Just before the Republican National Convention came to town in 2004, New York newspapers were buzzing with rumors that the city’s high-priced prostitutes and strippers were gearing up for “one grand old party.” The reports quickly gained currency, for no one had problems imagining randy GOP types forking over $100 dollar bills in the dark of the night to be… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (85)Page 1 of 1 pagesOne of the first pinciples of writing is that the title should have something to do with the subject. Did this title belong on a different article?
Posted by scorp on Oct 28, 2005 at 9:14 AM Of course, we forgot to mention that staunchly raunchy bastion of Republican conservative thought that blatantely sells sex.
Yea, verily my children, I speak of Hollywood.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 28, 2005 at 9:20 AM America : Wake up and smell the Astroglide.
Would that have been a better title? More inclusive.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 28, 2005 at 2:30 PM One of the first pinciples of writing is that the title should have something to do with the subject. Did this title belong on a different article?
One of the first principles of commentary about writing is that it should have something to do with the subject of the writing. Your point Scorpy? If Scorpy can articulate this more clearly,..........no clues..........Rabbit will joyfully start posting his favorite sources which should help anybody join the dots.
Jay, before you jump in here comitting yourself to another untenable position, take a moment to check the lay of the land.
Scorpy, -------who is a Shill by all probability-----------is only trying to change the subject, did anyone notice that Scorpy hopped in here before he even had anything to say? He has essentially said, “quick, let’s talk about something else” or.,"look..... over here”.
Jay there are two viewpoints here and only two. Of course you could go the pointless path of denial, which is wasted, the news of the hookers’ involvment in the Repug shows is old hat and Rabbit for one has a few tidbits filed away, for reference. Now your comments are ambiguous, and you may be merely seeking attention, which is OK, so long as you don’t step in anything too early which we all may regret later. The subject of hypocrisy in politics is of itself not entirely partisan.
Except of course for the minor detail that Repugs think it is OK to poison Unborn Babies and make war for money but showing a girl’s tits in public is cause for national outcry. A president who get’s his knob polished by a willing young intern should be impeached........while a president who lies to start a war for his mates to make some big dollars, is actually above reproach................... because he talks to God.
Make your choice kids, because Rabbit is taking no prisoners, and he has as yet not even thought about his own response to this article. Jumping ahead to see if he was right about who would be first to post in response to this one. He was wrong by the order only of the first two. This is going to be a good one to share with WTH when he joins rabbit for Rabbit is confidant that WTH will be on the same side here, and this is said as a challenge to him top be otherwise. hah Hah......Clever Rabbit knows WTH will agree with Rabbit already and Rabbit does not even know what he is going to say about it.
Rabbit can talk to you like this,............Jay..............because he is a Rabbit, and you should listen up, for he is a fair Rabbit and will give you the next bite of any fruit found, and hold’s no grudges, for he takes no offence. Rabbit must do wrong to feel wrong and Rabbit tries his best. When Rabbit makes a mistake he is always proud of finding out about it. Mistakes are normal. Most Rabbits die of Mistakes. This Rabbit tries to get it right, before moving on to the next step.
Cautious Rabbit is wise............. don’t move till...........he’s opened his eyes.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 29, 2005 at 4:59 AM Wasn’t the sexual revolution a liberal revolution?
Is it a conservative agenda that has made sexuality a huge commerce in San Francisco?
I suppose i do agree that, in the end, our ability to do with our sexuality what we please (including buying and selling same) is a conservative leaning. But i would suggest it is more along the liberatrian path than the republican path. . .
Posted by wolf on Oct 29, 2005 at 10:28 AM Wolf, perhaps you should take off your Puritan Yankee blinders and have a look around the world before you go off making idiotic statements about sexual freedom (not to mention things like legal prostitution) being a conservative or libertarian phenomenon. Ever heard of Northern Europe???
Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on Oct 29, 2005 at 12:01 PM Taliban - liberal or conservative?
Burkas might make the lives of less pretty women more “fair” (why should the hotties be our standard?).
Still, i prefer freedom of choice. Even though it leads to such “unfairness”. Besides, a good DVD of Girls Gone Wild is a fun way to begin an evening!
(Me a puritan or leaning that way? How funny!!!)
Posted by wolf on Oct 29, 2005 at 12:23 PM I have no idea if you yourself are a puritan, wolf, but your country as a whole certainly is - not compared to Afghanistan, but compared to most of Western, Central and Northern Europe.
It would be taking us way off topic to go into all the prudery on the one hand and adolescent-type sexual hangups on the other so typical of American society.
A woman’s nipple on the screen at half-time during a sport telecast caused a national scandal. European reaction ranged from total disbelief to totally convulsive laughter.
(While, as Rabbit mentioned, US slaughter of hundreds of thousands of women and children has not caused a scandal - but that is a different topic entirely...)
Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on Oct 29, 2005 at 12:45 PM “One of the first principles of commentary about writing is that it should have something to do with the subject of the writing. Your point Scorpy? If Scorpy can articulate this more clearly,..........no clues..........Rabbit will joyfully start posting his favorite sources which should help anybody join the dots”
Rabbit, do you still expect Scorp to actually be on topic? That is a rarity when it happens. Somehow though I suspect he will mention that communists killed more people than fascists and that they sexually exploited more people.
