Spork
Active member
Political issue, and a controversial one at that...
I'm seeing a lot of talk about gun control.
I live in Colorado, where many people have rather libertarian ideologies, and are generally in favor of personal freedoms. On the gun issue, most here feel that they should have the right to bear arms. Most feel pretty strongly about that.
I do have one friend, the very flirty man I half-jokingly nicknamed "Supernova" in my blog, one of my "you know I might just sleep with him one day, but it wouldn't go beyond a friend with occasional benefits" kind of thing... He is a man of many colors, mixed heritage, and his voice is not loudly pro gun, in fact he's shared some not so pro gun sentiments on Facebook lately.
And it makes me think.
I have had a hard time figuring out where I stand on this. It's one of several issues where I'm glad no one is asking me to write the solutions or the laws. From a purely ideological standpoint, I definitely recognize the intentions of our founding fathers. I definitely think it's a sacred part of our national identity. I think it's a reason why even nations who really don't like us would hesitate to actually invade our soil with large forces...they know or assume that our civilians are pretty heavily armed.
However. It's a strong statement on the subject of racism, especially large scale cultural and institutionalized racism, that we can imagine different individuals of different colors, wearing the same clothing, in the same setting, both legally carrying legal guns...and a white American will be perceived very differently than an American of color, especially one who appears to be black or Hispanic for instance. A white guy...assuming he is dressed in a "normal" way and not acting "weird"...people might try awfully hard to figure he's got a legit reason for carrying around a gun. Maybe he's making a statement. Maybe he hunts. Maybe he's coming from a competition. But a black guy? Also dressed normal, also acting normal... Oh, he must be a criminal. Quick, hide! Run! Fight! Call the cops!
And speaking of cops...don't get me started on the cops... I read so many stories of them shooting dogs and people, raping the victims of car accidents and abusing their power and ability to use force...it's disgusting. My own interactions with the police have been nothing but positive, so I definitely won't use the argument that they are all complicit in evil. It's the fact that the ones who are, GET AWAY WITH IT...
This is privilege. This is the bullshit stinking up our society. When our perceptions, and therefore massive inequalities in our institutions of law and justice, are so jacked up...are we really earning our sacred American Right to Bear Arms? Are we?
Now in the wake of Orlando, there is more to think about. Many people in the personal life of the shooter knew he was a nut. Knew he was a well armed and dangerous nut. But no one could do a damn thing really, until victims were bleeding and dying. And of course by then...he took his own life, did he not? There was going to be no justice, not really. And his true motives will never REALLY be known. But does it matter? He was a nut with a bunch of guns, and he used them for evil.
One of the most mentally unstable people I have ever known in my life, is also heavily armed and very dangerous. He is "trained." He knows more about guns than the rest of the people I know all put together. He used to wear a uniform. He ought to be "one of the good guys"....but it's a lot more likely that he'll snap one day and kill people who don't deserve to die. But the depths of his mental illness are documented only by me, and he has not DONE anything to warrant the confiscation of his armaments. And he would be almost as deadly to me in particular without them as he is with them.
And there is not a damn thing I can do.
Because no one is going to take him out of play for good, and any action taken to reduce his level of threat to me, himself, or others, would be met with far elevated levels of danger and retaliation. People used to tell me to call the police or some kind of authorities. They could take him away for some kind of observation. Right. A few days, where he'd say what they needed to hear, and then come out bent on destruction and vengeance. Normal people do not get it. All I could ever do was play his game by his rules and slowly, gently, remove his hostages.
Recently there was an article about the Orlando shooter that had a headline reading: "There Are No Lone-Wolf Terrorists" and my ex shared this article and added his own words to the post, "Ignore nature at your own risk. We operate in packs. To believe otherwise marks you as meat."
Those are direct quotes, and I took a screenshot of it.
But we live in a world where he's got the right to bear arms, and there's nothing I can do about that.
I often hear that our founding fathers wanted us to be well armed, so that we could resist and overthrow tyranny and be free people. Keep our leaders in check and make sure they work for our interests. How well has that worked? Does anyone know any respectable citizens in America who would get up and take action to ensure that our Liberty is in good hands? Anyone? I know for a fact that I have too much to lose. I don't have a lot, but I have too much to lose. My ex talks a big talk, but he won't go rushing to resist the government he hates, either. I know lots of gun owners, and lots of people who don't like what our leadership is doing. None of them are willing to stick their necks out to exercise their right to form some kind of militia and fight for change. And I'm glad, because I really don't want to live in a war zone.
Sure, there is hunting, and sport shooting, and even home defense. OK. Sure. If you're the kind of middle class WHITE person who can do that stuff without anyone thinking you're a "thug." Sure. There's your privilege. There ya go.
