Face it; the right wing has waged an all out war on sex. Nothing else matters. They're obsessed, and so insanely jealous of anyone who is sexy, has sex, enjoys or talks about sex without shame or fear, that they make fools of themselves trying to eradicate sex. I wish they would come out and admit their war on sex because it might relieve them of the misery they're spilling into the universe (which may account for some of the toxins in our air, but I'll save that for another time).
Cleverly, they choose candidates, advisors, and spokespeople who appear to be asexual; people who are so sexually repulsive no one would entertain the possibility of their being involved in a sex scandal because it would require imagining them in that role and the thought is too much for a normal human to bear.
Imagine what your stomach would do if you had to picture Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Scott McClellan, Karl Rove, or any Bush in an intimate situation. There went my breakfast. Anyone wanting to lose a few pounds might take it even further, and picture combinations of the group, say Dick with Karl, Scott with George, Rush with Jenna. The extremely brave can visualize an orgy with a swing-your-partner- do-si-do where they all switch partners. Quick, pass the barf bag.
The Bushites have reached the point they openly admit they enjoy flip-flopping and duplicity. The want to reduce Rove's crime from treason to perjury, and accuse the Democrats of playing politics. Sweet of them, now that they've soaked every political advantage they could out of the situation and think there's nothing left to gain. And they will overlook the many lies Rove and Bush have crammed down their throats about the Plume outing, because it's the sex, stupid, and face it; there was no sex involved.
Perjury only matters to them when a sexy man is involved. Lies don't count unless you can actually dream about sex with the liar and not wake up screaming, and outing is only a sin or a crime if it involves sexual orientation. They're more afraid of someone else having semen in the throat than they are of the lies they're choking on, and prefer the hourly figurative screwing they receive from their asexual leaders over a literal toss in the sack with their asexual partners.
That's fine for them, but do they really have to begrudge the rest of us a healthy relationship or a wet dream with sexy partners and leaders? Spoil sports. Many of us would need anti-depressants or, heaven forbid, illegal drugs if not for our imaginative relationships with Bill, Al, Obama, and Hillary. Leave our healthier options alone.
There's good news for our asexual warmongering friends. We sex freaks are fully capable of doing more than one thing at a time. Don't be fooled by the fact that Georgie boy can't ride a bike while he plans a bombing, or eat a pretzel and watch TV without an accident. Think back to the Clinton days. Some people can engage in sex, give a speech, and keep peace all at the same time. Remember the Gore airline security proposal? Proof that sexy and intelligent can exist in the same body.
This war on sex is unnecessary, but I have faith sexy Americans can fight back if the asexuals continue to wage it. We can multi-task - fight the war on sex while we impeach, save social security, balance the budget, and fight for decent Supreme Court nominees.
Sandy Knauer
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 91
So, what you're saying is that only Democrats are good looking enough to have good sex lives. Why in the world would someone as intelligent as you, publish such a blantantly biased and superficial commentary on such important issues? What a waste. You have to have more to offer than this, right?
Until we stop all the name calling and dividing ourselves into all these little groups of self-promoting little "hit squads" determined to win at all costs, we will never find the truth.
The truth? We ALL need each other. Liberals NEED conservatives and conservatives NEED liberals. We protect and balance the doves flight by releasing the hawk. What we don't need to do is to continue to ignore our similarities and not celebrate our differences.
I celebrate your passion and views though I do not agree with them and look to learn from you that I may continue to grow in both wisdom and strength of conviction. Thank you for this piece of you and being brave enough to share it. I too have returned that opportunity to you.
The Silver Ring Thing is a joke in Europe. There they go proclaiming its success because it reduced unwanted teenage pregnancies from, if memory serves, 115 to 85 per thousand. Here in Britain, the worst place in Europe, the figure is 42 and in enlightened Sweden and Germany where religion is kept out of schools and sex education is compulsary so that kids are told "OK, we know you are going to have sex, here's what to do about avoiding pregnancy and disease," the figure is negligable.