Anarcho-Sozi, while I agree that parts of the U.S. has gotten completely out of control when it comes to dealing with sexuality, it is not fruitful to bash the U.S. as a whole on this account. Rather I think it points to one of the many divisions that exists in American society.
It does very often seem that there are two nations co-existing in one country. And one of them sounds like Scorp.
“I suppose i do agree that, in the end, our ability to do with our sexuality what we please (including buying and selling same) is a conservative leaning. But i would suggest it is more along the liberatrian path than the republican path. . . “
I think Wolf, that you are correct about this. It is very much in keeping with libertarianism that people should be free to do with their sexuality as they please.
Pornography and prostitution are one of those issues on which many liberals and conservatives agree although for different reasons. Liberals tend to see it as purely exploitative and immoral because of that. While conservatives find it immoral for religious reasons.
Posted by Neruda on Oct 29, 2005 at 3:22 PM “Rabbit, do you still expect Scorp to actually be on topic? That is a rarity when it happens. Somehow though I suspect he will mention that communists killed more people than fascists and that they sexually exploited more people.”
Neruda, that was a good one. Very witty. You should warn us next time because I nearly spat a mouthful of coffee all over the monitor. Thanks, best laugh all day, so far.
Neruda to AnarchoSozi : “it is not fruitful to bash the U.S. as a whole on this account”
Very true. I always try to remember to say mostly or <i> some <i>. I am certain that AnarchoSozi will agree with you too, ie. many/some but not all.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 29, 2005 at 3:56 PM I am a simple country boy. Traditional would be a good word to describe me.
I am dismayed and disgusted all day long when seeing the blatant sexuality and hypocrisy about sexuality. It is everywhere. Glorified or Denounced or Ignored.
The most natural thing we are has been reduced to :
A plastic blow up sex doll.
A plastic phallus with batteries.
A picture of flesh to be lusted after.
A piece of flesh to be bought and sold.
Perversions to be accepted as the way it is.
Very sad.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 29, 2005 at 3:58 PM The most natural thing we are has been reduced to :
A duty to be performed.
A delusion to be reenforced
A dereliction of duty for the results.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 29, 2005 at 4:18 PM David,
I promise to try to ease in the humor next time.
Nice list, good meter.
As to your point
The question is, do you want to make those expressions of sexuality more covert, more closeted, illegal? Or is it just an expression of personal belief?
Are all prostitutes or porn stars victims? Are women victimized by engaging in fantasies that involve porn imagery and play? For that matter are men?
What’s more do you believe that the quality of leader or public figure or anyone for that matter is anchored somehow in their choice to engage or not engage in any of these or other types of sexual conduct?
Posted by Neruda on Oct 29, 2005 at 4:40 PM An amusing tidbit. In Alabama, a law has been passed and upheld making the sale of sex toys illegal. Of course, viagra is available to whoever might need or desire it. . .
(Personally, i think vibrators scare some men. I prefer to sample the whole spectrum of what is available to us as sexual beings.)
I wonder. <i>Sexual perversion,/i>. Loaded phrase. Does it refer to gays, masturbators, exhibitionists, voyeurs? I find very little to put in such a category, probably only rapists and child molesters, certainly not anything done by consenting adults.
Posted by wolf on Oct 29, 2005 at 4:54 PM Neruda,
An “expression of personal belief” mostly........ People will do what they will but I find some/much of it plastic delusions of who we really are. A desire that people would maybe see past the plastic delusions .... and waxing poetic.
“victims?” ........ We all are.
“do you .. believe .. the quality of ... anyone ... is anchored somehow in their choice to engage or not engage in any of these or other types of sexual conduct?” .........No, not at all. We are all in the same boat. I find there are very few sins that others have committed that I have not committed in my own heart.
Go forth and pervert and/or delude your self no more. Yes?
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 29, 2005 at 5:04 PM Loaded phrase.
Yes sir. Point it where you will.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 29, 2005 at 5:11 PM And remember :
When you point at someone that three of your fingers point back at yourself.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 29, 2005 at 5:15 PM Okay, Neruda and David in Canada - I’ll grant you that gladly. I was not talking about individuals but about general tendencies in the society. Things like abstinence education in schools, censorship of sex in non-cable television, etc. Well, actually, other things as well - but that will suffice as examples.
(What the hell is wrong with vibrators, David??!)
Let’s get back to the message of the article.
Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on Oct 30, 2005 at 6:39 AM Message? What message? Since when has the message on any thread in this or any other site ever interfered with our constitutional right to ignore the message?
Conservatives love to justify the American occupation of the Middle East with fervent appeals to the modernizing influence of Western civilization, as if the slaughter of thousands of socially provincial Iraquis is an acceptable exchange for the abolition of the burkha. Of course, no one seems to recognize that pornography is the veil of Western civilization.