See, I'm torn...very, VERY torn...on this issue. Most folks don't necessarily want America disarmed. Most rational folks want some kind of middle ground. Some kind of safeguards, against crazy people...certain people...some people...who should not have guns. But who gets to say, and how do we determine and enforce that? I don't have the answers. Wish I did....wish someone did.
I'm seeing a lot of talk about gun control.
I live in Colorado, where many people have rather libertarian ideologies, and are generally in favor of personal freedoms. On the gun issue, most here feel that they should have the right to bear arms. Most feel pretty strongly about that.
I do have one friend, the very flirty man I half-jokingly nicknamed "Supernova" in my blog, one of my "you know I might just sleep with him one day, but it wouldn't go beyond a friend with occasional benefits" kind of thing... He is a man of many colors, mixed heritage, and his voice is not loudly pro gun, in fact he's shared some not so pro gun sentiments on Facebook lately.
And it makes me think.
I have had a hard time figuring out where I stand on this. It's one of several issues where I'm glad no one is asking me to write the solutions or the laws. From a purely ideological standpoint, I definitely recognize the intentions of our founding fathers. I definitely think it's a sacred part of our national identity. I think it's a reason why even nations who really don't like us would hesitate to actually invade our soil with large forces...they know or assume that our civilians are pretty heavily armed.
However. It's a strong statement on the subject of racism, especially large scale cultural and institutionalized racism, that we can imagine different individuals of different colors, wearing the same clothing, in the same setting, both legally carrying legal guns...and a white American will be perceived very differently than an American of color, especially one who appears to be black or Hispanic for instance. A white guy...assuming he is dressed in a "normal" way and not acting "weird"...people might try awfully hard to figure he's got a legit reason for carrying around a gun. Maybe he's making a statement. Maybe he hunts. Maybe he's coming from a competition. But a black guy? Also dressed normal, also acting normal... Oh, he must be a criminal. Quick, hide! Run! Fight! Call the cops!
And speaking of cops...don't get me started on the cops... I read so many stories of them shooting dogs and people, raping the victims of car accidents and abusing their power and ability to use force...it's disgusting. My own interactions with the police have been nothing but positive, so I definitely won't use the argument that they are all complicit in evil. It's the fact that the ones who are, GET AWAY WITH IT...
This is privilege. This is the bullshit stinking up our society. When our perceptions, and therefore massive inequalities in our institutions of law and justice, are so jacked up...are we really earning our sacred American Right to Bear Arms? Are we?
Now in the wake of Orlando, there is more to think about. Many people in the personal life of the shooter knew he was a nut. Knew he was a well armed and dangerous nut. But no one could do a damn thing really, until victims were bleeding and dying. And of course by then...he took his own life, did he not? There was going to be no justice, not really. And his true motives will never REALLY be known. But does it matter? He was a nut with a bunch of guns, and he used them for evil.
One of the most mentally unstable people I have ever known in my life, is also heavily armed and very dangerous. He is "trained." He knows more about guns than the rest of the people I know all put together. He used to wear a uniform. He ought to be "one of the good guys"....but it's a lot more likely that he'll snap one day and kill people who don't deserve to die. But the depths of his mental illness are documented only by me, and he has not DONE anything to warrant the confiscation of his armaments. And he would be almost as deadly to me in particular without them as he is with them.
And there is not a damn thing I can do.
Because no one is going to take him out of play for good, and any action taken to reduce his level of threat to me, himself, or others, would be met with far elevated levels of danger and retaliation. People used to tell me to call the police or some kind of authorities. They could take him away for some kind of observation. Right. A few days, where he'd say what they needed to hear, and then come out bent on destruction and vengeance. Normal people do not get it. All I could ever do was play his game by his rules and slowly, gently, remove his hostages.
Recently there was an article about the Orlando shooter that had a headline reading: "There Are No Lone-Wolf Terrorists" and my ex shared this article and added his own words to the post, "Ignore nature at your own risk. We operate in packs. To believe otherwise marks you as meat."
Those are direct quotes, and I took a screenshot of it.
But we live in a world where he's got the right to bear arms, and there's nothing I can do about that.
I often hear that our founding fathers wanted us to be well armed, so that we could resist and overthrow tyranny and be free people. Keep our leaders in check and make sure they work for our interests. How well has that worked? Does anyone know any respectable citizens in America who would get up and take action to ensure that our Liberty is in good hands? Anyone? I know for a fact that I have too much to lose. I don't have a lot, but I have too much to lose. My ex talks a big talk, but he won't go rushing to resist the government he hates, either. I know lots of gun owners, and lots of people who don't like what our leadership is doing. None of them are willing to stick their necks out to exercise their right to form some kind of militia and fight for change. And I'm glad, because I really don't want to live in a war zone.
Sure, there is hunting, and sport shooting, and even home defense. OK. Sure. If you're the kind of middle class WHITE person who can do that stuff without anyone thinking you're a "thug." Sure. There's your privilege. There ya go.
