Posted by ItAintThat , Wed May 02, 2012 04:48 PM
Quote: "All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they're not Palestinians. There is no 'Palestinian.' This is Israeli land."
5. Reminding America that some view Mormonism as "a dangerous cult"
Quote: "Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?"
6. Dissing welfare programs that "make black people's lives better"
Quote: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."
7. Bringing race into Obama's abortion views
Quote: "The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person — human life is not a person, then — I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'We're going to decide who are people and who are not people.'"
8. Equating gay marriage to loving your mother-in-law
Quote: "Is anyone saying same-sex couples can't love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?"
For the most part I try to remain silent and nuetral when it comes to politics. Geeze....
Guys like this make it hard for me to keep my mouth closed. I guess because he is just so
closed minded. If you read my forum posts I know I can sound a little closed minded at times myself...
Truthfully it's just me being stupid, which is what my immature brain finds humorous for the most part.
I feel like they are just words and so what if I say something out there?
As I justify my own social shortcomings (flaws may be more accurate)
I have just previously posted 9 quotes, made of words, that along with what I know of Mr. Santorum,
really make me dislike him.
I know it is a double standard,
But it's like your parents said...
"Do as I say not as I do"
I have noticed my blog is getting a lot of viewers...
I am having fun browsing around looking for things to post here,
But I ultimately want the readers to enjoy as well.
So without being a comment/like whore...
just give me some feedback...if you hate it, say so!
If you don't and you don't wanna comment, just hit the like...
I am going to work to bring y'all the best reading material on SF
Posted by ItAintThat , Wed May 02, 2012 05:01 AM
1. Opposing birth control
Quote: "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
2. Keeping moms at home
Quote: "In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might find they don't both need to. ... What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else — or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon — find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism."
3. Re-spinning the Crusades
Quote: "The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. ... What I'm talking about is onward American soldiers. What we're talking about are core American values."
Posted by ItAintThat , Tue May 01, 2012 11:29 PM
Our most recent round of public male sex scandals resulted in renewed interest in describing and dissecting male sexuality, which in turn has produced a variety of psychoanalytical thinkpieces on the topic ranging from the insightful to the truly reprehensible.
What always strikes me when this happens is the same arguments are trotted out about the evolutionary characteristics of mate-seeking males vs. mate-choosing females; there’s even a brief rash of “new” evolutionary psychology pop-sci articles on the matter. And yet, although these pseudoscientific versions of “boys will be boys” seem obviously lacking (for starters, as with Dan Rottenberg’s screed on Lara Logan, they contain justifications for sexual violence), dialogue against them rarely seems to make much progress. For whatever reason, explaining the clearly-abhorrent syllogisms contained in Scott Adams’ or Dan Rottenberg’s analysis on recent events seems insufficient to me. That is to say, of course they’re wrong, but aren’t they doubly wrong?
Because while their arguments are clearly disgusting on the grounds of what they implicitly—and often explicitly—suggest about how women should be treated (committing the naturalistic fallacy in first degree), it is also worth pointing out that the premised assumptions about sexuality, particularly male, that they start from are also just plain wrong and simplistic.
In 2006, Yale became the subject of a minor media dustup and less-minor campus outrage (something my college seems to have a knack for) over a satirically-intended piece published in the school’s tabloid, The Rumpus. “Me Love You Long-Time: Yale’s Case of Yellow Fever” was an aptly-titled riff on the perceived campus trend of white male obsession of Asian women. As Rumpus so often does, the piece made light of a poignant issue, one that the roiling aftermath firmly labeled a race relations problem, but may have just as easily (and perhaps more insightfully) been discussed as a sexual culture issue. Especially given that this all took place at Yale, both the first ever and the most recent university to be the subject of a major sexual harassment suit.
I arrived at Yale a year-and-a-half later. The Rumpus furor over that particular article had died down, well past the point where people felt any residual discomfort making “yellow fever” jokes. And yet when I off-handedly asked an Asian friend of mine if she would date a guy who professed to a bad “case,” she seemed unsure. At the very least, she said, it grossed her out a bit, to think that someone might view her as a fetish object. How could she know how much of his attraction was genuinely about her, when some of it was based on her ethnicity?
A perfectly reasonable response, of course, and probably the one I would give as well. There is something somehow dirty about being associated with someone else’s fetish, like finding out someone has dirty pictures of you (or something weirder—cue Aaron Samuel’s face immediately post-”she saves your tissues”). I didn’t think about “yellow fever” again.