Or consider the family, that system of cultural (re)production which perpetuates those social norms which define the limits of our lives. According to the orthodox conservatives, men are the heads of their respective households, the people who provide the input to those who provide the output. Any attempt to interrupt (regulate) the output is a threat to those who provide the input. Hence, the people who provide the input are forced to find alternate sources of output to satisfy the demands of a system of production which requires an unrestrained, unlimited rate of reproduction, at least with respect to the input.
Gentlemen: it’s time re-calibrate our digital rigidometers…
Posted by Major Major on Oct 30, 2005 at 9:38 AM Anarcho-Sozi,
You are indeed correct regarding the importance of Puritan thought and deed in the history of America. But those early Americans abandoned the culture of Europe not because of sexuality, but over the lack of free exercise of religion. Old Europe would not allow dissentious sects to exists unmolested.
Even today, countries like France, in a secularist frenzy, forbids the public wearing of religious icons, no matter how small. God (or whomever) forbid, we should offend someone because we hold a particular belief.
The result of that emmigration was a shining city on the hill lighting the beacon of liberty. Without that, all of Europe would still be in the dark.
So, slur us with all the puritanical references you want. All you get from me is an Amen!, baby.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 30, 2005 at 10:26 AM “Where Paul’s book ends up reading as a wholesale attack on all pornography, Levy resurrects tired old stereotypes of sex workers as victims.”
Tired old stereotypes of sex workers as victims? Lakshmi’s self-contradictory ideas about empowered, happy whores comes from the same place men’s age-old stereotypes of hookers as the happiest women in Earth comes from.
In other words, the author herself has rejected the overwhelming gravity of reality www.prostitutionresearch.com for a bullshit commodified female sexuality that makes readers walk away knowing Lakshmi is one of the sexy, pro-ho feminists and not one of the baddie bad prude feminists like, oh I don’t know, maybe that dead boogeywoman Andrea?
Through her detailed criticism of prostituted sexuality in general but uneducated support of prostitutes and prostitution itself, Lakshmi shows us she mostly agrees with Ariel Levy but is still sexier than the 30-year-old hottie author because she thinks prostitutes are sexy free agents wielding their pussy power like a sword.
Being consistent with her point about the inherent unethical and anti-woman culture of prostituted sexuality was deemed less important than being seen as sexier than other women (Pamela, Ariel, Catherine and Andrea) even if it makes no sense in the context of the larger article to support prostitutes while decrying prostituted sexuality.
For a woman making the point that prostitution is more akin to conservativism than liberalism this “love the sinner hate the sin” attitude is intriguingly to see.
Posted by musing mama on Oct 30, 2005 at 10:55 AM Messages? Messages!
We don’t need no stinking messages.Just kidding!
But here is a wise message that is worthy of repetition :
“Conservatives love to justify the American occupation of the Middle East with fervent appeals to the modernizing influence of Western civilization, as if the slaughter of thousands of socially provincial Iraquis is an acceptable exchange for the abolition of the burkha. Of course, no one seems to recognize that pornography is the veil of Western civilization.
Major Major, thank you. I am still thinking about your input/ouput comment. Please feel free to elaborate, maybe with an example.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 30, 2005 at 11:09 AM If by the modernizing influence of Western civilization, one is referring to the principles of liberty and equality; if the slaughter of thousands of provincial Iraquis (sic), one is referring to the hundreds of thousands of those killed by Saddam, then you got my vote.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 30, 2005 at 1:24 PM Cline, I’m not surprised that you would correct my grammar with your typically academic reference to my deficient standards of composition; I am surprised that you failed to format the faus pas with blockquotes. Academics, as you ought to know, are the cultural clerics of the post-modern state, just as the politicians are its economic clerics. I really would rather avoid engaging you or any other political antagonist in another sterile debate over who bears the ultimate responsibility for the thousands of Iraqis slaughtered by Hussein, or his erstwhile realpolitik sponsors, except to add that Iraqi modernization was a foregone conclusion long before the US and the USSR decided to forestall the process with those serial interventions which describe cold war strategy throughout the Middle East (and the rest of the world, for that matter) during at least the last half century. Sans imperial intervention (of both the US and the USSR) the Middle East would have been well on its way as a modern, liberal democratic region, without the generous assistance of either party. Our combined interference in the process served only to restrain what should have been a local regional process and, not unintentionally, prevented the people of the Middle East from fully developing their own rival, regional economy, one which might have provided the US(SR) with an unacceptalbe degree of competition.
I might add, moreover, that the cold war was itself a modernizing process. These things tend to get kind of disorganized. The trick is to understand the process without losing your moral compass. Condemning the “other” side for the kinds of atrocities which we have and continue to commit is counter-productive, in that we assign to ourselves an undeserved status of moral superiority, one which blinds us to the consequences of a misguided foreign policy.
Posted by Major Major on Oct 30, 2005 at 2:31 PM I really would rather avoid engaging you or any other political antagonist in another sterile debate over who bears the ultimate responsibility for the thousands of Iraqis slaughtered by Hussein
Yeah, I believe you have just expressed a tautology.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 30, 2005 at 4:28 PM Yeah, yeah, yeah…
You forgot to highlight the word “sterile"…
Look, I’m a little rushed right now.