See, I'm torn...very, VERY torn...on this issue. Most folks don't necessarily want America disarmed. Most rational folks want some kind of middle ground. Some kind of safeguards, against crazy people...certain people...some people...who should not have guns. But who gets to say, and how do we determine and enforce that? I don't have the answers. Wish I did....wish someone did.
River
Well-known member
Certain kinds of guns are illegal to own in the USA, such as fully automatic weapons (aka, machine guns). Funny, I've never heard a peep from the NRA types about the machine gun ban. I wonder why?
Bazookas ("the common name for a man-portable recoil-less antitank rocket launcher weapon, widely fielded by the United States Army" - Wikipedia) and their ilk are banned. So are hand grenades. Dynamite and other high explosives
are not readily purchasable on the open market. Same with flame throwers, hand grenades, nuclear weapons and a lot of those chemicals which belong to a class known as "chemical weapons".
One cannot legally own a fully equipped fighter jet, either, in the USA. So why not ban some of these assault weapons which nut cases seem to favor? One could still have a rifle appropriate for deer hunting, or beer can shooting. But why equip just any nut ball with a weapon designed to take out fifty or a hundred people in a few minutes?
Bazookas ("the common name for a man-portable recoil-less antitank rocket launcher weapon, widely fielded by the United States Army" - Wikipedia) and their ilk are banned. So are hand grenades. Dynamite and other high explosives
are not readily purchasable on the open market. Same with flame throwers, hand grenades, nuclear weapons and a lot of those chemicals which belong to a class known as "chemical weapons".
One cannot legally own a fully equipped fighter jet, either, in the USA. So why not ban some of these assault weapons which nut cases seem to favor? One could still have a rifle appropriate for deer hunting, or beer can shooting. But why equip just any nut ball with a weapon designed to take out fifty or a hundred people in a few minutes?
InsaneMystic
Member
Wait, I thought in the US flamethrowers were an odd case of "there's no law against it"?
Or did Cracked.com lie to me???
Anyway... I really prefer the strict weapon laws this side of the Big Pond. Even to own a sport pistol or hunting rifle, you need to apply for a government license and prove legitimate need (which not all that many applicants qualify for). And it really does make me feel safer - the chance that any random idiot on the street could be carrying, or that a disgruntled neighbor could pull out his 12-gauge if my music is too loud, is slim to none, and that feeling is awesome and liberating. Heck, even carrying some types of knife can get you in the slammer over here, whether you actually used them or not.
And as for "but then the only people carrying guns are criminals"... well, so frickin' what? If they know their potential victims will most likely be unarmed, then criminals have far less incentive to carry firearms, either. A burglar in the US needs a gun, because of the 2nd Amendment. A burglar over here is much more likely to have a crowbar, and maybe a knife... and thats means the chance of surviving finding a burglar in your home is much better for everyone involved. Just because someone is a criminal doesn't mean they're reckless or dumb about their own safety.
Or did Cracked.com lie to me???
Anyway... I really prefer the strict weapon laws this side of the Big Pond. Even to own a sport pistol or hunting rifle, you need to apply for a government license and prove legitimate need (which not all that many applicants qualify for). And it really does make me feel safer - the chance that any random idiot on the street could be carrying, or that a disgruntled neighbor could pull out his 12-gauge if my music is too loud, is slim to none, and that feeling is awesome and liberating. Heck, even carrying some types of knife can get you in the slammer over here, whether you actually used them or not.
And as for "but then the only people carrying guns are criminals"... well, so frickin' what? If they know their potential victims will most likely be unarmed, then criminals have far less incentive to carry firearms, either. A burglar in the US needs a gun, because of the 2nd Amendment. A burglar over here is much more likely to have a crowbar, and maybe a knife... and thats means the chance of surviving finding a burglar in your home is much better for everyone involved. Just because someone is a criminal doesn't mean they're reckless or dumb about their own safety.
Spork
Active member
Wait, I thought in the US flamethrowers were an odd case of "there's no law against it"?
Or did Cracked.com lie to me???
Anyway... I really prefer the strict weapon laws this side of the Big Pond. Even to own a sport pistol or hunting rifle, you need to apply for a government license and prove legitimate need (which not all that many applicants qualify for). And it really does make me feel safer - the chance that any random idiot on the street could be carrying, or that a disgruntled neighbor could pull out his 12-gauge if my music is too loud, is slim to none, and that feeling is awesome and liberating. Heck, even carrying some types of knife can get you in the slammer over here, whether you actually used them or not.
And as for "but then the only people carrying guns are criminals"... well, so frickin' what? If they know their potential victims will most likely be unarmed, then criminals have far less incentive to carry firearms, either. A burglar in the US needs a gun, because of the 2nd Amendment. A burglar over here is much more likely to have a crowbar, and maybe a knife... and thats means the chance of surviving finding a burglar in your home is much better for everyone involved. Just because someone is a criminal doesn't mean they're reckless or dumb about their own safety.