I will elaborate on that in an upcoming article.
love
Ian
On a related topic, did you see what Bush is doing with the AIDS money? Promoting his abstinence program. My article was written a bit tongue-in-cheek, but is very appropriate. This administration is so full of hypocrites - closet gays trying to make life as miserable as possible for those who refuse to play their game, perverts who think if they point a finger at someone else they might be overlooked, ahhh... don't even get me started. It's ugly. Thanks to you, and to the others who understood where I was coming from with this.
Just listen to you all. Especially, you, Sandy. I'm not a member of either party for this very reason. I'm sorry, but this all is so childish to me. Really. It's like listening to a bunch of kids bickering about whose Daddy is stronger and better and more handsome and has a better job, etc., etc., etc..
If it's not the damn far right wing trying to tell people what to do in their bedrooms and how to morally live their lives, it people like you (far left bomb throwers) sitting back and blaming President Bush for everything. He's just down right evil, isn't he? Trying to conquer the world for all of his oil buddies, right? Hell - now he's attacking our sexuality. Are you people for real? Willing to stoop to any level (including personal attacks about people's attractiveness) in an attempt to score "points". It's all so damn sad to me.
I could sit on blogs like this all day and point out just as many "unattractive" members of the "left" (when's the last time you laid eyes on guys like James Carvelle and Alan Combs?), but I would rather judge them by something other than their skin. That (what you're doing) is nothing more than a cheap shot. Beneath you, really. I hope. I could point out that it wasn't too long ago that Al Gore's wife, The Tipster, was being attacked by Hollyweird for her stance on film "ratings" and being accused of promoting censorship and the like. Or Bill (Big Mac Bill) Clinton using women like so many "whores", possibly even participating in a rape and turning the White House into his own private bordelo (like JFK before him) for the world to see. Nice. Classy stuff! Where the hell was N.O.W.? Nowhere to be found.
I could go on and on and on and on annnnnd on and all we would do is sit here and argue and rant and rave and not get a damn thing done. You can sit here and publish article, after article and you'll never reach people like me. Moderates. I supported Bill Clinton as President, though I still believe he wasted his legacy and his talent for sake of his penis. I support George Bush. Period. They are both men that did (and are doing) a job that most men/women simply CANNOT do. They face things none of us can understand on a daily basis and do so (for the most part), with amazing effectiveness. They make mistakes. They're humans.
As I see it, now may be a defining moment in your life. You have indeed come upon the two roads in the woods and I would advise you to take the one less travelled by. You can, of course, stay the course and allow your obvious pain and misunderstandings to overwhelm your spirit and fester into hatred and continue to preach to the choir. I mean - Take a good look around you. You do understand that only those that share your "extreme" feelings are listening. Is that how you want your voice to be heard? Everyone just stroking your ego and agreeing with you. Or you can decide to elevate your game and move past some of your feelings and make a real effort to reach out to the other side rather than "lash out". Understanding is a good thing and not solely owned by the far left.
Choice is yours. Big fish in a small pond or a somewhat smaller fish (but just as valuable) in a really BIG pond?
With all due respect...
Dave
Love this article and your sense of humor.
"They are evil and devious, and are destroying the world."
Are you hearing yourself? That's nothing more than Kool-Aid "speak". You say things like this and expect people (other than your fellow far-left loonies) to take your viewpoint seriously? C'mon. I mean - Really.
Look. You have a perfect right to your opinion, but when you start with all the personal attacks you simply dilute your audience to the point that you will soon (and probably already have) be doing nothing more than preaching to the choir. That is certainly your right. As passionate as you are about things you feel are important, I would think you would want to be able to attract as much attention to those causes as possible. As you speak now, people in the "middle" (the vast majoirty of Americans) will just write you off as another Ward Churchill, Cindy Sheehan, Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn or other Hollyweird limosine riding liberals. You don't really want that, do you?