I’m trying to download scenes from a compressed reproduction of Ginger Lynn’s Greatest Hits off the Usenet, and my copy of WinRAR continues to inform me that one of the files is “corrupt”.
Oops.
The secret’s out.
I must be a closet Republican, after all…
Posted by Major Major on Oct 30, 2005 at 4:41 PM Major Major -
>> Conservatives love to justify the American occupation of the Middle East with fervent appeals to the modernizing influence of Western civilization, as if the slaughter of thousands of socially provincial Iraquis is an acceptable exchange for the abolition of the burkha. <<
At one time the USA had forces present, by invitation, in Saudi Arabia. Those forces have since departed. American Forces have been in Kuwait since the end of Gulf I, also by invitation. There is no documentation I can find that says anything like the motives you attribute to Conservatives concerning occupation of the area.
There are to two particular legal documents from the United States concerning our presence the Middle East, particularly Iraq:
1) The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 called for regime change In Iraq. The Act was approved unanimously by the US Senate, and with an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives. It was signed into law by President Clinton. Regime change in Iraq has been a matter of USA law since 1998.
2) The Iraq War Resolution of 2003 was passed by strong majorities in both houses, and signed into law by President Bush.
Neither the Iraq Liberation Act nor the Iraq War Resolution makes any reference whatsoever to “justify the American occupation of the Middle East” or to “the modernizing influence of Western civilization”. Nor can I find any record that Conservatives have taken the positions you attribute to them.
I think you are just shooting off your mouth, as Liberals are wont to do, but if you can find a legitimate quote from a Conservative source justifying your comments, I will apologize to you.
Otherwise, quit talking nonsense.
Posted by scorp on Oct 30, 2005 at 5:16 PM It’s “germane” to the theme of this thread, but never mind…
What exactly is your point, other than your aversion to my presumably abject ignorance of the basic principles of logic? I’ve provided you with a veritable cornucopia of points, and your best response is that I’ve “just expressed a tautology”?
At this rate, you may well become regarded as the foremost exponent of the Post-Expressionist School of “Pointlessism”.
Posted by Major Major on Oct 30, 2005 at 5:25 PM My point to this thread was revealed at the outset
Of course, we forgot to mention that staunchly raunchy bastion of Republican conservative thought that blatantely sells sex.
Yea, verily my children, I speak of Hollywood.
How that relates to Iraq, you’ll have to explain to me.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 30, 2005 at 5:42 PM Scorpio, you’ve completely misunderstood the “point” of the post. The United States and the Soviet Union have constantly interfered in the affairs of the Middle East, to the extent that any possibility of a liberal democratic society has been buried beneath the detritus of an American coup and a Soviet counter-coup, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. The people who might have created a liberal or socialist democracy have been liquidated by one side or the other, leaving a surviving leadership of populist fundamentalist fanatics whose solitary political recourse is to wage a regressive “plague on both your houses” campaign of religious extremism to drive out the “infidels” who occupy their territory and appropriate their resources.
The two principal factors responsible for the successful formation of a liberal democratic state are a rising rate of literacy and a falling birthrate, which promote the creation of an administrative middle class and an educated working class labor force, which promote the principles of social tolerance required to establish a liberal democracy. The presence of an American occupying force will only exacerbate the fundamentalist tendancies of popular resistance to foreign occupation and exploitation.
The sensible solution to the debacle in the Middle East is withdrawal from the Middle East.
Posted by Major Major on Oct 30, 2005 at 6:10 PM By the way, you’re confusing “liberal democracy” with the principal political factions who constitute the institution, the “liberals” and the “conservatives”. We’re all “part of the same device”, and that includes the fascists and the communists.
Posted by Major Major on Oct 30, 2005 at 6:22 PM Rabbit feels an assumption is passing unnoticed, and so jumps down the line to post.
Conservatives love to justify the American occupation of the Middle East with fervent appeals to the modernizing influence of Western civilization, as if the slaughter of thousands of socially provincial Iraquis is an acceptable exchange for the abolition of the burkha
Of course others had said something similar and Rabbit knows that it is not meant to carry the assumption, but .................remind ourselves that the Burkha was not worn in Iraq, prior to the invasion. Iraq was the most secular country in the Middle East and they actively resisted Sharia law. Now the government which has been Installed by the “Freedom and democracy.......crusaders”, the Burkha must be worn by all Iraq women and they cannot go anywhere without a male shaperone. Several Iraqi girls have been stoned and beaten severely for having their face uncovered or for talking in the grounds of the university with male friends.
The Conservatives, our very own Fundamentalists, have directly brought the Most conservative face of Muslim to power.. now it is off subject a bit, but can anybody explain how Iraq can be a step forward in fredom for women and religious moderacy?
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 30, 2005 at 6:28 PM Jay Cline says
Even today, countries like France, in a secularist frenzy, forbids the public wearing of religious icons, no matter how small.