Except I did, when I read a story on ThoughtCatalog about the author’s adventure with a dominatrix in which the author confessed to enjoying drinking her boyfriend’s nosebleeds. And then again when I read Molly Lambert’s wonderful essay in ThisRecording about “the John Hamm fantasy” and how masculinity and femininity are performances.
Perhaps, despite the fact that I still find “yellow fever” a little creepy, it is unfair to judge other people’s fetishes. After all, reflecting back on my friend’s concern that a man’s attraction for her might be split between her ethnicity and—and what? Some post-ethnic “essence?”—is that distinction even meaningful? After all, that characteristic is a part of you, and is being partially attracted to someone because they’re Asian really that much weirder than being attracted to someone because you like their smile, or the color of their eyes, or the way they dress? Is it any less weird than liking to drink your boyfriend’s nosebleeds?
Perhaps this is the real nature of all physical attraction—some characteristic(s) about someone that, for whatever crazy set of reasons and non-reasons, you are obsessed with. And this is why discussion about testosterone-faces and estrogen-features and all the associated science and pseudo-science that goes along with it bothers me on some level—I think it only really goes so far. We are really complex beings and sexual attraction is a really complex thing. No one is an adult baby, or a snot freak, or a bear-chaser because of simplistic sexual-selection ontology, but that doesn’t make their attractions categorically different from someone who finds John Hamm really attractive in his Mad Men suit but not-so-much when he’s slouching around LA looking like a disheveled bro. Both are responding to triggers, and more importantly to fetishes, to drag. Masculinity and femininity are performances, as Molly Lambert did such a wonderful job illustrating. But, more generally, so are a lot of things that we are attracted to.
And once you start looking for aspects of human attraction that aren’t explained by the impetus of sexual selection, the evidence is everywhere. Marilyn Monroe, perhaps the most singular sex symbol in our culture’s history, is also a famous example (although, it turns out, a bad one) of the ideal female form (and weight) being a moving target, even over just a few decades. In the 1980′s big “beefcake” figures were in for men, following on the heels of a now-returning high-point for thick male chest hair; these stand in sharp contrast to the smooth-chested metrosexual preferred in the late ’90s and the lean, ripped figures that represent today’s idealized male form. I am of course speaking vaguely here, and debates over female body image in our culture (or, hell, over manscaping for that matter) are by no means closed, but it’s fairly obvious that, like almost all human behaviors, sexual preferences are, to some extent, social and cultural as well as evolutionary in origin. In other words, there are nuances there that showing four thousand women a bunch of pictures of dudes you photoshopped to emphasize or deemphasize their cheekbones really doesn’t deal with at all.
Rather than the more linear, arithmetic exaggerations of features (like a peacock’s tail or a booby’s brightly-colored feet) that one might expect of normal sexual selection, human mating preferences are often far more fluid, even cyclical. Breast augmentation may be pointed to as a more classic example of sexual selection’s march, but it’s not as if breasts are getting bigger and bigger ad infinitum; in fact, there is pretty clearly a bridge too far. And hey, there are hordes of guys that like small breasts. It’s even its own sub-genre of pornography.
And this comes full-circle to what originally struck me while thinking about fetishes. The very fact that men’s (and, for that matter, women’s) sexual preferences are individual, i.e., that different men have different “types” (something that seems to be pretty damn well understood by every pornographer who produces both “teen” and “mature” videos for the exact same demo), is itself a powerful and obvious refutation of the sweepingly arrogant preludes to every run-of-the-mill mysoginist screed about how men are hardwired to have these urges and women are asking for it. Those authors aren’t just wrong because “women are asking for it” is an awful thing to say; they’re already wrong by the time they get to that point because the idea that men are hardwired to sexually act-out, or sexually do anything in nearly as homogenous a way as the authors so casually assume, is a highly dubious assertion at best.
So we should maybe de-stigmatize the idea of fetishes, but also start thinking about physical attraction in its appropriate context and with appropriate scientific humility (how do you explain Vajazzling? CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS!), appreciating that it is a complex and shifting and immaterial thing. You can be attracted to a person and then, when the light shifts, it can go away. Or be totally oblivious of them but then they say something, or smile the right way, and then you can’t get them out of your head. A lot of people find themselves increasingly physically attracted to someone as they grow more emotionally intimate.