As-far-as naming one "Bomb throwing liberal"...Is that a joke? I can do that all day long. Let's just start with one of the leaders of the Democratic Party:
1) Howard Dean
and then head down the list....with:
2) Al Gore
3) Cindy Sheehan
4) Jesse Jackson
5) Al Sharpton
6) Sean Penn
7) Al Franken
8) Michael Moore
9) Henry Bellafonte....and on and on and on....
There are soooo many that I can't possibly cover them all. They are out of touch with middle America and that is exactly why they have lost control of both Houses, Congress and The White House. And if they keep up their "bomb throwing" bashing of President Bush, they will continue to lose support of people like me. That's MY President they're bashing all around the world and I don't appreciate it. I am a proud American whether this country is being led by a Republican, Democrat or whatever and it will be a cold day in Hell that you ever hear me call any of my Presidents a "terrorist", "war mongor" or even a "liar" in public. I respect the office and what it takes to be able to not only get there, but be able to handle the immense pressure that comes with it. I will never be a part of the "Blame America First" crowd.
As-far-as, naming a Democrat that has tried to get into people's bedrooms; That's NOT their "gig". That's Jerry Farwell and the extreme right loonie's territory. The "left's" gig is to run around saying that EVERYTHING is alright behind closed doors. Sorry, but that is not right either. For example: The ACLU, a hugely "radical left-wing" organization, recently took-up the cause of defending the North American Man/Boy Love Association...NAMBLA! Now, this is an organization that feels it should be lawfull for grown men to have sex with young (we're talking 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 y/os here) underage "boys". The NAMBLA web site promotes this "lifestyle" as right and good and even tells their members where the hottest places are to find boys and instructs them on the "How To's" of picking up young boys. They're promoting, ahhhh, RAPE!!! Yet, the ACLU believes they have that right. Do you? Well?
You see - I could easily say that it's "scum" like the ACLU and NAMBLA that are what is really destroying our great country with their perverted view on sex, sexuality and sensuality and freedom of speech regarding those matters rather than people like George Bush that is simply a Christian trying to follow at least some form of moral compass. At least George Bush isn't out there trying to give groups like NAMBLA a voice at the cost of the security and safety of our nation's children.
My point is that what is "right" is somewhere is the middle of both of those extremes. Jerry Farewell doesn't own it and either does the ACLU and NAMBLA.
Besides, your argument that George Bush is trying to ruin and suppress our sexuality carries no weight. Are you trying to say that America is getting too "conservative" sexually speaking? LOL. You have to be kidding me. Have you seen your TV screen lately. And I don't just mean cable either. Open your eyes, we are living in a wide-open society these days and it getting even more wide open. Some of it I'm for (and even celebrate) and some I'm against (see NAMBLA above), but there is no arguing that our culture has been moving more and more liberal when it comes to sex. I mean - This is a no-brainer.
Look - Good, solid, effective and educated debate is good and every American should exercise their right to voice their opinions, concerns and even their objections. I'm just saying to you that it can be done is a respectful manner with class and dignity rather than through insults, name calling and personal attacks. That's all.
Drop your heated, biased, Kool-Aid drinking rhetoric and adopt a more "softer" and "reasonable" tone to your arguments and more people will be willing to listen. You'll catch far more flies with honey than vinegar. Ya know?
I've said enough. I hope I've added to this discourse in a positive manner. Take care and best of luck to you, Sandy.
Yeah - I admittedly missed Reno. I even hated mentioning the others as it's not my style to make fun of people's looks and sexuality. I think Sandy should be ashamed for doing so. It certainly does not help her look like a "reasonable" person of good thought and character and those things should matter to her. I hope she reconsiders her tone and steps her game up a bit. I think she will - when the time is right for her. She's smart.