Rubbish Jay. France banned the wearing of religious icons in Schools, and it was done as a reaction to the Anti-Muslim senmtiment being stirred up by America on behalf of Israel. It was done as an attempt at diffusing a situation which for them is potentially serious. They have as a consequence of National tolerance, a very much larger Muslim religious community and the potential for things to get serious, based on small misunderstandings. What they are doing is banning Overtly Religous expression in the school yard. A hard decision and Rabbit does not agree with it, but it is not what you think, nothing is.
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 30, 2005 at 6:34 PM America in a religious frenzy is introducing Creationism into a scientific curricular. Have you any clue how bizzare that seems? That is coming from a Rabbit who has reservations about the evolution of Man from Apes too.
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 30, 2005 at 6:36 PM If by the modernizing influence of Western civilization, one is referring to the principles of liberty and equality; if the slaughter of thousands of provincial Iraquis (sic), one is referring to the hundreds of thousands of those killed by Saddam, then you got my vote.
I think we got sidetracked by your reflexive objections to my comparison between the burkha and the pornographic veil.
Posted by Major Major on Oct 30, 2005 at 6:43 PM Major Major You have laboured hard in the field of ignorance, Rabbit is sad to see you had to put up with the two biggest Idiots on this site, without support. Scorpy and Jay are as ignorant as rocks and any time you feel like ignoring them it is no less than they do themselves to many issues and the people who raise them. Jay can go on for pages just running around in smaller and smaller semantic circles auntil he goes POP and dissapears up his own hole.
Scorpy is as arrogant as a pile of Elephant Dung in the middle of the Path, and with as much justification.
Rabbit enjoys wacking them both and everybody should feel free to wack them, for that is their purpose. But never feel obligated to wack them if tired or busy, they are going no-where and somebody will be along shortly to pick up the stick.
Neither of them have ever provided any serious discussion with facts and opinions separated and dealt with in correct order, and with reference if asked. Nor do they mostly read any reference given them. There is no evidence that Scorpy ever even reads most posts, and Jay who may, prefers to run away.
<i>What did you think they were here to educate us or something?
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 30, 2005 at 6:50 PM “You are indeed correct regarding the importance of Puritan thought and deed in the history of America. But those early Americans abandoned the culture of Europe not because of sexuality, but over the lack of free exercise of religion. Old Europe would not allow dissentious sects to exists unmolested.”
Jay let’s not forget that the Puritans were fundamentalists who wanted not only the right ot practice their religion as they saw fit but also the right to enforce their form of religious observation on all. For an example of much more tolerant and truly democratic colonists you need to go further south to where the Quackers settled.
Major Major,
Kudos for your patience and eloquence. Do not be discouraged if Scorp fails to respond to your reasoning. Scorp just fails to respond to reason in general. Jay just doesn’t question the party line enough. At least he tends to stay on topic.“America in a religious frenzy is introducing Creationism into a scientific curricular. Have you any clue how bizzare that seems? That is coming from a Rabbit who has reservations about the evolution of Man from Apes too.”
Rabbit, are you surprised? Many of us in the U.S. mourn for the children who will be placed at a disadvantage in the world through the active perpetuation of ignorance on behalf of their parents and educators.
As to your reservations about descending from apes, evolution does not quite posit that now does it? Although I am certain you know better, I urge you not to encourage the craziness.
Posted by Neruda on Oct 30, 2005 at 7:15 PM I think the “Quackers” would take serious exception to your inadvertant misrepresentation of their religious beliefs.
Posted by Major Major on Oct 30, 2005 at 7:51 PM Neruda,
You are right. But I haven’t forgotten. We have come a long way since then, haven’t we?
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 30, 2005 at 8:29 PM I think we got sidetracked by your reflexive objections to my comparison between the burkha and the pornographic veil.
Actually, it was my reflexive reaction to the dragging of international anti-imperilist comparsions into a discussion on domestic sexual mores,
Conservatives love to justify the American occupation of the Middle East with fervent appeals to the modernizing influence of Western civilization
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 30, 2005 at 8:33 PM France banned the wearing of religious icons in Schools
I stand corrected. Yet the argument remains intact.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 30, 2005 at 8:37 PM Cline, your previous post quotes me twice and yet once again in your garbled response to the first quote. In fact, you employ this forensic tactic with such a boring regularity that I’m inclined to conclude that you’re incapable of expressing yourself in any other manner, as if you lack the confidence to state your own opinion in your own words.
Posted by Major Major on Oct 30, 2005 at 9:27 PM Quite so on that it is an equivelant correction to one Rabbit made earlier and deserves recognition. Rabbit said no more for the sake of brevity. The theory of Evolution of the Species by Natural Selection definately doesn’t posit that Humans necessarily descended directly or at all from apes. Rabbit’s problem when he studied biology was that the theory of evolution of man via apes is taught as a given example, when it actually doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Not that this in itself affects the theory of Natural selection, which Rabbit would posit deserves to be called the Fact of Natural Selection. The theory of evolution of Man from apes, is thus accurate
Jay is caught between a natural urge to cut and run before his belief system comes into serious conflict with too much truth, and staying because he is clearly intelligent enough to respond to the call of intelligent reasoning. He cannot name it yet, what exactly this feeling of “need” is in him, but he is expressing it clearly enough for those who have eyes that see.
