Printable View
This may be TMI to share but my husband and I enjoy porn together occasionally, it is part of our sex life. If you don't wish to view it or engage in it, no problem, but do not dictate to me what I can view and engage in in my own bedroom, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by poetry_writer
Hmmmm....very interesting piece in Scientific American this month on pornography, and examining porn in depth, and including the research that shows it may even have a role in preventing violence, as well as the studies of its negative effects.
.....who woulda thought.......obviously not such a black/white issue as Ms. Bachmann thinks. SO many shades of grey here.....
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...y-side-of-smut
(I have to say, I enjoyed seeing what the research showed about which men are the most sexist.....somehow I was NOT surprised, hahahahaha)
I foujd this clarification useful. I think that those two terms pornography and obscentiy WERE getting muddled in this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
So why don't we just use the term "erotic" for "pornography" and perhaps the discussion would be less heated.
I like this idea. Erotic is different than pornography. When I think of porn, i think of child porn, or degrading porn, in degrading the man or woman. Or anything regarding children, really. Erotica is for adults, period. And private.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
well we all seem to share this view but does Michelle Bachmann?Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
I think of erotica as being porn that doesn't make you laugh out loud...http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...aughing001.gif
"It's for you honey--the pizza delivery man!"
interesting article about Bachmann from the LA times
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cult...naissance.html
"Tea party queen and Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann is convinced that America is sinking into tyranny. Why? In a remarkable profile of the candidate appearing in the Aug. 15 issue of the New Yorker magazine, the artistic flowering of the Italian Renaissance takes a beating for having done away with the god-fearing Dark Ages."
Well I just heard on the news that she believes women should be submissive to the will of their husbands and do what they tell them. So maybe her stance on porn and other things aren't really "her" stance at all but her hubbys. Would anyone want a person in top office who felt it was her or his duty to submit to the will of their spouse? I think the top office holder needs to submit to the will of the people as their elected representative and no one else Especially not to one person who may have their own political agenda.
I guess that depends on how "the news" chose to frame the issue. When asked about the whole "submissive" thing, she replied that she and her husband respected each others wishes. That seemed reasonable to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartana
Yes, her response seemed reasonable to me, also, IF it matched in any way many other comments she's made over the years. In explaining how she became a tax attorney, for instance, she said she hated it and never wanted to do that for a career, but her husband wanted her to do it, and since women should be submissive to their husbands, she became a tax attorney.
Look, it is very much the religious conservative outlook that the man is the head of the house and makes all the final decisions. I have several friends who are very conservative Christians and every decision in their lives must be passed on by the person in the house that has the "headship", the husband.
It certainly can mean that a husband can respect his wife's wishes, and choose to allow them, and it is true that the wife can respect her husband's wishes and choose to go along with what he wants out of respect, but when the rubber hits the road and one wants one thing and one wants the other, it's the husband in those families that has the deciding vote.
I'm not going by what the news media is doing in "framing" the issue. I am going by a number of things that Michelle Bachmann has said herself over the years regarding women's place in the family, submissiveness to a husband, and her own admissions that she has followed paths in her life that she did not choose because she was being submissive (and SHE used those words) to her husband's authority.
Just as it was a legitimate question in 1960 for JFK to be asked if he would put his religious beliefs over the Constitution, or for Mitt Romney or Harry Reid for that matter to be questioned as to their loyalties if the Constitution and the Mormon Church views on an issue are different, I think that a woman who has over the years preached on the need for women to submit to their husbands and be obedient and submissive to their wishes, even if they did not agree, that is a legitimate thing to question. Who would we be electing President, after all, Michelle Bachmann or her husband, behind her pulling the strings.
Look, I am going to be horrified if either Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry becomes the Republican nominee. Although, honestly, I fear the competition to President Obama from a Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman far more. But it is a measure of how much power the extreme right wing social conservatives in this country have managed to achieve that we are even seriously looking at someone like Bachmann or Perry as anything other than an extreme fringe candidate. Heck, Ronald Reagan would be considered a RINO these days, and Barry Goldwater said before his death that he, far to the right in 1964 and holding the same views many years later, would have been considered a liberal by today's Republican Party.
It's not your father's Republican Party, and not even the Republican party of my youth and middle age......the folks running the show today make the old John Birchers look positively socialist.
