Your Political Affiliation

[BogartSlap]

to bisex

"Originally Posted by bisexplicit
Part of my curiousity regarding this subject matter was my tendency to run into doms who were conservative. I am rabidly liberal.."

Oh, tell the truth - you're not rabidly liberal...you're just rabid.

I think your theory is probably for the most part correct. Liberals generally, for lack of a better way to put, lack the balls to be good Dom material. Of course, that's not universally true, but what is, other than the statement, "Bunnies are cuter than armadillos"?

 

[Netzach]

A lot of the ballsiest people I know of are left. Howard Zinn isn't some armchair pilot.

 

[JazzManJim]

Sexual freedom is *not* a conservative cause in this country. And those who ID as primarily conservative can write long-winded posts from now 'till next Christmas, but it won't change that fact.

Not does calling something a fact make it one.

Conservatives have no problem with "sexual freedom". They do have a problem with freedom divorced from responsibility. They also believe that we, as a society, have an obligation to use the intelligence we are given to decide what behaviors tend to strengthen and build up a society and which ones corrode them. They use the words "conservative" because they seek to conserve the things that have worked or hundreds or thousands of years.

 

[Netzach]

Not does calling something a fact make it one.

Conservatives have no problem with "sexual freedom". They do have a problem with freedom divorced from responsibility.

Well, seeing as marriage for love and not property is a fairly new invention, maybe we should go back to that model...hook up, stay miserable, and keep the farm no matter what.

As for phrases like "corrosion of the society" ...sounds eerily redolent of early midcentury Europe. And I don't mean Denmark.

 

[BogartSlap]

reply

A lot of the ballsiest people I know of are left.

Again, this is generalizing, but...not usually in person. Liberals predominate in the "sensitive man"/"equal partners in a relationship" segment of the male population.

 

[BogartSlap]

fantasy history

Well, seeing as marriage for love and not property is a fairly new invention, maybe we should go back to that model...hook up, stay miserable, and keep the farm no matter what.

Oh, for God's sake, what pile of claptrap did you read THAT in? Marriage for love a fairly "new invention"? Do you seriously believe that garbage? Only a very, very, VERY limited slice of the world's population (like, the .00000001 per cent that belonged to royalty and the nobility, and actually had any money to speak of) ever even had the luxury, much less the inclination, of linking marriages with property. People as a whole have been marrying for love ever since, well, ever since there's been love and marriage.
What an incredibly mistaken and egocentric view of human history: "Oh, all those poor, stupid people who lived before MEMEMEMEMEME were doomed to 'stay miserable', because they never had any of the wonderfully enlightened ideas that were just recently 'invented' by MYMYMY generation."

 

[JMohegan]

Conservatives have no problem with "sexual freedom". They do have a problem with freedom divorced from responsibility. They also believe that we, as a society, have an obligation to use the intelligence we are given to decide what behaviors tend to strengthen and build up a society and which ones corrode them. They use the words "conservative" because they seek to conserve the things that have worked or hundreds or thousands of years.

Let's hear from a politician who IDs as socially conservative. Congressman Mark Souder, Republican member of the House, answering questions in an interview from April 2004.......


Q: You use the words "radical and liberal." People probably use the words "radical and conservative" about you, right?

A: Um-hm. I would define myself as an ultra-conservative.

Q: A radical conservative?

A: "Radical" might be a little hard. "Ultra" would be ... on social issues, I'm very conservative; on some other issues, I'm moderate.

Q: On social issues, do you think our country is in peril?

A: Yeah. I'm not a pessimist, however, and I'm not one of those people who believe we've fallen from this wonderful Christian pedestal, where everybody who came first to America was a Christian and everything was just jim-dandy at the beginning, and now we've just fallen off the wagon; the spiritual country has become this terrible place. The truth is we were a mixed bag from the beginning. If you look at the settlement of the West, there were more bars and whorehouses than there were churches. The churches came in later. We were a mixed country. We were not a Christian nation; we were a nation founded [on] Judeo-Christian principles and the remnants of Christian civilization, with many Christians in it. I would even go so far to argue that from a conservative Christian perspective, there may be more conservative, Bible-believing, Bible-practicing, multi-times-a-week people in churches now than there were at the founding of the republic. It isn't impressive to me that a third of the Founders went to a Bible college; that's all there was. There are people now who go to Bible colleges out of choice, when most people are going to secular colleges. And they're in Congress and they're in key positions, such as our Speaker [of the House, Dennis Hastert]. Now, with that perspective, I still feel that we've gone in waves. We had the [George] Whitefield revival at the time of the American Revolution. We had revival periods in the United States. And now we're in a trough. We need to have a revival in America or, if you continue to sink, we will go to the dustbin of history.