The other thing about the "criminals don't obey laws, so then they'll be the only ones with a gun" argument is... OK, so then just the fact that if they are found to be in possession of a gun means that it is fairly safe to assume they are a criminal, so now we don't have to quibble over whether they were somehow within their rights to have that firearm. Aha, you have a gun, you are caught. Busted! Big jail time for you! But no...guns everywhere, and the "good guys" (normal citizens) have them, they can be stolen by those who have criminal intent, they are everywhere. The "good guys" having guns just to feel safe against the "bad guys" it's like an arms race or something.
And yet there is the quote from a Japanese leader who advised against war with American during WWII, that there would be a gun behind every blade of grass. We fear China here. China has many people. We fear an enemy marching over our soil. We think that warfare is something that happens in faraway lands, while we're more than willing to bring it to foreign soil, to have explosions and death happening to people somewhere else, we are horrified at the thought that it could happen HERE, to US.
And so, in our privileged American bubble, we talk about building walls, and we feel safely insulated against the jihadists and savages of the world, most of us, even though some insist always that the end is nigh...
I will say though that there are certainly some places in America that are remote and wild enough that it's entirely reasonable for a resident to own a powerful rifle or something. Places where bears, mountain lions, coyotes, wolves, gators, etc could in fact ruin your day, and having a gun is a sensible choice.
But when it comes to home defense and self defense... Well, I have told my ex many times, because my philosophy is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, that there has never in my life been a single time ever, where I wished that someone had been there with a gun. Never. I've lived in bad neighborhoods, I've walked dangerous areas in cities in the middle of the night, I've even been sexually assaulted once when I was a teenager, and not once did I wish someone had been there to protect me with a gun.
And yet. The freedom to have them is seriously part of our national pride and heritage. Our cultural identity, insofar as we have one, as Americans. So much so that even I, a person who is EXTREMELY uncomfortable with guns, flinch at the idea of the government taking that right from us, and cannot bring myself to agree with such a notion.
Oh, and River, my own nutcase's weapon of choice, which he owns and has tricked out with all kinds of gadgets and stuff, is his AK-47. And before the Colorado ban on the big magazines went into effect, he bought up a bunch of them so they'd be "grandfathered in." Because if "the balloon goes up" he'll need them, I guess. His fantasy is for there to be some kind of Red Dawn style armed conflict here so that he can finally feel like his skills are of value to the people around him.
InsaneMystic
Member
And that is the one argument for not going for European-level gun control in the States which I do understand. Europe is much, much more urbanized than North America, just about all throughout the continent... and what few wildlife there is left here tends to have both legal protection/preserve, and a strong lobby for that.
Seriously. Even a rampaging bear who's lost every natural shyness of villages and suburbs - something which we get once every decade or so in the news - will lead to widespread public outrage if and when the feds go in and gun him down. I do understand that it's an entirely different story when the probability of meeting such a critter goes from "once in a lifetime, tops" to "every time I walk five miles from my home".
Spork
Active member
So I like to drop into this thread occasionally when something controversial riles me or I figure out what my actual solid opinion is...often it's because I saw/read some stuff on Facebook, but I prefer to discuss it among more rational people than some of the ones I might encounter there.
So here we go...fucking bathrooms.
I know, we're all tired of hearing about this.
But I just figured something out, after reading yet another guy saying, "I don't want perverts to be able to peek at my daughter or my wife."
Here is the issue....as women, our clothes don't protect us.
That's an absurd and ridiculous and laughable illusion that mainstream society just LOVES to trot out.
Extreme ends of spectrums... Because men cannot be trusted to control themselves and not turn into rabid rape monkeys, women must:
- Swathe themselves in bedsheets.
- Have chaperones.
- Not show ankles.
- Not show shoulders.
- Not show nipples.
- Obey a dress code because our bodies are distracting.
- Not dress "a certain way" for attention.
Etc.
The fact is, being dressed in a sexy way doesn't excuse any act a man might choose to take, and being dressed in a different way is not going to deter a rapist from trying to rape, except insofar as it might take a little bit more time to get you out of jeans, than to get under a skirt. It isn't about being an enticing and tempting target, or giving the impression that because you look appealing you have given every man in the world unspoken consent.
What is FAR more important in being safe, as a woman (a wife, or a daughter) is being aware of your surroundings and whether the SITUATION you are in is a safe one, or not. Clothes are completely irrelevant. And frankly, there is nothing wrong with saying that a woman could take wise precautions to keep herself safe, like not walking in dangerous areas unarmed and alone at night....because ANY SENSIBLE HUMAN would be intelligent in protecting themselves from assault or abuse by being aware of where they are, who is around them, and whether they are at risk! And just as a woman getting seriously drunk in some situations could lead to victimhood, so it could also for a man (although there are statistics pointing to the odds of one or another.) My point though...is that our clothing, even nice modest clothing, doesn't keep us safe from rape, let alone from "perverts" who might (gasp!) LOOK AT US. And...THINK THINGS!