You have some good points. But I have to comment. I would never say it in mixed company, but since it has been brought up, the Bush administration is evil. It's just that cut and dried. He may think he is doing right, but almost everything he has done as president has hurt this country and the world. (Evil by deffinition doesn't have to be intentional.) He has broken laws, violated the Constitution...my God, secret prison camps where people are tortured to death... anyone remember Germany, 1930s?
Your comment about Clinton using women like whores and maybe raping someone is really over the top. These stories came from people dragged from the gutters of Arkansas and elsewhere and paid handsomely to lie. The stories were fed into the multi-million-dollar neoconservative echo machine and made into a manufactured scandal. Yes, the Lewinski trist was real. Yes, he didn't have the self contol a perfect person would have. I certainly can't throw stones in that department.
Anyway, my point is, you really need to sort out the real news from what gets generated by the right wing. Read David Brocks "Blinded by the Right" and/or "The Republican Noise Machine." The foundation of a democracy is an informed public; people who spread misinformation attack that foundation. I feel strongly that this is the biggest challenge to America today.
Absolutely, Dale. Thanks.
When you call Bush "evil" you lose your intended audience. Me and people like me. Blaming Bush for the acts of a few (out of hundreds of thousands of troops) is the "speak" and mentallity of only the extreme biased within us. Precisely, "you" and people of your mindset.
People of your mindest see Bush as a member of "their" team rather than a fellow American and member of "our" team. And you insist on blaming him for everything "evil" in this country and indeed, even the world. Don't you understand that if "both" sides keep doing this kind of crap to each other that we will continue to divide ourselves and stunt our growth as a country and even more importantly - a people?
I'm sorry but, it's statements like this that expose you as just another political "hack" for the left:
"He may think he is doing right, but almost everything he has done as president has hurt this country and the world."
Only a true far-left, kool-aid drinking liberal would attempt to make that argument. Hell - Even Hillary Clinton agrees with Bush on some issues. I'm sorry Dale, but I'm waaaaay too informed on the political scene to take your arguments seriously and as anything other than what they are. Typical left-wing, heated rhetoric. I would beg someone like you, to reconsider your stance and begin to contribute in a positive manner rather than allowing yourself to be pulled down into this "Us vs Them" mentality that so permeates this great society of ours that we call America.
Your side of this issue is as ill-taken as Jerry Farewell's side on the right. Jerry needs to get out of my bedroom and people like yourself need to get out of my mind. I refuse to be swayed or brainwashed by either side. Clinton DID treat women like whores and that is obvious for anyone to see that is unbiased in their views. JFK did as well. Let's get real. Clinton is very fortunate that he carried as much weight/influence as he did or he could very well now be a convicted rapist. THAT is the truth. It is also the truth that he happens to be one of the most gifted speakers and politicians the world has ever known. He could have done so much more had his libido not ruined almost everything he did as President. What a waste of talent.
Bush? He's no liar. Or at least I see no real evidence of that at this present time. Even the 911 Commission saw no evidence that President Bush "lied" about anything. He may have been wrong in what he said to us pre-war, but that does not mean he lied. And I say "may" intentionally. There is now emerging evidence that Saddam DID have the weapons that most of the world's intelligence agencies said he had and moved them into Syria sometime before the war began to make America look bad. As-a-matter-of-fact, Saddam's 2nd in charge (Air Force - I forget his name at this point) is now talking publically about just how Saddam did it. I'm not convinced on either side of this issue. I am willing to give our country and our President the benefit of the doubt right now until ALL the facts are in and that may take years to know. I am an independent thinker and take great pride in being so.
I am not one that is confused by exactly what the meaning of "is", is. I drink no man's kool-aid, don't like people that act like sheep and judge people by their acts and not their words, sexuality, looks or political affiliations.
Thank you for a nice debate and for your insights and opinion(s). I wish you all the best in your life and sincerely hope you achieve your dreams and live well.