Q: Would you look at gay marriage as "continuing to sink"?

A: I believe that the fundamental change in America was the legalization of abortion, because I think it demeaned, at the beginning of life, the creation of life. And from the demeaning process, we're now struggling with the end of life, with how we should micro-manage that because we lost the definition at the very beginning. In Chuck Colson's HOW NOW SHALL WE LIVE? book terms, you can't save somebody if they don't understand that they're fallen. And you can't be convinced you're fallen unless there was a Designer. And when we lost the principle that there was a Designer, [got the idea] that we're random amoeba, then all of a sudden the questions of abortion, of euthanasia, of stem cells -- the creation of life changed. And then the question of homosexuality merely becomes a gene question -- What's your tendency? -- and not a creation question. And that is a fundamental difference in perspective that's very difficult to [bridge] in our society. I believe people can have a propensity to alcoholism. I believe they can have a propensity to look at pornography on [the] Internet. I believe they can have a propensity to be homosexual. But I believe that it's wrong and it's controllable. That is a fundamental, biblically based view that doesn't leave a lot of room or comfortability in a society where they don't want you to have absolutes.

Source: here.

That doesn't sound like a push for "freedom with responsibility" to me. That sounds like homophobic bullshit.

But Souder isn't the only politician in this country who IDs as socially conservative. I would be sincerely delighted to see a quote from a socially conservative politician who supports the right of "responsible" members of the GLBT community to get married, adopt children, serve openly in the military, etc. Can you show me one?

 

[Tuomas]

Ok, where does a "neoliberal conservative radical capitalist liberal monarchist anarchist fascist" fit into all this? (Labels my political sentiments have been given by a very diverse group of people.)

Establishing a corelation between liberal, conservatives, doms and subs is very interesting, but hardly conclusive in any way. Remember, BDSM represents a very, very, very small portion of the US -let alone the world.

However, being dominant requires a lot of repsonsability; personally and socially. It will be hard for anyone who eschews responsability on any level to be a good dominant. Ergo, anyone who adheres to a political philosophy that seems widely pandered by the United States of America's Democratic Party (so there is no confusion who I am talking about) involving a lack of social, national and personal responsability, will not make a good dom(me).

 

[BogartSlap]

precise placement

Ok, where does a "neoliberal conservative radical capitalist liberal monarchist anarchist fascist" fit into all this?

That would be Seat 17, row 12.

P.S. I know what you mean about labelling by friends. This is off the track of politics, but...I've always gotten a kick out of the fact that many of my Christian friends think I'm an unrepentant "heretic" - while about the same percentage my Buddhist friends think I'm a hopelessly "fundamentalist Christian". And likewise, self-styled conservatives often dismiss me as a "bleeding heart liberal" - while liberals fear me to be a "right wing reactionary". What can I say? - I practice "equal opportunity" in pissing people off.

 

[Netzach]

Oh, for God's sake, what pile of claptrap did you read THAT in? Marriage for love a fairly "new invention"? Do you seriously believe that garbage? Only a very, very, VERY limited slice of the world's population (like, the .00000001 per cent that belonged to royalty and the nobility, and actually had any money to speak of) ever even had the luxury, much less the inclination, of linking marriages with property. People as a whole have been marrying for love ever since, well, ever since there's been love and marriage.
What an incredibly mistaken and egocentric view of human history: "Oh, all those poor, stupid people who lived before MEMEMEMEMEME were doomed to 'stay miserable', because they never had any of the wonderfully enlightened ideas that were just recently 'invented' by MYMYMY generation."

Considering that my grandparents were hooked up by other people in the 40's I might actually not be talking out my ass. It's a fine working class tradition. You don't need palaces for people to think about their stuff. Not everyone comes from Western Europe even today.

And I'm at a loss as to what the fuck my marrying a woman, a horse or an armchair does to YOU.