As a woman, I've been told many times that every single man I encounter (unless he is gay) immediately thinks of what it would be like to have sex with me. Every one. Does that feel a little bit violating? Yeah. But I can't control anyone's thoughts, nor would I wish to try. As long as they behave in respectful ways, I have no issue.
I go to a BDSM club for parties (which I've mentioned a lot) and part of my re-write of my social script from what is assumed to be normal, to my own radical philosophy, is that nudity is just not a big deal. That the only reason it is, is social conditioning, and we can de-condition if we try. Lots of people are naked at the parties. And there are plenty of men there. They look. They think thoughts. And yet...it is a safe space, no one loses the expected control of themselves, and everyone is respectful. I am friends with many of the men who look, and think...and they don't act entitled to more than that. In that place, my nudity does not matter. No one has to protect me from their eyeballs.
Now along those lines, regardless of what the law says, there are a lot of places where a "pervert" who somehow thinks he's going to get away with peeking at women who are trying to pee, could do so and not get immediately and automatically arrested. Really the strongest thing preventing this, is social conditioning. Ever ACCIDENTALLY walked into the wrong bathroom? I have. Remember how it felt? Humiliating! You look around to see if anyone noticed! And if they did, you'd be in a big hurry to tell them what a huge silly omg blunder you just committed! If this has ever happened to any of you, did you leave the 'wrong' bathroom because you thought that the cops were going to descend upon you and put you in jail, or because you thought that other humans in the area would radiate social scorn and think bad things about you? I know which one it was for me.
In other words, practically everyone obeys certain social expectations for the very simple reason that we don't want the other monkeys to not like us.
A law that protects transgendered people isn't going to change that.
Just like in a rural truckstop rest area at 2AM when you are the only car in the parking lot and it's silent except for the crickets, and you're a woman alone and you go in that bathroom, it might not be a bad idea to look under the stalls or be aware of anyone who comes in after you. Because no matter what the law says, and no matter what you're wearing, whether you are peeing or blowing your nose...you might just NOT be safe!
And if you're a man in that situation in the mens' room, and you aren't armed or dangerous, just trying to pee, you might want to be aware lest you get stabbed and robbed or something.
Look...it's not about sex, or gender, or clothes, or what's on anyone's birth certificate, now is it?
So here we go...fucking bathrooms.
I know, we're all tired of hearing about this.
But I just figured something out, after reading yet another guy saying, "I don't want perverts to be able to peek at my daughter or my wife."
Here is the issue....as women, our clothes don't protect us.
That's an absurd and ridiculous and laughable illusion that mainstream society just LOVES to trot out.
Extreme ends of spectrums... Because men cannot be trusted to control themselves and not turn into rabid rape monkeys, women must:
- Swathe themselves in bedsheets.
- Have chaperones.
- Not show ankles.
- Not show shoulders.
- Not show nipples.
- Obey a dress code because our bodies are distracting.
- Not dress "a certain way" for attention.
Etc.
The fact is, being dressed in a sexy way doesn't excuse any act a man might choose to take, and being dressed in a different way is not going to deter a rapist from trying to rape, except insofar as it might take a little bit more time to get you out of jeans, than to get under a skirt. It isn't about being an enticing and tempting target, or giving the impression that because you look appealing you have given every man in the world unspoken consent.
What is FAR more important in being safe, as a woman (a wife, or a daughter) is being aware of your surroundings and whether the SITUATION you are in is a safe one, or not. Clothes are completely irrelevant. And frankly, there is nothing wrong with saying that a woman could take wise precautions to keep herself safe, like not walking in dangerous areas unarmed and alone at night....because ANY SENSIBLE HUMAN would be intelligent in protecting themselves from assault or abuse by being aware of where they are, who is around them, and whether they are at risk! And just as a woman getting seriously drunk in some situations could lead to victimhood, so it could also for a man (although there are statistics pointing to the odds of one or another.) My point though...is that our clothing, even nice modest clothing, doesn't keep us safe from rape, let alone from "perverts" who might (gasp!) LOOK AT US. And...THINK THINGS!
As a woman, I've been told many times that every single man I encounter (unless he is gay) immediately thinks of what it would be like to have sex with me. Every one. Does that feel a little bit violating? Yeah. But I can't control anyone's thoughts, nor would I wish to try. As long as they behave in respectful ways, I have no issue.
I go to a BDSM club for parties (which I've mentioned a lot) and part of my re-write of my social script from what is assumed to be normal, to my own radical philosophy, is that nudity is just not a big deal. That the only reason it is, is social conditioning, and we can de-condition if we try. Lots of people are naked at the parties. And there are plenty of men there. They look. They think thoughts. And yet...it is a safe space, no one loses the expected control of themselves, and everyone is respectful. I am friends with many of the men who look, and think...and they don't act entitled to more than that. In that place, my nudity does not matter. No one has to protect me from their eyeballs.