Some of your statements and some of the comments indicate that it's disgusting even to think about having sex with someone of differing political views who you consider less attractive than yourselves. I can't agree with those viewpoints either. Both my first and current wives felt that sex with me was preferable to a jab in the eye with a sharp stick. And I make Janet Reno look like Miss America and James Carville look like Brad Pitt.
I don't feel a lotta love here; just anger and even aggression. We all consider ourselves middle-of-the-road moderates and those who dissagree with us fringe, looney radicals. But there are two sides to every issue. I do agree that the idea of "abstinence over protection" doesn't make a lot of sense and is generally a right wing position. But maybe if the discusssion were conducted in a softer voice we might actually engage in civil discourse.
I have no arguments with anything you stated. By most measures it's all true and often ignored by the mainstream press. You points are valid and accurate.
In defense of Bill Clinton. I would have to say that I believe Clinton tried to do good. I believe he really did. It was a different time and a different place. In a strange way, Clinton didn't benefit from a 911 on his watch. I mean - It was relatively easy for George W. to jump in and be a hero after 911. All of America looked to him for that and he came through. He was the right man at the right time.
Make no mistake, I believe Clinton would have done the same. Would Clinton have done it as well? Judging by his previous military actions, I don't think so. But, in fairness, we'll never know. I DO know that he would have tried with all his might. What U.S. President would not?
The truth is - Bin Laden and his "ilk" should have been dealt with a long time ago. However, (and again in defense of Clinton) we (America) were in a pre-911 fog about our country, our lives and our futures. The economy was running great (before Clinton's last year and the stock market bubble), peace was in the air (even if it was an illusion) and all the boyz had Pamela Anderson to look at and imagine all kinds of fantasies. It was a different time and we felt invincible.
I must admit, although I did NOT vote for him, George Bush has conducted himself with class, dignity and with a supreme sense of purpose. Although I do NOT like his arrogance at times. He's much stronger than I thought he was and he feels much more than his critics would like you to believe. I watch eyes. His eyes tell me how much he cares everytime he tears-up when addressing some issue concerning our troops and their sacrifice. He is, in fact, a true American at heart.
You know what all my years have taught me? We (America) rarely elect a bad person. As-a-matter-of-fact...I can't think of one in my lifetime that I would consider "bad". Maybe Clinton (on a personal level) because of the manner in which he so losely held his convictions to his family and the way he treated women behind closed doors. But even Clinton was "good intentioned" as a President. These men we call Presidents are extraordinary people. ALL of them!
Democrat or Republican - It matters not.
I just wish more people would treat them ALL with the respect they so richly deserve.
I did not see your comment, but appreciate that you chose to come on here and apologize for it. Classy move.
The term "Kool-Aid drinker" came from the Jim Jones deal down in Jonestown. Do you remember how all of his followers drank his toxic mixture of Kool-Aid and killed themselves on his request.
If you just blindly follow a party line (either party), you are a Kool-Aid drinker for that cause.
As-far-as Clinton's affairs all being of a consentual nature. Hardly. There were many women that claimed that was not the case, but, by far, the most convincing of them was a lady named Juanita Broaddrick. See the following:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/03/cov_03feature.html
"I disagree with you about what Clinton would have done after 9/11. I do think he would have gone after the overall terror problem as forcefully and successfully as Bush, including Saddam and Iraq. "
I don't think we disagree at all. Here's my words on that very subject:
"Would Clinton have done it as well? Judging by his previous military actions, I don't think so."
I think we are in complete agreement on this. We are also in complete agreement on the Al Gore issue. That man is a complete far-left lunatic and perhaps the worst loser of all time. Pitiful really. The man's been whining for 5 solid years now. Enough already! I have very little respect for him.
I wish the Democrats would put forth Joe Liberman as their candidate. He'd have my vote in a skinny second. They won't, of course, as they have become infected with Hillaryitis and they are about to get beat AGAIN! Besides, we are such a shallow society, we would never vote for a small, relatively unattractive man anyway. Talk about an indictment of our culture. There it is.