 

[BogartSlap]

smell the coffee

I believe people can have a propensity to alcoholism. I believe they can have a propensity to look at pornography on [the] Internet. I believe they can have a propensity to be homosexual. But I believe that it's wrong and it's controllable. That is a fundamental, biblically based view that doesn't leave a lot of room or comfortability in a society where they don't want you to have absolutes.[/I]
Source: here.
That doesn't sound like a push for "freedom with responsibility" to me. That sounds like homophobic bullshit.

Whether you agree or disagree with the guy (and I choose to do neither here), "freedom with responsibility" is PRECISELY what he's talking about - he's saying that regardless of whatever behavioral "propensities" we may have, we retain the FREEDOM to RESPONSIBLY choose whether or not to engage in those behaviors.
P.S. Suggest you consider dropping the term "homophobic" from your vocabulary - it's a nonsensical, and usually very inaccurate, word. People who are generally accused of being "homophobic" don't fear homosexuals in any way similar to the way "claustrophobic" people fear being in small, enclosed places. To attempt to dismiss the opinions of people who are morally or socially opposed to the practice of homosexuality as invalid by simply labelling them "homophobic", now THAT's 'bullshit'.

 

[Netzach]

Again, this is generalizing, but...not usually in person. Liberals predominate in the "sensitive man"/"equal partners in a relationship" segment of the male population.

And you are basing this on...?

Not everyone's public and private life have to line up. And most men liberal conservative or otherwise are complete hypocrites when it comes to actual parity. I've found about a 50 50 split among conservative and liberal men who actually took an interest in my well being beyond my tits.

 

[Netzach]

Whether you agree or disagree with the guy (and I choose to do neither here), "freedom with responsibility" is PRECISELY what he's talking about - he's saying that regardless of whatever behavioral "propensities" we may have, we retain the FREEDOM to RESPONSIBLY choose whether or not to engage in those behaviors.
P.S. Suggest you consider dropping the term "homophobic" from your vocabulary - it's a nonsensical, and usually very inaccurate, word. People who are generally accused of being "homophobic" don't fear homosexuals in any way similar to the way "claustrophobic" people fear being in small, enclosed places. To attempt to dismiss the opinions of people who are morally or socially opposed to the practice of homosexuality as invalid by simply labelling them "homophobic", now THAT's 'bullshit'.

And here we find the vocabulary police, something the Left is constantly being accused of. "Homophobic" "Racist" oh pleeeeease don't offend our sensibilities.

 

[Tuomas]

Bogart: hehe, I agree. My party is call the "Liberal Party", but members of the socialist party call them/us "neoliberals". The more conservative leftist Christian Democrats call us "conservatives", while the more radical, err Radical Party, call us "liberal reformers" and finally, the Communists brand me "Fascist". All I'm trying to do is help the poor and aflicted of my country... why is that so bad?

And I'm at a loss as to what the fuck my marrying a woman, a horse or an armchair does to YOU.

Your forcing us to recognize it. You would introduce your armchair to your friends as, "my, err lifechair", you would insist it be allowed "to make medical decisions" if you were otherwise incapacitated; you would insist that it "inherit" your estate; you would insist that it's decisions in regards to you be respected by the rest of society. You know: normal public things that spouses do ... afterall, wouldn't you agree that you deserve "equal rights" as any other couple? Said rights will be exercised in public: cuddling in the park. Excercised in court: if you want a "divorce". Excersized in hospitals: when your "child" is born, or one becomes "ill". Excersized in school: your "children" will deserve equal education. Excersized on public transportation, accomodation and a whole slew of other things.

It affects other people, like it or not. Unfortunately, "tollerance" in our modern society, is not exactly a big concern. That along with "respect", "honour" and a couple of other archaic concepts that don't merit conserving.

 

[BogartSlap]

I must have missed that part

And I'm at a loss as to what the fuck my marrying a woman, a horse or an armchair does to YOU.

Huh? Did I ever say it DOES do anything to me? (I must have missed that part)
Although if you happened to marry a horse of MINE, I guess it could have an impact on me - I mean, we couldn't both "ride" it at the same time.

 

[BogartSlap]

dangerous pursuit

All I'm trying to do is help the poor and aflicted of my country... why is that so bad?

That's historically been an unpopular pursuit. Just look how it turned out for Jesus and Martin Luther King.