Now along those lines, regardless of what the law says, there are a lot of places where a "pervert" who somehow thinks he's going to get away with peeking at women who are trying to pee, could do so and not get immediately and automatically arrested. Really the strongest thing preventing this, is social conditioning. Ever ACCIDENTALLY walked into the wrong bathroom? I have. Remember how it felt? Humiliating! You look around to see if anyone noticed! And if they did, you'd be in a big hurry to tell them what a huge silly omg blunder you just committed! If this has ever happened to any of you, did you leave the 'wrong' bathroom because you thought that the cops were going to descend upon you and put you in jail, or because you thought that other humans in the area would radiate social scorn and think bad things about you? I know which one it was for me.
In other words, practically everyone obeys certain social expectations for the very simple reason that we don't want the other monkeys to not like us.
A law that protects transgendered people isn't going to change that.
Just like in a rural truckstop rest area at 2AM when you are the only car in the parking lot and it's silent except for the crickets, and you're a woman alone and you go in that bathroom, it might not be a bad idea to look under the stalls or be aware of anyone who comes in after you. Because no matter what the law says, and no matter what you're wearing, whether you are peeing or blowing your nose...you might just NOT be safe!
And if you're a man in that situation in the mens' room, and you aren't armed or dangerous, just trying to pee, you might want to be aware lest you get stabbed and robbed or something.
Look...it's not about sex, or gender, or clothes, or what's on anyone's birth certificate, now is it?
Ravenscroft
Banned
I work with people who are intelligent & centrist/liberal. Or so I thought until they started going off on rants about Evil Hillary.
I got tired of it. "First," I said, "when did you start believing it's a good idea to get your 'news' from Facebook & viral emails that've been circulating for ten or fifteen years?" I told them to turn off the Right Wingnut bullsh!t, & start reading Snopes.com.
Second? "Vote for anyone but Clinton, & say goodbye to unions. Hey, let's drop the minimum wage to $3.75 -- what's good for business is good for everyone, right? Woohoo, prosperity!"
Things got much quieter after that.
________________
And so I have to take issue with
The Second Amendment was pretty much ignored for 150 years, a vestigial organ. But race DID come up quite early -- did anyone else learn about Dred Scott v. Sandford in school?
Probably no coincidence that "Westerns" became so popular in the 1930s. As one article says,
Little boys running around in cute "cowboy" outfits, brandishing pistols? It was a great bit of reframing.
That same article, though largely pro-gun, offers a comment from Charles Davis that sums up part of my reserve:
I kinda detest the term "pro-gun." It's designed to split people, in the sense that if you're not 100% hog-wild crazy for an armed-to-the-teeth society, you're One Of THEM, working to undermine Democracy & Capitalism & God & Fuzzy Puppies.
However, I'm really tired of all media -- even the Right Wingnut blogs that somehow hate all Media yet claim to be Media -- refusing to distinguish between "automatic" & "semi-automatic" rifles, & this has bugged me since the early '80s.
IME, most people who have guns "for self-defense" are self-deluding morons. Like, they have kids in the house, so the pistol is locked in a box, the empty magazine (just one, mind) is locked in the desk downstairs, & the boxed ammo is on a high shelf in the kitchen. Then there's the guy that keeps a shotgun under his bed, loaded with steel buckshot, which is really GREAT for blasting through six layers of sheetrock (according to my Federal Marshal friend) where one might think would be children or neighbors.
I love guitars, yet I don't brag about any of mine even a fraction as much as the typical gun owner does his toys. And the amount of metaphoric dick-sizing that occurs when gun nuts start conversing is truly amazing in it's vapidity.
I know guys who have a dozen & more weapons, & not a one with a gun safe. Which means that anyone could study the house for a few days, & easily make off with some really cool stuff. Now multiply this by a few dozen.
And the problem with "the gun culture" is that it NEEDS a constant barrage of paranoid propaganda in order to justify its continued existence. IME, "sane calm gun owners" are the minority, because the NRA & the gun lobby DON'T WANT gun owners to calm down -- the profits roll in if you keep 'em riled up & turd stupid.
I got tired of it. "First," I said, "when did you start believing it's a good idea to get your 'news' from Facebook & viral emails that've been circulating for ten or fifteen years?" I told them to turn off the Right Wingnut bullsh!t, & start reading Snopes.com.
Second? "Vote for anyone but Clinton, & say goodbye to unions. Hey, let's drop the minimum wage to $3.75 -- what's good for business is good for everyone, right? Woohoo, prosperity!"
Things got much quieter after that.
________________
And so I have to take issue with
Not so much. Largely a sprawling myth engineered by the guns-&-ammo industry, spread via their primary propaganda channel, the NRA.