And, without getting too far out of my depth, I would suggest to Scott Adams and anyone else who presents sneeringly arrogant “explanations” of why men do bad things that sexual violence is at least as complex. While ogling and fantasizing can perhaps be written off as hormonal impulses, when men cross the line into harassing or assaulting women, it’s often driven by something else entirely. After all, sexual violence is a punishment in some cultures; in our own it often manifests as a hate crime, an expression of dominance and gendered supremacy—either way, these behaviors are rooted in social structure and seem to have more to do with the ways large groups of people interact than with testosterone. What Scott Adams spectacularly fails to grasp is that src=' follows from male hormonal impulses the way cross-burning is a result of people feeling cold. Attempting to explain the whirling vortex of social norms, sexual scripts, patriarchal oppression, and personal rage that produces an act of sexual violence using the same scientific and rhetorical tools one would use to explain why two pandas in an enclosure are or are not satisfactorily mating is like trying to explain the international War on Terror using pictures of stags fighting in a lek.
Posted by ItAintThat , Tue May 01, 2012 12:54 PM
If your time had come to an end and you had the choice of how to go, wouldn’t most of us choose to pass away whilst having sex? At least we would die with a smile on our faces. Or would we? I’m not so sure having discovered recently how these people died when having sex. Here is a list of five of the most bizarre deaths during sexual intercourse.
1. Sex + Road = Danger
This couple in the photo for some reason chose to pose for the photo whilst lying down in the middle of the road. A couple from Namibia however decided to go one step further by having sex in the middle of the road. The outcome saw them both run over by a truck. The post mortem on the bodies revealed that the couple both had high levels of alcohol in their system. I think the equation should be rewritten: sex + road + alcohol = high risk of danger!
2. Shagged to Death
A 30-year-old man named Robert Ashitey literally did just that to his 75(!!!)-year-old partner, Suameter Denou, in Ghana. Rampant Robert didn’t even notice his partner had died and was carrying on as normal. He only stopped when Suameter’s caretaker walked in, realised what was happening and hit Robert over the head with a stick. Rampant Robert is now on trial for murder as Suameter’s family seek compensation for funeral expenses.
3. The Funeral Hearse
There’s something horribly ironic about dying in a funeral hearse. But it happens; just look at the case of Jose Agustino Noha. He worked in a funeral home and romantically had a favourite hearse he used to invite his girlfriend to spend some quality time in with him. After one occasion of doing the dirty the couple fell asleep and never woke up again. They’d suffocated in their sleep after leaving the car running and carbon monoxide was leaked from the engine.
4. Doing it on the Roof
Young lovebirds Brent Tyler and Chelsea Tumbleston from South Carolina met in the bar they worked in together. The 21-year-old couple got caught up in the heat of passion one night after work…on the roof. During their lovemaking they fell off said roof, which was 15 metres high. Their naked bodies were found on the road below by a taxi driver. In what must have looked like part two of the Namibian couple in the road at first, it was realised soon after that they had begun their intercourse on the roof where their clothes were found.
Posted by ItAintThat , Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:42 PM
There is also only a one in ten chance the relationship will turn into a full romance. One third of these relationships end up stopping the intimacy, yet still remain friends, and one in four ends in the termination of both the friendship and the sex. If that’s a risk you want to take, have fun, but keep in mind there’s a good chance that things can get a bit messy.
Posted by ItAintThat , Sun Apr 29, 2012 03:46 PM
"To love is a right higher than Constitutions or laws. It is a right which Constitutions and laws can neither give nor take, and with which they have nothing whatever to do, since in its very nature it is forever independent of both Constitutions and laws, and exists – comes and goes – in spite of them. Governments might just as well assume to determine how people shall exercise their right to think or to say that they shall not think at all, as to assume to determine that they shall not love, or how they may love, or that they shall love." --Victoria C. Woodhull, with Stephen Pearl Andrews, 1871 "And the Truth Shall Make You Free: A Speech on the Principles of Social Freedom," Delivered in Steinway Hall
In every culture, in every era and every continent, there are morals about sex. Predefined and expected behaviors are provided by the traditional sources, the elders and religious institutions, as a guidance on how people should treat their own sexuality. There is no question that has been avoided by these prophets of "moral purity." Everything, from our thoughts to our desires to every personal activity, falls under the scrutiny of such standards. What we want, why we want, and how we express our want -- all of these fall within some commandments or principles that have been expressed by an ancient religion. Tradition is based on what was practiced thousands of years ago; it is not based on our immediate needs or desires.
