RE: Is This True? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

philurdesires -> RE: Is This True? (7/7/2004 3:31:11 PM)

The idea that the majority of "kinsters" are conservative doesn't surprise me, although it's obvious that a fair share of pervs are liberal (does anybody really think Monica and Clinton's other playmates were conservative?). The theory that pervs are more intelligent, on average tends to support the idea that more of them are conservative. No offense to anyone, but if you think about it, the liberal platform doesn't make a lot of sense. There is an old saying that says, "If a person is young and they're not liberal, then they don't have a heart, but when they get older if they're still liberal, then they don't have a brain."
Seriously, I don't think anyone believes that either conservative or liberal politicians are truthful, nor do I believe that the majority of liberals or conservatives believe that it is in anyone's best interest to make all information public, and one fact that should be rather obvious to anyone that pays any attention at all, is that the media does everything it can to support liberals, and tear down conservatives, regardless of the affect their bias has on the country as a whole, whether it hurts US as a country or not!



sweetpeggy -> RE: Is This True? (7/7/2004 3:48:01 PM)

[;)] I cannot comment on the "further right" - "further kink" proposal, but I would like to think that we as a group could get some breathing room from politics and the bedroom ( dungeon, ect..).

Please know I am not complaining about this post. Not at all !! I just wanted to push yet another political format out of my sex life. All in jest, all in jest Estring *wink*

Good to be here online today. Its been awhile. Take care and keep
those healthy mindframes rolling out there!!

sweetpeggy



MrThorns -> RE: Is This True? (7/7/2004 4:04:19 PM)

I'm pretty liberal...but I can't really remember the last time I had "regular, normal sex" I think some of this reasoning that liberals are less likely to participate in "kinky sex" or BDSM ...especially in a Male Dom/ fem sub ... is due to the feminist movement. How wrong it is for men to objectify women and such.

Anyway...thats my two cents.

~Thorns



Thanatosian -> RE: Is This True? (7/8/2004 7:54:20 AM)

the 3 quickest ways to fuck up a friendship (in no particular order, as they are all equally effective)

have sex

discuss politics

discuss religion





not gonna do it nope nope nope cant make me[;)]

Apply usual caveats here



Thanatosian -> RE: Is This True? (7/8/2004 8:00:01 AM)

quote:

is due to the feminist movement. How wrong it is for men to objectify women and such.


what can you expect form a group that defines any sex, specifically including marital sex as rape???

but boy were they quiet when their 'saviour' billy boy clinton took advantage of women - didnt hear nary a peep out of em - yet let some conservative do something (like Clarence Thomas) and they are all over him



I know, I know, I said I wasnt gonna do it but this just irks me - all the feminist talk about double standards and yet they apply one of their own based on political affiliation - sheeesh

Apply usual caveats here



January -> RE: Is This True? (7/8/2004 8:52:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thanatosian

what can you expect form a group that defines any sex, specifically including marital sex as rape???



Give me a break!

January <----- a feminist who really, really enjoys marital sex.



italianalala -> RE: Is This True? (7/8/2004 9:07:42 AM)

A few words:

Sciafe Family Foundation funded the witch hunt against the Clintons.

Clinton did not take advantage nor abuse -- men of power are damned attractive, especially if they can form sentences consisting of more than four words and are not wearing slave collars for the neocons.

If you want to, go to www.salon.com and read today's article on Flynt. Yes, it's a democratic zine.

The problem is, I have difficulty keeping quiet when I read the venon Clinton inspires from conservatives, when he was doing what they do, did, practice.

January, right, give me a break. We still ride in the back of the bus.

And, if someone feels insulted, please, examine why you are pissed. I did.

Ma'am

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Peppermint tea calms a stomach in turmoil. So does a chocolate bar: Milky Way, pulls out my permanent bridge.