Even if Bachmann and Perry don't get the nomination, I think they do much to shift the center to the right.Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
I remember not long ago when Hillary Clinton was running she was accused of being nothing more than a back door to Bill getting back into the White House. And I don't think anyone could construe "submissive" out of that relationship.
One reason why Bachman might be considered a viable candidate other than the fiction that the far right controls the Republican party is that she is a polished speaker with convictions about the national debt. Last time I looked that debt thing was pretty important in the polls.
I was impressed with her performance in Ames. Pawlenty, who claims to be more to the right on abortion than any one on the stage that night, was unimpressive.
They asked her the "submissive" question at the debate and she explained it as having respect for her spouse, just as he has respect for her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartana
I personally am not making a big deal out of that. There are other issues of conservative social politics that I don't like, but the politics of personal attack aren't interesting to me although the mainstream media does love them. Also she looked really good on stage, a tad less pretty than Sarah Palin but much better looking than Tina Brown's image of a crazed one would have you believe.
Really, I should read all responses before I post. You will notice that I posted practically the same thing. haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
Isn't that an interesting aspect of the media and political discourse these days? I think the lengths that publications and private individuals go to in order to make someone appear unreasonable, offensive or odd is telling. Not so much for the candidate, but for their commenters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
It's what sells. At the end of the day, the only reason they are there is to make money.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
And sometimes, persons simply ARE unreasonable, offensive and odd, and all the media has to do is run up video after video of them hanging themselves with their very own words and positions on issues over a period of years. And the media will find riches in their archives of speeches and comments by Michelle Bachmann that will offend and horrify most mainstream Americans.
She may attempt artful pivots about submissive wives, but the record of her thoughts on those matters contains lots of "submissive" comments and only VERY recently, it morphed into "respect".
It's been said that Michelle Bachmann is Sarah Palin if Sarah Palin were articulate, and undeniably Ms. Bachmann has done very well in the debates, etc. As I remember, Allen Keyes was WONDERFUL in the debates, but it didn't mean that he wasn't something of a nutcase, and Michelle Bachmann's ability to be articulate doesn't mean that what she believes is anything that any but a small percentage of Americans would find attactive once she is examined carefully. Which a Presidential campaign leaves lots of opportunity to do.
Look, if you conservatives want her or Rick Perry, go for it. Personally, if you want to beat President Obama, you need a lot more gravitas and ability than either of them possess. I would fear several other candidates as competition for President Obama far more, myself.
Ah, from Fox News to the Dogs ears..........
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...-gop-out-step/
hmmmm......this, from the Huffington Post. Significant not for what Michelle Bachmann's husband said, but for what he DIDN'T say......I think I rest my case......... (plus, it's time to head for the pool for evening swim...g'nite)
"AMES, IOWA -- Marcus Bachmann, standing off to the side of the stage a few minutes before his wife spoke, told The Huffington Post he was optimistic about her chances in the poll.
"I appreciate the weather cooperating," he said, referring to the gorgeous, mid-80's day.
HuffPost asked him if he thought it was appropriate and fair for a question to be asked of his wife in the debate Thursday night about whether she would be "submissive" to him, her husband, if she were president.
"The answer was brilliant," he said.
I asked him again.
"They need to focus on what's important in this country," Marcus Bachmann said, pointing to jobs and the economy as the topics that should take priority. "It's unfortunate that they focus on things that are not as important."
o.k. I really AM headed for the pool....just couldn't resist this.......much closer to my own take on whether wives should be submissive...... ;-)
Husband reads a book : "You are the man of your house"! So he storms to his wife and announces- "From now on you need to know I'm the man of the house. My word is LAW. You WILL cook & clean for me.You WILL go upstairs & give me the kind of sex I want. After, you WILL draw me a bath wash my back & massage my feet. Oh, & guess who's going to dress me & comb my hair in the morning?.." The wife replied, "A freaking funeral director would be my 1st guess!"
g'nite......
Loosechickens, we get it. You don't like Michele Bachmann, you don't like her belief's, her positions and her husband. We really do get it.