The Second Amendment was pretty much ignored for 150 years, a vestigial organ. But race DID come up quite early -- did anyone else learn about Dred Scott v. Sandford in school?
In 1934, responding to widespread organized crime (largely fuelled by the black market caused by liquor prohibition), & specifically the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, the National Firearms Act imposed a $200 tax on guns. In 1938, the Federal Firearms Act required gun dealers to be licensed, & barred them from selling to some people such as "convicted felons, drug users and the mentally incompetent" -- which I'd suggest would eliminate MANY current "self-defense" gun owners right there.
Probably no coincidence that "Westerns" became so popular in the 1930s. As one article says,
The myth of an American "gun culture"
Little boys running around in cute "cowboy" outfits, brandishing pistols? It was a great bit of reframing.
That same article, though largely pro-gun, offers a comment from Charles Davis that sums up part of my reserve:
One of my Rightist co-workers just got his concealed-carry permit. He was quite surprised by his classmates: "I don't think most of 'em have ever fired a gun. There were some scary people there. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near if something happened because they'd probably just start firing at anything."
I kinda detest the term "pro-gun." It's designed to split people, in the sense that if you're not 100% hog-wild crazy for an armed-to-the-teeth society, you're One Of THEM, working to undermine Democracy & Capitalism & God & Fuzzy Puppies.
However, I'm really tired of all media -- even the Right Wingnut blogs that somehow hate all Media yet claim to be Media -- refusing to distinguish between "automatic" & "semi-automatic" rifles, & this has bugged me since the early '80s.
IME, most people who have guns "for self-defense" are self-deluding morons. Like, they have kids in the house, so the pistol is locked in a box, the empty magazine (just one, mind) is locked in the desk downstairs, & the boxed ammo is on a high shelf in the kitchen. Then there's the guy that keeps a shotgun under his bed, loaded with steel buckshot, which is really GREAT for blasting through six layers of sheetrock (according to my Federal Marshal friend) where one might think would be children or neighbors.
I love guitars, yet I don't brag about any of mine even a fraction as much as the typical gun owner does his toys. And the amount of metaphoric dick-sizing that occurs when gun nuts start conversing is truly amazing in it's vapidity.
I know guys who have a dozen & more weapons, & not a one with a gun safe. Which means that anyone could study the house for a few days, & easily make off with some really cool stuff. Now multiply this by a few dozen.
And the problem with "the gun culture" is that it NEEDS a constant barrage of paranoid propaganda in order to justify its continued existence. IME, "sane calm gun owners" are the minority, because the NRA & the gun lobby DON'T WANT gun owners to calm down -- the profits roll in if you keep 'em riled up & turd stupid.
Last edited:
Ravenscroft
Banned
River
Well-known member
Okay. But how do you answer to this?:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-hi...er-corporate-speeches-to-be-published/5533094
Try reading the whole article before responding.
And this one, too.
Hillary Clinton: I Took $675,000 In Speaking Fees From Wall Street Because I Didn't Know I Would Run For President
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...e_i_didnt_know_i_would_run_for_president.html
Personally, I don't take a half hour speech paid in the hundreds of thousands of dollars as anything other than what folks have long called "payola".
payola (noun)
Money, property, or a favor given, offered, or promised to a person or accepted by a person in a position of trust as an inducement to dishonest behavior. Synonym: bribe
....
In 2016 we have two very, very bad candidates in two ugly parties, one of which will probably become president of the USA, and it's difficult to make a sound case otherwise.
vinsanity0
Active member
I agree with River.
I have some very liberal friends who supported Bernie. It was kind of creepy how they switched over to Hillary. They were even posting propaganda articles that were clearly designed to convert Bernie suppporters.
As for Trump, well, I am still in shock that he was taken seriously at all. I'm pretty sure the Republican party is dead.
I have some very liberal friends who supported Bernie. It was kind of creepy how they switched over to Hillary. They were even posting propaganda articles that were clearly designed to convert Bernie suppporters.
As for Trump, well, I am still in shock that he was taken seriously at all. I'm pretty sure the Republican party is dead.
JaneQSmythe
Well-known member
"Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat."
Old quote that MrS found resurrected on Fark today...
Old quote that MrS found resurrected on Fark today...
River
Well-known member
"With dazzling photographs of thousands in the streets, behind exciting declarations that this is an era of uprisings, riots and general strikes, the protest industry—the well-funded NGOs, marketers, clicktivist frontgroups, corporatized progressives and police masquerading as polyamorous militants—attempt to drown out productive revolutionary criticism with retweets, likes and shares."
https://www.micahmwhite.com/open-letter
Police doing what?!?!
https://www.micahmwhite.com/open-letter
Police doing what?!?!
Hannahfluke
Member
Things I never imagined I'd say to my children, who are now in their early twenties, when they were little boys: "Don't open any boxes that come from Amazon this week, unless you really want to know what sex toys I ordered." I also never expected to have conversations with them about how the USA is not one of the top ten countries that download virtual reality porn.