Estring -> RE: Is This True? (7/8/2004 9:26:24 AM)

Once again we have someone who doesn't get it. Clinton was not impeached because he had oral sex with an intern. He was impeached because he lied under oath to a Grand Jury, and he obstructed justice by using his position to try to get witnesses not to testify in the Paula Jones case. I don't know about you, but in my book, when the top law enforcement official in the US lies under oath, that is a serious matter.



italianalala -> RE: Is This True? (7/8/2004 9:31:40 AM)

And once again we have someone not in reality.

Bush lies all the time.



Destinysskeins -> RE: Is This True? (7/8/2004 9:53:12 AM)

Greetings A/all....

Though i do have some conservative values i would not classify myself as conservative. i am a Christian but would also classify myself as an Alternative Lifestyler. i have lesbian friends and i've had more than one gay male friend so i see the value and gifts of those people and shake my head over the closemindedness of homophobics.

i do think that the government is too large, too corrupted and is ran by power hungry bastards. Do i think that this is likely to ever change? Hell no! In my humble opinion, it's human nature - those seeking to gain power for their own gains are those most likely to attain it. After all, it are those types of people that will lie, cheat, beg, borrow, swindle and otherwise sell their souls for support & recognition. This was no different in the days of small monarchies as it is in today's world of big corporations. And besides, money makes the world go round, dontcha know? (*sighs* sad, but true).

So, in short....i am not a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, an anarchist, a tree hugger, and so on and so forth....

i am me, plain & simple - a bit jaded but also a bit of a dreamer nonetheless. i think the biggest possiblities for doing good abound in our everyday lives - the simple acts of making someone smile & laugh or lending a shoulder to one in need of a warm hug.

The world may be a cesspool but we can clean it up one ripple at a time!

Well wishes to A/all



EYEZZofICE -> RE: Is This True? (7/8/2004 10:53:48 AM)

I would tend to disagree. Although I am a moderate Republican, and a Christian I don't 80% of us kinksters are conservative. In fact most of the political leanings I have seen on sites such as this list Liberal as their association.

EYEZZ



EYEZZofICE -> RE: Is This True? (7/8/2004 11:04:06 AM)

Italianalala,
Which hunt? Mrs. Clinton is trying to get control of "Universal Healthcare" while she makes hundreds of thousands in pharmeseutical stocks? Jennifer Flowers is DENIED her constitutional rights to fair and speedy trial by the man elected to EXECUTE the laws of the country. Using his office to imped her trial and to protect himself from prosecution. That is why the impeachment process started in Congress, as it should. I could care less how much sex/nonsex Slick Willie had in the oval office. This is about him not doing his job and that is to execute the laws of this country. Even if that means he gets prosecuted by those laws. Not to protect his own ass.

EYEZZ



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Is This True? (7/8/2004 1:58:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: italianalala

And once again we have someone not in reality.

Bush lies all the time.


I won't argue the politics, as my core belief is that governments are a fiction created by those in power to stay in power, but let's try not to engange in gross logical falacies. Estring never mentioned Bush. Yet you conclude that because Bush lies, Estring is out of touch reality. Non-sequitor.

Let's be logical, if we can't be civil.

Yours,
Taggard



Sinergy -> RE: Is This True? (7/8/2004 8:33:24 PM)

quote:

what can you expect form a group that defines any sex, specifically including marital sex as rape???


First off, to say that all branches of the First or Second Wave of Feminism consisted of statements that any sex is rape is rather unresearched. There WAS a branch of Feminism that espoused lesbianism as the only non-hierarchical and not-based-in-patriarchy sex on the planet, and there were some points made in their writings which made quite a bit of sense. However, this was NOT the main thrust of either of the two major Feminist movements.

Second Wave Feminism for the most part was an attempt by women to reclaim their OWN sexuality, whatever that would be. I have to say that the women engaged in this during the 1960s allows us in the new millenia to have a public forum to discuss BDSM.
I personally think those women should be thanked, rather than reviled, because they brought the topic out from the hidden behind closed doors attitudes of the 1950s, and into discussion in the mainstream. You may not agree with them, but BDSM was never discussed in the 1950s or was considered a mental illness.