 

[Netzach]

Bogart: hehe, I agree. My party is call the "Liberal Party", but members of the socialist party call them/us "neoliberals". The more conservative leftist Christian Democrats call us "conservatives", while the more radical, err Radical Party, call us "liberal reformers" and finally, the Communists brand me "Fascist". All I'm trying to do is help the poor and aflicted of my country... why is that so bad?


Your forcing us to recognize it. You would introduce your armchair to your friends as, "my, err lifechair", you would insist it be allowed "to make medical decisions" if you were otherwise incapacitated; you would insist that it "inherit" your estate; you would insist that it's decisions in regards to you be respected by the rest of society. You know: normal public things that spouses do ... afterall, wouldn't you agree that you deserve "equal rights" as any other couple? Said rights will be exercised in public: cuddling in the park. Excercised in court: if you want a "divorce". Excersized in hospitals: when your "child" is born, or one becomes "ill". Excersized in school: your "children" will deserve equal education. Excersized on public transportation, accomodation and a whole slew of other things.

It affects other people, like it or not. Unfortunately, "tollerance" in our modern society, is not exactly a big concern. That along with "respect", "honour" and a couple of other archaic concepts that don't merit conserving.

All of the above is a big green boost to the economy. And the horror is that a lot of this is going on anyway - at great expense and trouble to the couples who want to draw up the documents, which can sometimes mean nothing in court the way courts are legislating.

One of the anti-marriage initiatives which passed - I think this is Wisconsin is actually worded that it's illegal for you, as a resident, to go to Mass. and get hitched. Not just not recognized, but punishable by fines. Other states are trying to prevent civil unions, or any means by which GLBT people can protect our pursuit of cashola together.

Where else do you find laws on marriage like this?

And Europe and Canada increasingly legalize. We're going to align ourselves with the countries we purport to bring enlightenement to.

It's going to happen, it's just a question of when. And the world won't end. And we're going to look back on this and think it was ridiculous.

 

[BogartSlap]

when you're right you're right

(to Netz) Your forcing us to recognize it. You would introduce your armchair to your friends as, "my, err lifechair", you would insist it be allowed "to make medical decisions" if you were otherwise incapacitated; you would insist that it "inherit" your estate; you would insist that it's decisions in regards to you be respected by the rest of society. You know: normal public things that spouses do ... afterall, wouldn't you agree that you deserve "equal rights" as any other couple? Said rights will be exercised in public: cuddling in the park. Excercised in court: if you want a "divorce". Excersized in hospitals: when your "child" is born, or one becomes "ill". Excersized in school: your "children" will deserve equal education. Excersized on public transportation, accomodation and a whole slew of other things.

It affects other people, like it or not. Unfortunately, "tollerance" in our modern society, is not exactly a big concern. That along with "respect", "honour" and a couple of other archaic concepts that don't merit conserving.

While I didn't say it does anything to me, you are right about that. "No man is an island", and it's absurd to believe that our personal choices do not have a ripple effect on the whole pond of life. Good point, well made.

 

[Netzach]

While I didn't say it does anything to me, you are right about that. "No man is an island", and it's absurd to believe that our personal choices do not have a ripple effect on the whole pond of life. Good point, well made.

But the idea that this does something to *other people's marriages* is bunk. The idea that the sanctity of marriage is eroded....if your traditional M/f marriage (likely to end in divorce) is sanctified and correct and perfect, then what's the concern? Are straight people going to fall apart at the seams because some homos can visit one another in the hospital without a battle?

 

[JMohegan]

P.S. Suggest you consider dropping the term "homophobic" from your vocabulary - it's a nonsensical, and usually very inaccurate, word. People who are generally accused of being "homophobic" don't fear homosexuals in any way similar to the way "claustrophobic" people fear being in small, enclosed places. To attempt to dismiss the opinions of people who are morally or socially opposed to the practice of homosexuality as invalid by simply labelling them "homophobic", now THAT's 'bullshit'.

Take it up with Mr. Webster.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a
n.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.


From the Souder interview quoted above:

Q: On social issues, do you think our country is in peril?

A: Yeah.......


According to Souder, our country is in peril. In part because of homosexual behavior, which is "wrong" and "controllable".

That sounds like fear and contempt to me.

 

[Netzach]

Take it up with Mr. Webster.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a
n.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.