PinkPig
Well-known member
Lol. That would work with my boys. OTOH, with my dd, it would just encourage her to open it when she otherwise would have ignored it :/
Spork
Active member
@ Ravenscroft with regard to guns...
When I finally capitulated and agreed to "let" my ex buy his first firearm (after many years without a gun in the house) it was because he had prospered his family through military service, and I had traveled to many concerts and generally enjoyed myself, and felt he deserved to partake in some happiness.
We had a conversation...the same conversation...several times.
I told him that the gun is not for home defense. It is for sport. Hunting, target shooting, even competitions, since he's a hell of a marksman. It's NOT a home defense thing, and I didn't want him even thinking of it as such. EDIT: At that time, our relationship was fairly solid and he was fairly sane. Oh, and he also did get a gun safe at that point, too.
He's made the point of over-penetration (bullets going through walls) and he knows of what he speaks. The man is actually pretty brilliant when it comes to the technical bits and skills regarding guns.
What he is NOT so brilliant at, is behaving like a normal and sane person or knowing that others have a right to expect certain kinds of behavior, or seeing how things look and sound from anyone's perspective but his own.
So when he had his mental breaks and started loading the guns and carrying them around, as a "safety blanket" to ease his feelings of insecurity and instability, to make him feel strong and in control carrying around a loaded weapon...he thought that was perfectly reasonable. "Dude, your family is terrified of you right now." Clearly this was our own fault for not being gun people, did we not understand that he had the safety on, so it was clearly FINE?? I was out of line for feeling uncomfortable, manipulated, let alone terrorized when he sat across from me during our arguments and fights, with a loaded handgun strapped to his leg. Why do you need the gun? "It makes me feel better."
Now he sleeps with a loaded AK-47 in bed next to him. He's drunk, stoned, with a loaded rifle in his bed. Why? Why not. Because he can.
I have never in my life wished that someone was there with a gun. Never, for any reason, ever.
He is actually bitter and hostile to me because I never let situations arise where he'd have the chance to do violence on my behalf. I robbed him of his value as a man, by not requiring physical protection.
So for me, this is the face of gun ownership. And it is scary as hell.
When I finally capitulated and agreed to "let" my ex buy his first firearm (after many years without a gun in the house) it was because he had prospered his family through military service, and I had traveled to many concerts and generally enjoyed myself, and felt he deserved to partake in some happiness.
We had a conversation...the same conversation...several times.
I told him that the gun is not for home defense. It is for sport. Hunting, target shooting, even competitions, since he's a hell of a marksman. It's NOT a home defense thing, and I didn't want him even thinking of it as such. EDIT: At that time, our relationship was fairly solid and he was fairly sane. Oh, and he also did get a gun safe at that point, too.
He's made the point of over-penetration (bullets going through walls) and he knows of what he speaks. The man is actually pretty brilliant when it comes to the technical bits and skills regarding guns.
What he is NOT so brilliant at, is behaving like a normal and sane person or knowing that others have a right to expect certain kinds of behavior, or seeing how things look and sound from anyone's perspective but his own.
So when he had his mental breaks and started loading the guns and carrying them around, as a "safety blanket" to ease his feelings of insecurity and instability, to make him feel strong and in control carrying around a loaded weapon...he thought that was perfectly reasonable. "Dude, your family is terrified of you right now." Clearly this was our own fault for not being gun people, did we not understand that he had the safety on, so it was clearly FINE?? I was out of line for feeling uncomfortable, manipulated, let alone terrorized when he sat across from me during our arguments and fights, with a loaded handgun strapped to his leg. Why do you need the gun? "It makes me feel better."
Now he sleeps with a loaded AK-47 in bed next to him. He's drunk, stoned, with a loaded rifle in his bed. Why? Why not. Because he can.
I have never in my life wished that someone was there with a gun. Never, for any reason, ever.
He is actually bitter and hostile to me because I never let situations arise where he'd have the chance to do violence on my behalf. I robbed him of his value as a man, by not requiring physical protection.
So for me, this is the face of gun ownership. And it is scary as hell.
Ravenscroft
Banned
How do I answer to it? Something like I refuse to read biassed hand-wringing hair-tearing hatchet-job screeds written by nutballs of ANY stripe who are clearly incapable of presenting objective facts in an objective manner.
There's an emotionally loaded screechword (fnord) in every seven --
You KNOW it'll likely suck when there's repetitious verbiage -- say, starting two consecutive paragraphs with IN OTHER WORDS.
Kinda like Wikipedia articles that use ALSO in six consecutive sentences.If you have a version that's written in English, I might give it a glance.
Does this mean you're giving a free pass to The Donald for the Trump University scam that netted him millions personally? or just that neither candidate is likely to be canonized?