The Republicans will go the route of John McCain, Rudy and Conde. The handwriting is already on the wall. All of which will take Hillary down. I worked on McCain's last campaign, and I can tell you, though he's a wonderful man (great honor), I believe his personality to be flawed by a little too much "Napoleon Complex" and I will not support him this time around. That "flaw" scares me a bit in matters of world politics. That leaves me with Conde or Rudy. I love Rudy for his handling of 911 and admire him for it as well, but I'm not sure he has what it takes on the world stage. I could be wrong. Right now - I'm leaning toward Conde. And it's the Democrats fault for getting obsessed with Hillary. As if she's the best they have to put forward.
Geez!
Yes your article is biased, superficial, exaggerated and funny as hell. And therei is more than a grain of truth to it. Censorship is a real issue for the right these days albeit a fundamentally wasted effort. The part I find the funniest is that half of these people probably engage in the wildest sex fantasies you can imagine, they just know that being against sex is politically right and will get them elected.
I wasn't going to get involved in this...nobody is going to change anybody's mind here...this is just a slugfest, but the above comment almost made me tip over backwards in my chair. "AS WELL?" My God, Bush's conduct of this war is an unmitigated disaster. Clinton's efforts are dwarfed by the magnitude of the incompetence of these people. Anybody who can make a statement like that is not living in the present world. They are in some parallel universe...or on some really powerful illegal substance.
Bravo! You did a great job, and as always, you used humour quite effectively... You touched a few nerves out there :-)
I enjoyed reading the article Sandy. May not go along with the opinions, but it was fun to read. Even funnier is how such a simple, silly lil topic set off so much debate.
what's worse - i can only see them having sex with each other, because really - i respect women too much to consider anything else.
bohemian grove, anyone?
~~
"Well, you got a pretty face. You got a pretty face. You're a good-looking guy. Better looking than my Scott, anyway."
~~
this is strange...
~~
JEFF GANNON.
~~
;p
I already told you about the problems with dating a Republican!
hee hee hee hee
Gee, I don't know, Sandy, Laura Bush ain't bad.... (;^)=
And Sandy, I'm sick to death of all KINDS of people with unhealthy attitudes towards sex.
I agree about Hillary.
How refreshing.
This all find of reminds me of the old movie "No Sex Please, We're British" ... just substitute American for British.
Let's hope sanity prevails and one's sexuality is left unscathed by the fires of the extremists.
I still can't think of one I'd want anywhere near me.
Unfortunately, Sandy has already named the "least intelligent comment" of the day (another really laughable aphorism from the JJ ) or this one would have been a sure winner.
The hawks have determined that the dove will never fly again, that doves are in league with terrorists, that the nature of the dove is un-american, that doves may be cheated, disenfranchised, or ridiculed because God loves the Hawk.
The subject of the article is a very funny riff on the very real and very unfunny Republican attempt to use laws to regulate private, consensual sexual behavior.
That idiots like David L miss the point entirely and start broadcasting the usual Republican Noise (Hillary is the Demoicrats worst choice, Rudy "I married my cousin" Giuliani is a hero, that George Bush hasever done something decent and honorable toward people that disagree with his politics) indicates how clueless the right wingnuts are about the values of a majority of Americans.
Most Americans support access to abortion, realistic sex education, gay civil unions, domestic partnerships, and an end to the hyprocrisy of claiming political superiority because your sexual activity is performed out of sight in public restrooms.
Did you really write "If it's not the damn far right wing trying to tell people what to do in their bedrooms and how to morally live their lives" as I read? You've got to be kidding, it is always the far right who wants to police the bedrooms of America and define the "standards" by which Americans must live. There is no flexibility there.
I'll agree with you that GWB is probably not a "bad" person. Just one dedicated to the wrong cause instead of the cause of promoting America first and dictating to the rest of the world after we've achieved perfection.