From the Souder interview quoted above:

Q: On social issues, do you think our country is in peril?

A: Yeah.......


According to Souder, our country is in peril. In part because of homosexual behavior, which is "wrong" and "controllable".

That sounds like fear and contempt to me.

The Log Cabin 'pubs dropped their endorsement eventually. There's only so much mashochism they were willing to put in, there's only so many times these people could point the finger and say they were the devil and they could say "oh, it's politics, I don't take it personally." Eventually they realized, the republican party didn't want their fruity endorsement and didn't want their fruity money and "God Hates Fags" really DOES include them, no matter how expensive a tie they had on.

Why the SM freak contingent can't seem to see the significance, I'll never figure out. Jack McGeorge is just a small salvo as to how they see those of us who get our D/s on with the opposite sex.

 

[Tuomas]

All of the above is a big green boost to the economy. And the horror is that a lot of this is going on anyway - at great expense and trouble to the couples who want to draw up the documents, which can sometimes mean nothing in court the way courts are legislating.

One of the anti-marriage initiatives which passed - I think this is Wisconsin is actually worded that it's illegal for you, as a resident, to go to Mass. and get hitched. Not just not recognized, but punishable by fines. Other states are trying to prevent civil unions, or any means by which GLBT people can protect our pursuit of cashola together.

Where else do you find laws on marriage like this?

And Europe and Canada increasingly legalize. We're going to align ourselves with the countries we purport to bring enlightenement to.

It's going to happen, it's just a question of when. And the world won't end. And we're going to look back on this and think it was ridiculous.

I get the impression that marriage is defunct in the US. Considering that 50% of marriages end in divorce (and a further 60% of remarriages end in the same fashon)... what's the point? Getting on a platform to deffend the "sanctity" of marriage is silly. US culture is more defined by material and sexual possesions, more than any family or personal relations. And that has nothing to do with homosexual marriages.

 

[Netzach]

I get the impression that marriage is defunct in the US. Considering that 50% of marriages end in divorce (and a further 60% of remarriages end in the same fashon)... what's the point? Getting on a platform to deffend the "sanctity" of marriage is silly. US culture is more defined by material and sexual possesions, more than any family or personal relations. And that has nothing to do with homosexual marriages.

Totally!

And I'm kind of a freak about that part. Yay greenbacks. Do you know what this will do for my bridal jewelry lines? Nothing is as American as good old unimpeded commerce. I can only imagine how divorce lawyers are salivating.

 

[JMohegan]

Why the SM freak contingent can't seem to see the significance, I'll never figure out. Jack McGeorge is just a small salvo as to how they see those of us who get our D/s on with the opposite sex.

I can't figure it out, either.

And yes - small indeed.

 

[Tuomas]

But the idea that this does something to *other people's marriages* is bunk. The idea that the sanctity of marriage is eroded....if your traditional M/f marriage (likely to end in divorce) is sanctified and correct and perfect, then what's the concern? Are straight people going to fall apart at the seams because some homos can visit one another in the hospital without a battle?

The "other people's marriages" is just an excuse to mask something that is not politically correct: people are annoyed by homosexuality. Of course you can't say that, because you are immediately labeled a "homophobe", whether you fear or have contempt towards homosexuals or not.

Since people have backed themeselves into the simplistic worldview of dualtiy -good and bad- people are unable to comprehend more complex issues like homosexualty. Traditionally, homosexuality has been a luxury -in the day-to-day struggle for survival of pre-contemporary, sexual promiscuity was reserved primarly for the rich. In fact, there is abundant testimony of Roman, Grecian, Egyptian and even Babylonian orgies with copious homoerotic entertainment. It is only now, with reliable food supplies and sufficient free time, has homosexuality reached the masses, and the masses have had to consider it as part of their lives. This change is not one lots of people are willing to accept.

So, while homosexuality might not have any negative connotations or effects to an individual, or in the sphere of individuality; within a social context, it quite possibly could be negative. I think the debate rages on the issue, because we the people are unable to reconcile the apparent paradox of an activity that can be individually good, but socially unhealthy. Conversely, we are also unable to come to terms with things that are socially healthy or necesary, but individually negative.

Untill we can make the clear distinction between private individualism, and public socialism -and in which cases applies what- we will be banging our heads against eachother.