On the second topic (Presidential trivia) I personally think that Douglas Adams said it best:

"Anybody who would want to wield ultimate power should never be allowed anywhere near the job. Ideally, the wielder of ultimate power should not be aware that they actually wield ultimate power."

He made Zaphod Beeblebrox president of the galaxy because he could distract attention away from he who really held power, who was a person who lived in a hut on a swamp planet and wasnt sure whether he was a figment of his cat's imagination.

But I digress.

I dont think Bush technically lies. I think the psychology is a lot more insidious, because I believe he is a truly sociopathic individual in that he believes his own lies. Additionally, he surrounds himself with yes-men who will feed him back his beliefs so he thinks the detritus fed to him by his brain is the truth.

However, I am not a professional nor have I ever laid hands on him, so I cannot authoritatively prove the validity of these beliefs.

In other words, it is just me, and I could be wrong.

Sinergy



perverseangelic -> RE: Is This True? (7/8/2004 10:27:24 PM)

Totally offtopic, but I wanted to say that I really like how you present your points, Sinergy, even if I don't always agree.

And as a feminist scholar--yeah, what he said.



Sundew02 -> RE: Is This True? (7/8/2004 10:35:58 PM)

I am a liberal, I will vote Democratic, and usually do. Rarely will I vote for someone who doesnt have a snowballs chance of winning. I vote the big D because I want health care without restrictions, and no ones nose in ANYONES bedroom. Sundew



Sinergy -> RE: Is This True? (7/8/2004 10:53:45 PM)

quote:

I vote the big D because I want health care without restrictions, and no ones nose in ANYONES bedroom.


That certainly explains why you dont vote Green.

Wait, umm, err...

Sinergy



Sinergy -> RE: Is This True? (7/8/2004 10:57:35 PM)

quote:

Totally offtopic, but I wanted to say that I really like how you present your points, Sinergy, even if I don't always agree.


The problem with reading constantly, taking courses in philosophy, and growing up as a disaffected anti-social punker, is that I am left with the idea that everybody else is wrong.

Add to that the Zen precept that "Zen is not what you think" and extensive study into both Zen and Taoism, as well as the idea that I am probably wrong.

And I seem to have ended up being a person who A) thinks everybody else is wrong and B) think I am also wrong.

Welcome to my world ;)

Sinergy



MizSuz -> RE: Is This True? (7/9/2004 4:53:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sundew02

I am a liberal, I will vote Democratic, and usually do. Rarely will I vote for someone who doesnt have a snowballs chance of winning. I vote the big D because I want health care without restrictions, and no ones nose in ANYONES bedroom. Sundew



I'm a flaming liberal with some rather odd (for a flaming liberal) conservative ideas. I'm anti-gun control and pro-death penalty. <shrug> Go figgah.

For years I used to say the the dems wanted to spend all my money and the repubs wanted to legislate my morality. I can't see where that's changed much other than I am paying more taxes now than I ever have in my life (I'm also making more money now than I ever have).

I have long been irritated by our society's tendency to cling to the notion that there are really only two parties. In the past I have refused to buy into the notion that any vote is a 'throw away vote' if it's not for one of the two primary parties; although I will admit to having changed party affiliations in the past just so I could vote AGAINST someone in the primaries (I went republican simply to vote against Pat Robertson some years ago).

This year I'm voting for the person I believe can beat Bush. If I thought it was PeeWee Herman I'd vote for him (and be looking forward to a brighter future because of it). At the moment I happen to believe that will be John Kerry. I'm not saying I believe Kerry is the best man for the job, I'm saying I believe ANYBODY would be better than Dubya.

This year it's more important to me to get Bush OUT than it is to 'vote my conscience.'

Suz



topcat -> RE: Is This True? (7/9/2004 3:22:33 PM)

quote:

This year it's more important to me to get Bush OUT than it is to 'vote my conscience.'


Madame-

I am _seriously_ considering leaving the US if he's re-elected- maybe Costa Rica or Belize- somewhere that even if the politics are crooked, I could afford to buy into the game.

Wanna come?

Stay warm,
Lawrence



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.054688E-02