As far as Clinton doing as well as Bush after 911, I don't think there is any doubt of his doing the job. However, he would have accomplished the action in Afghanistan quicker and would have wisely refrained from invading Iraq. Don't break it if you cant fix it!
It does seem like there has always been a Republican war on sex. Apparently, it is something they cannot control and therefore, don't want to see happen.
GWB is a man obsessed with the agenda he brought to office with him. Right or wrong makes no difference and neither does much of anything else. He is following the dictates of the PNAC almost 100% and regardless what happens he will not vary course one iota as he knows he is right on! When a Democratic congress was elected he stated that he could understand what people were saying and that we did have his attention. He was definitely going to make some changes. I said at the time that yes, he was going to quit saying "stay the course" and just do it instead. He's invested in the PNAC's war and won't change if hell freezes over!
Whether he is smart or dim means nothing as he has chosen to abdicate his own skills and knowledge, whatever they might be, for a pre chosen agenda to which he is committed. I just hope that his commitment doesn't include a war with Iran before the end of his term!
So true, James. Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
While I agree with you about appearances and political stance, I don't hear Miss Coulter here and her appearance has always have a certain air of the equine about it in my opinion. But everyone is different when it comes to taste in woman's appearance.
Although doves have a beautiful call, sometimes, when they see, what they percieve as an enemy, they are very aggresive, and fight to the death, while making a sound that would make the hair stand up on most hearers. It sounds like the phsyco, crazy laugh of an excited ax murderer.
Doves are so aggressive that when mating, they fight each other so hard, that one of them actually may die, in the process.
JEESH! The Dove of peace, my ass!
to say or talk about because it is not qualified and we do not
know what a good administration looks like in this country
anymore .... very few people still alive from the Roosevelt
administration which I consider the last, though I was not
there.
Defined by actually caring for and doing something about
the regular Americans, instead of building a huge house of
cards based on the godliness of the rich and how much they
give back to society.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with sex - I agree. But why should people be led by their genitalia into decision making processes.
Sex sells everything. And by sex, I mean women (and now men somewhat). We could get so many more views and comments if only we left a scantily dressed female photo for the animal brains to view and respond to.
I agree with most of what you say, but for me, I get so tired of seeing women used to sell everything from toilet paper to automobiles to the media.
If a product is good :: it should NOT need a SEX to sell it. And women should realize they are worth more than T&A.
Them's my thoughts. :-D
I want to discuss the nature of unattractiveness. We've all (those of us who leave our houses periodically anyway) known men or women without a single attractive feature who nonetheless are the sexiest thing since the pomegranate. Being sexy is not about appearance, it's not skin deep, it's a manifestation of who you are. Are you passionate? Creative? Self-confident? Capable of taking your mind off yourself for whole minutes at a time? Are you fundamentally honest? Because sex, real sex, not Barbie Doll sex is the most revealing act there is.
Bush isn't unattractive on the outside. He's unattractive on the inside. This is why he had to marry a Stepford wife just to keep his marriage together. (Divorce is bad politically...)
So when I gag over the thought of doing it with Bush or Rove or (god forbid the thought), Cheney, I'm gagging over being in a situation where I would be face-to-face with their essential nature. And that, I can't handle.
That's all for now, folks!
Lol. Sexy democrats!
Sandy. I love the way you think and express yourself.
Wilka
A person who preaches the "sins" of sex, usually has a warped outlook on sex and pleasure.. its been that way all thru history. There have even been studies done that reveal a conservative is 3 times more likely to have extramarital sex than liberals.
Its not just they are evil people.. its the mechanics of sexual hypocracy. They try to projecy such unatural attitudes toward sex.. that no matter what they do, they set themselves up for secret kinky lives and and getting caught!
When it comes to how a person lives there life....conservatives are used to hidding things... hence how they become the most intolerant people in the world. If they publicly condone something sexual, then they are afraid it will expose their inner warped sexual desires...