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 30, 2005 at 10:47 PM Sorry, silly Rabbit meant first paragraph to Neruda, obviously.
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 30, 2005 at 10:50 PM JAY
I stand corrected. Yet the argument remains intact.
You have long since ceased to stand, but you have been corrected, overall.
Whatever the argument with you actually is, Rabbit seriously doubts it to be intact from your side. Your perspective may be so slanted, that you fail to notice, but the argument, whatever it is with you, is intact from the point of view of anybody but you.
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 30, 2005 at 10:56 PM The theory of evolution of Man from apes, is thus accurate in that it is a theory only, and not a very good one.
Better?
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 30, 2005 at 11:02 PM The Creation story is by contrast, a Fairy Story, or Myth.
If it deserves to be taught anywhere it is in context in a sociology class.
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 30, 2005 at 11:04 PM Rabbit,
We are, not surpisingly, in agreement now about natural selection, man from apes and the place of creation myths.
How could it be otherwise when guided by facts, science, and reason.
Posted by Neruda on Oct 30, 2005 at 11:16 PM “You are right. But I haven’t forgotten. We have come a long way since then, haven’t we?”
Jay. You are right that we have come a long way.
But would you agree that we have miles to go? In particular, given the crusade to impose christian fundamentalist morality as the law of the land in the U.S.
Posted by Neruda on Oct 30, 2005 at 11:22 PM Sky God says faith is more important than reason. Truth is what the Sky God says it is. The Sky God has spokesmen. GWB is one of the Sky God’s spokesmen.
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 31, 2005 at 3:42 AM Neruda,
Yeah, that is why I call myself progressive. I don’t believe in utopias, Shangri-Las or falls from grace. Churchill said it best,
Democracy is the worst form of governance, except for all that we have tried so far.
The only real dispute I have with contemporary progressives is that the solutions go too far, tearing everything down.
I’d rather save the baby and get new bath water.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 6:02 AM Rabbit and Major,
ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem ...
ad nauseum.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 6:04 AM I should apologize to Rabbit and Major and GrayArea (forgot to include him previously, but I won’t leave him out on my blanket apology).
I didn’t realize they valued my opinions so much…
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 6:24 AM There are some groups in this country that don’t buy into “smut culture” nor react shriekingly to it, most notably blacks and Hispanics. I’m not saying that neither group ever objectifies or represses women, but the ideals of female beauty and attitudes towards sexuality in both groups are affected little by the mainstream/white /commercial culture. It’s one of the joys I got from growing up in the ghetto.
Posted by jsquire on Oct 31, 2005 at 12:19 PM Democracy is the worst form of governance, except for all that we have tried so far.
Jay don’t you have any other quotes from Churchill? We’ve had this one a few times before, and it isn’t even a particularly profound one, if truth be told.
Please not Rudyard Kipling either. The poem IF is almost certainly a favorite of yours, despite the fact you certainly cannot measure up to much by it’s fine yet simple standard. The thing is Jay, one has to have LIVED, and have had a life, rich and varied, adventures and so much more, to comprehend Kipling’s, IF, or even such semi-sensible words as those uttered by Churchill, who was as said before no more good than he was bad, no more wise than he was stupid and no more wise than any privelaged son.
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 31, 2005 at 10:09 PM Jay despite the fact that you have been a major pain in the butt, you are a pompous little empty headed corker, you have nothing to apologise to anyone here for. We are not affected or particularly interested in you, and heaven alone knows why David is, he is curious that is all, but you have never actually made an insulting attempt at wit which has amounted to anything and your “Imagined” ideas, are such old hat and laughable to intelligent and informed people such as us, that we don’t even take you seriously. we can see what you are. You are as naked in your ignorance as you are transparent in your egoism, and the tragedy is only atht your ego cannot stay around such as us without being deflated on a very regular basis. You are technically a Moron, though a tiny bit interesting only because you have a brain. You don’t use it, and have no idea what the rest of us are talking about most of the time, and unlike fo0r example SAcorpy you are not even prepared to put out a strong and relevant opinion about anything. Your copying of what is no doubt devastating repartees you have faced, is of no value here because none of your bleatings finds a mark among us. Jay Rabbit, is sorry to inform you, but you have become the lowest common denominator. You are not even worth debating with to use as a foil to get the facts out there. You are so determined to stay in the safe country of discussing the curtains the weather and quoting the one Churchill quote. We don’t even respect Churchill around here. How about you toddle off top some conservative wank fest where they all get erections just hearing Churchill’s name or Rudyard Kipling’s. BTW no Rabbit hasn’t looked at your blog despite someone asking him to several times, that someone also thinks it is a circle jerk, so that someone can just stop bothering Rabbit with asking him to look.
Rabbit has seen as much of Jay as there is to see, an empty vessel as we all can agree. Why would a Rabbit want to hear more of this? It is as much as he can do to put up with him here.