The Old Testament of the Bible even regulates the proper behavior of women who are menstruating; or, for the most part, it condemns them and everything they touch as "unclean." (Leviticus 15:19-30) The Qur'an is equally damning of what is a completely natural, healthy part of life: "Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed." (Qur'an 2:222)
This morality may not be preached, because of its absurdity, but its attitude and tone are in full force within the religious community. No longer do we hear that menstruation is an inherently unclean, blasphemous act, no matter what the Bible or its prophets teach. We do not hear it anymore, because the light of science has blinded the religious beast -- having grown so accustomed to the darkness of ignorance, it was rendered powerless by the brightness of truth.
Why is it that priests and bishops no longer talk of a woman's period as a sign of evil? Because it is a natural part of healthy existence. But these same priests and bishops still talk of the sexual urge as a sign of evil -- even though it, too, is just a good part of healthy life. The desire for multiple partners, for same-sex relationships, for oral sex, and for something more interesting than missionary-style sex -- all of these are forbidden by the churches, the higher institutions, and even within universities and schools. All of these desires are the natural production of our impulse towards sex. They are just as natural as menstruation, nocturnal emissions, or sexual arousal.
These sex morals are not simply opposed to "deviances" or "unclean sexuality." They are, overall, completely opposed to the sex attitude on the whole; they are grounded in a philosophy that attached taboos and sanctions to every part of the human body, to everything that has proven natural, good, and whole through science over the centuries. Many of today's anti-sex advocates are attacking homosexuality, multiple partner relationships, or sex education. They claim their enemy is something "impure and unnatural." But in reality, they are only attacking something that is the natural production of our desires as living beings.
These missionaries against the sexual attitude are not solely religious, but they are an embedded part of many overlapping cultures. In Nationalist cultures, which value traditional ways of their ancestors, they find new expressions of sexuality to be a threat. In Chauvinist and Sexist cultures, heavily populated throughout the world, sex is treated as a form of domination and control; and its use for pleasure, happiness, and feelings of freedom are always prohibited. The largest contribution to this anti-sex attitude have been from religions, notably Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
These are the three forces that have pushed for an anti-sex morality: the Nationalists, the Conservatives, and the Religionists.
The Pro-Sex Attitude
"Here we arrive at the most important of all facts relating to human needs and experiences: That while every human being has a distinct individuality, and is entitled to all the rights of a sovereign over it, it is not taken into the consideration that no two of these individualities are made up of the self-same powers and experiences, and therefore cannot be governed by the same law to the same purposes." --Victoria C. Woodhull, with Stephen Pearl Andrews, 1871 "And the Truth Shall Make You Free: A Speech on the Principles of Social Freedom," Delivered in Steinway Hall
If we are scientific in our investigations, and if our aim is the happiness of society, then we are always drawn towards the pro-sex attitude. We will be compelled towards the idea of abolishing sex morals. What is right and wrong is not defined on how people express or interact with each other sexually; what is right and wrong is defined in how people treat each other and their willingness to be altruistic and just. Our morality is not defined in terms of sexual encounters, lust, or orgies. It is defined in terms of whether our actions hurt others -- it is defined in terms of whether we are contributing to the happiness of the world, or subtracting from it.
The sex act provides a person with an opportunity to reach a heightened state of ecstasy and pleasure; and this is accomplished by cooperating with someone else who is also reaching toward the same happiness. There are few other experiences provided to us that will allow us to feel such bliss and joy. It is a rush that excites all of our passions and emotions; a moment worthy of being remembered, worthy of use as a thought that brings comfort and hope. Sex can be a very good thing in the life of the individual. It is a fact that few of the traditionalists are willing to admit.
But even sex can be used negatively. Even the greatness of this single act can be constricted and suffocated. There are attitudes, often among the Conservatives and Traditionalists, that view sex as a means of dominating others. This reaction is based on the belief that sex in inherently wrong, "indecent," or "immoral." In its most common forms, it expresses itself as gender roles within the bedroom, and its most dangerous manifestations, it can be violent, coercive, or abusive. These attitudes generally dominate the religious, since they are torn within the contradiction of god's order to multiply and also his condemnation of the sex act -- on top of assigning a gender to an unknown, unknowable being.