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 31, 2005 at 10:21 PM jsquire
Your contribution is very interesting and Rabbit knows the smart ones on this site will get it, thank you. That is an interesting fact and relevant. Rabbit will enjoy discussing it with others but for now will use the comparison to point out that this tiny little piece of anecdotal information is worth everything Jay has said since he came inot our lives. Not the combined total of all that JAY has said could be of as much interest and importance, modest though it is, of Jsquire’s poignant remark.
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 31, 2005 at 10:28 PM Yeah - thanks jsquire. Back to the topic.
I grew up on a small family farm.
One of the joys I got from growing up on a farm was that from a very young age I saw the sex culture of animals acted out on a daily basis. To me, then, it was what animals, and people too, did when they wanted to have babies.
I got bussed into school in the city and I knew more about sex than the city kids did.
I am grown now and have experienced much ... but am still amazed at how some people have taken such an simple and natural thing and made it so complicated, controversial and ... dare I say it ... unnatural ... and now ... as this article would have it, political too. I think it is none of these.
Just sharing.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 1, 2005 at 12:22 AM “To me, then, it was what animals, and people too, did when they wanted to have babies.”
I don’t think most animals have the connection between sex and reproduction you ascibe to them. Furthermore, i don’t know how old you are or what your social situation is, but for this father of four who has been made vasectomy safe, sex has nothing to do with reproduction for me anymore.
Just sharing.
Posted by wolf on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:50 AM Wolf
I was relating my experience and the understanding I had when I was a child. Sorry for the confusion. My understanding today is somewhat different.
Please explain what you mean when you say :
I don’t think most animals have the connection between sex and reproduction you ascibe to them.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 1, 2005 at 11:46 AM Animals mate out of instinct. They do not possess the ability to forecast the future. That is, they have no conception (pun!) that sex leads to offspring.
I am not sure what you are asking - it seems rather obvious to me, but maybe i am missing something?
Posted by wolf on Nov 1, 2005 at 11:57 AM Nice pun, Wolf.
Animals mate from instinct yes. Not sure if they have the conception of sex leading to offspring or not. Birds protect their eggs before they hatch. Instinctive forecasting of the future? A topic for another day.
Some people seem to have forgotten that sex leads to offspring. Or maybe they are just woefully irresponsible.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:31 PM Yes and you know what Wolf, Rabbit is sure that animals screw for pleasure too.
Our Dwarf Rabbit (one third the cat’s size) wouldn’t mind getting a leg over the cat if she’d be in it, but since she has killed hundreds of full grown Rabbits in her days on the farm, she just barely tolerates his presence as it is.
Dogs often hump each other as a friendly gesture and so do a lot of other animals. Not that this Rabbit is necessarily saying this is all a good idea, but there is no reason to see sex as inately bad or sinful.
Clinton was no better or worse in my books for getting a polish from a willing intern. Lying about it once caught though was low. Rabbit was having to face a similar situation at exactly the same time, and hard as it was, admitted it and took his medicine.
David, Many Animals are aware that their efforts under the leaves will produce offspring. Witness the many birds and other creatures who begin preparing a nest or home for a family which is soon to be concieved. The males of many creatures are inclined to piss of as soon as the babies are born but at least as many more stick around and see the job through. The various forms of social arrangements made by the species, including us, is primarily designed for the raising and protection of the young. Monogamy is no more successful than various forms of plural relationships around the world in this regard either by the way.
The Australian Emu is an exception worth mentioning for fun. Emus get together until mum lays the eggs, after which she is gone, out of there. The Male Emu stays to mind the nest and hatch the eggs. Once the eggs are hatched, the baby Emus follow their Dad around for months, often years and he teaches them the basics of Emu life.
Emus are not exactly the smartest birds alive and often get lost as it happens. There will usually be another mob of Emus along, following another Dad and he will readily accept the new chick into his flock of chicks. Rabbit once saw 27 young Emus running after one poor old Dad Emu.
Lady Emus must be one heck of a lay to be worth all that.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 1, 2005 at 6:29 PM I am inclined to agree that animals do share some of our human characteristics too.
Bonobo chimpanzees do it for fun and dolphins too. Or at least they seem to. I think it is possible that animals know that when they have sex they will soon have babies. My dog knows when I plan on taking her for a walk even before I tell her we are going for a walk. Still trying to figure out how she knows.
Dr. Dolittle where are you ?
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 1, 2005 at 7:42 PM Dolphins engage in gang rape, the bad things.
Rabbit is a kind of Dr Doolittle Curious Dave.
Rabbit’s Wonky computer is doing a crash and burn and it will be shut down pending a replacement. Back soon.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 2, 2005 at 3:27 AM Hmmm…
Maybe it is time to liberate the dolphins (do we know if they are forced to wear burhkas” I am pretty sure they are!)? I will look into sending Condi to the UN to gain the (ha ha ha) required approval, then we will send in the troops.
We will exterminate them if needed, in order to free them. . .
Posted by wolf on Nov 2, 2005 at 1:41 PM If Iraq is any example, the Dolphins whom I have it on good authority are secular, will be wearing Burkhas After they have been Liberated, and the sharks given power over them.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 3, 2005 at 9:28 PM This is said just in case anybody actually believes women had to wear Burkhas or comform to any part of Sharia Law before they were Liberated as it is euphemistically called.