A real morality is based on maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. It does not make judgments about sex -- it does not advocate abstinence or promiscuity. It does not indict any sexuality, nor does it endorse any sexuality. Real justice is not about how people choose to express themselves voluntarily to one another. Real justice is about creating a world where people are not in a position to exploit or oppress one another; real morality is about maintaining a situation where no one can hurt anyone else.
True justice does not speak of what sexual practices we engage in, any more than it concerns itself with our choice of hobbies, language, or custom. Justice only seeks the advancement of liberty and happiness for all -- it has no concern of our personal preferences.
This is the alternative to the anti-sex philosophy: to treat the sex act as morally neutral, neither nor bad. If we abandon our sex morals and accept the science of the real world, we inevitably realize that sex can be an unbelievable, passionate act. Those who argue against free sexuality, because of venereal diseases, are at least on the right path: don't argue against sexuality, because it is "impure" or "wrong." Don't present fantastic ideas on why we should behave one way or another. Give only practical, real, definite reasons on why we one act or another would provide us the greatest possible happiness.
Our ethics should be based on the value of conscious life. They should not be based on these unrealistic concepts that do not relate to us as individuals.
Posted by ItAintThat , Sat Apr 28, 2012 09:41 PM
Money it turned out, was exactly like sex, you thought of nothing else if you didn't have it and thought of other things if you did
Sex is the great amateur art. The professional, At male or female, is frowned on: he or she misses the point, and spoils the show.
It is not the sex that gives the pleasure, but the lover.
Remember, if you smoke after sex you're doing it too fast.
The main problem in marriage is that for a man sex is a hunger like eating. If the man is hungry and can't get to a fancy French restaurant, he goes to a hot dog stand. For a woman, what is important is love and romance.
Sex is the most fun you can have without laughing.
The big difference between sex for money and sex for free is that sex for money usually costs a lot less.
Women need a reason to have. Men just need a place.
Sex relieve tension - love causes it.
Sex is God's joke on human beings.
Sex is an American obsession in other parts of the world it is a fact/
When a guy goes to a hooker, he's not paying her for sex, he's paying her to leave
Sex is not the answer. Sex is the question. "Yes" is the answer
For the first time in history, sex is more dangerous than the cigarette afterword
Posted by ItAintThat , Sat Apr 28, 2012 03:40 PM
1. My girl friend (she can do most any of the one's below)
2. Beach girl (love those bikini thongs)
3. Dominatrix (tie me up or I'll tie you up)
4. girl next door (so close to home)
5. Teacher/boss sex (pay me more or give me the grades please)
6. Complete stranger (good to know new people)
7. Nurse sex (help nurse I feel a bit hard down there)
8. Fantasy (Sci-Fi, super woman, warrior gal, etc.)
9. Work out girl (lets see those muscles flex with mine)
I can think of my top 10 and it doesent look a lot like the list above...What is missing? What is it about things that are taboo that make them strangely erotic? I dont think i am alone in the dark and taboo being somewhat attractive. Any opinion as to why I, or we, are drawn to those things? It seems like most of the pleasures of the flesh, the really pleasurable ones, are rarely good for us. Does the same hold true when it comes to sex?
Posted by ItAintThat , Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:15 AM
A thought occured to me as i was falling asleep at the screen that the SF site while it is the cadillac of its kind, is almost broken down into two halves....
one a smoothly functioning half, and the other seems to be almost entirely for show.......The Discussion Forums Half & The Online Meet Me along with the search engines.
In my one short day here i surprisingly, and almost accidentally ended up at the #4 ranked user for the day and am off o a decent start at #7 early today....
The point i am trying to make is if you want to get the exposure that you need to meet the people you are looking for then i think its probalby best to focus most of your time in the forums and trying to participate in popular discussionns
Posted by ItAintThat , Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:32 PM
i guess quite simply we are all on here to meet paeople and have fun...but as we introduce,flirt,and start to build relationships i think it is important for us all to keep it in mind that we are dealing with people still that deserve our respect kindness
9 controversial Rick Santorum quotes 1-3
Everyone’s a Freak: What Fetishes Can Teach Us about Male Sexuality
5 Strange & Bizarre Deaths During Sexual Intercourse
FWB Does It work?
Abolishing sex related morality
Top 10 Male Sexual Fantasies
Satisfied or Not, Click Here To Rate SF
First Day Was A Hit