Now back on topic, if anybody is still about.
Libby is in the news and Libby is another pervert from the look of it.
Beastmen.................LaRouche calls them Beastmen............and they are.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 3, 2005 at 9:35 PM “Where a porn actress, stripper or prostitute imitates sexual acquiescence in exchange for a man’s money, the pornified woman exchanges real sexual submission in hope of his approval. There are no prizes for guessing which woman has less power of the two.”
While the last sentence is entirely true, the premise upon which it is based - that sex workers imitate sexual acquiescence is false. Most strippers and prostitutes relate to their clients in a dominant fashion. Acquiescence is the domain of our clients.
You can read all about it in Chapters 2, 5, 13 and 23 of my book (Sex Secrets of Escorts). Presuming any of you actually have some interest in hearing about raunch, Republicans and sex from someone intimately involved, that is.
Posted by VeronicaMonet on Nov 9, 2005 at 3:31 AM Heh Veronica Rabbit is delighted to make your aquaintance..................... Sidles up to the lady looking up with his inscrutable Rabbit eyes.......................................................^^................... ..........................................
Please tell more, for Rabbit is interested in excatly what you mean, he is not going to hop off and buy a book, he is a poor rabbit, on that little info. Dost thou mean the repugs have a need to be dominated? Surely you do not mean most strippers and prostitutes are relating to most men like this?
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 9, 2005 at 3:58 AM Delores French was once quoted as saying that she had worked many Republican and Democratic conventions over the years and found that the Democrats were not very good customers because they were too busy having sex with each other. However, she made lots of money off the Republicans and almost all of them were cross-dressers. She can’t watch CSPAN now, without laughing because she knows what kind of underwear they have under those suits.
Yes I am saying that most strippers and most prostitutes dominate their customers. How would I know? 14 years in “the life” and 15 years in the sex worker rights movement.
Posted by VeronicaMonet on Nov 9, 2005 at 3:00 PM Rabbit has lived among the heathen, the pirates, the whores and the smugglers. He has heard this pattern if not about American Repugs, then about their nearest cousins among OZ and Europe. The Conservatives, whatever they want to call themselves.
So you are not surprising him about these people. Rabbit is quite democratic about who he humps, so long as She is cool about it. Never could seriously dominate a woman physically they are too nice on average, but being dominated by a woman is not on the cards. She can ride on top for all she wants but Rabbit has his preffered method of delivery ............in the end.
Pun intended.
Rude Rabbit.........................................^^............................... ..........
The conservatives are rather partial to child, apparantly on average are they not, and Libby has even more exotic tastes. Rabbit thinking of Hunter S Thompson and Johnny Gosch stories.
Admittedly it is only a book with Libby.......... isn’t it?
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 10, 2005 at 3:44 AM She don’t need us Dave. Rabbit admits the transparency that time............................................................................ ...........^^................................................................... ..........
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 11, 2005 at 3:51 AM Dave with 14 years as a sex worker, the Babe knows as much as she needs to to know, she doesn’t need us.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 11, 2005 at 10:53 PM Bad Rabbit playtime, while nobody is about, Rabbit comes out and pokes electrons about.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 13, 2005 at 8:51 PM nice poem Rabbit.
here is mine ...
out and about
electrons poutin and out
gremlins rout... apologies to poets everywhere and ITT for wasting their electrons.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 14, 2005 at 10:52 PM -In effect, the logic of the raunch culture is eerily similar to that Christian ideal of femininity, the Surrendered Wife. Both preach empowerment through acquiescence, promising greater happiness through the fulfillment of archetypal female roles. Bush World offers women only two choices: repression or commodification.-
Best paragraph! That is the crunch!!
Posted by Liz on Nov 16, 2005 at 2:28 PM Hey DAVID… just as a matter of interest… with your talk about the dog forecasting walks ‘n’ all… have you heard of the work of the British biologist Rupert Sheldrake?!!
On psychic dogs, parrots, and other subjects??
Have you visited his website - great website!!
http://www.sheldrake.org/
Everybody go along there now!!
Posted by Liz on Nov 16, 2005 at 2:41 PM Thanks Liz ... I had not but I have now ... thanks to you.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 16, 2005 at 4:24 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Lakshmi Chaudhry
- The Godless Fundamentalist
In The Root of All Evil, biologist Richard Dawkins reveals his own lust for certainty - The Power of Mean
Fuller argues that the moral power of Rankism = that everyone experiences being a somebody and a nobody - can overcome the innate force of bullying? - Why Pakistan Gets A Nuclear Pass
The Bush administration's pragmatic policy toward Pakistan suggests its foreign policy is less ideological than imperial - The True Temptations of the West
Temptations of the West: How to be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet and Beyond is a travelogue by Pankaj Mishra about the shadow of poverty in South Asia. - Why Hemingway Is Chick-Lit
Women read more fiction than men. - What Not to Watch
Makeover shows like "What Not to Wear" teach women to listen to their inner demons
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