I am not a fan after reading some of her views but I saw her this morning on the news shows. She comes across as smart, together, attractive but not too much so and was not afraid to voice her views. I thought "this could be the next president of the US." I remember thinking that when Obama started to run, but thought that there was no way an African-American would ever make it into the white house in my lifetime.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
People are fed up. The debt, unemployment and underemployment, stock market gyrations, loss of pensions, CEO bonuses, and dismal school performance will mobilize people who want change. I don't know if she is it but she sure came across as self assured and unafraid to stand up for what she believes in. Not wishy-washy in any way.
I agree. She comes across to me as a leader, and one that some demographics are intimidated by. Just look at the concerted effort to marginalize her.Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere
I'm not convinced. I thought electing BO was a mistake last time because he had no record of leadership, just pretty words. Walking the walk is much tougher than talking the talk. Maybe it is a sad commentary on the state of affairs when we can't find candidates who have actually accomplished anything and just have to find one that talks pretty and hope for the best. But I think we are risking a lot when we let ourselves get suckered in by these people and are paying the price today for chosing the accomplishment-free big talker the last time. I think he is in over his head and am pretty sure she would be in way over hers.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
Neither am I. But I'm pretty sure she's a better choice than our current President, we do know what she stands for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dharma Bum
But some of the things she stands for I just cannot endorse. I have been doing a lot of reading about her record and views after seeing her on TV. She does not believe in abortion under any circumstances. She believes in creationism and that it should be taught in schools, does not believe in homosexuality, and that medicare and social security should be gradually fizzled out along with the health care initiatives. And while she talks against government involvement and subsidies her family has taken advantage of them for their farm and housing purchases, as well as her husbands clinic funding. (most of this info is summarized in Wikipedia, but her views are very easy to find)Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
I do agree she would be way in over her head. And the president of our country has to represent non-Christians and be respectful of their views as well. As an atheist I tolerate prayers at sporting events or public gatherings out of respect and expect others to be courteous of my beliefs. Especially the government.
Haven't read the rest of the responses yet but I was talking about her humorously saying how hubby said she had to go back to law school to study taxes and she said something to the effect of "Yuck, hate taxes, don't want to do that but the Bible says a woman should submit to her husband so I guess I gotta do it". While I realize she was trying to be humorous, it also made me realize that many people in this country DO feel this way - that the man is the head of household (and men in general may be superior in terms of things outside the home) and a woman should submit to his will, and obey him. And that made me wonder how that belief would effect the leadership of a female president who felt this way. How would she be in dealing with not only issues effecting women, but dealing with men in authority positions like the Joint Chiefs, other world leaders, etc... How much control and influenceover the issues will her DH have? I can only see negative effects but I'll read the rest of the responses before throwing out my personal thoughts on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
Editted to add: I remember back when everyone milined Nancy Reagan for appearing to be the "real" decider and leader of the Presidency. Would that be the same with Marcus Bachman?
It might be beneficial for Mrs. Bachmann to do a little reading about women like Angela Merkel, Benazir Bhutto, Helen Clark, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, Dimla Vana Linhares Rousseff, Golda Meir, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, etc. No argument that there are unique challenges to a woman taking the reigns in a "mans world", but if the woman is strong enough it can be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartana
What does the fact that she's a woman have to do with anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
As a woman I think her "biblical" view of gender roles would be a big issue in dealing with issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc. Bachmann's worldview, which she sees as under siege by secularists, feminists, imaginary socialists and other bogeymen, must be defended for future generations which immediately puts her leadership ability in question.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
In my wildest dreams I just cannot picture a graduate of Oral Roberts University (was the largest Charismatic Christian university in the world) leading our nation.
Peace
I agree with what James Taranto had to say on the subject of Mrs. Bachmann:
“Suppose Bachmann gets the nomination. She will be asking voters, in effect, to take a flier on a politically talented but inexperienced lawmaker with unusual religious views and a history of irresponsible statements. Last time they did that, they ended up with Barack Obama. This time, if they don't do it, they'll end up with Barack Obama.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576510271119903298.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
While I agree with Alan that it shouldn't matter if she were a woman or not (in my ideal world at least), I think that if a person is in a leadership position where they are breaking barriers, that studying others in the same situation can really help - certainly can't hurt - to understanding the desires of people they will be serving and potential obstacles she may face. But, as a woman, I really find that comments like her's about submissiveness scare the behoovies out of me. Not only because it implies that she needs to be lead by her spouse in an almost childlike way (and maybe men in general) but because, to me, it seems she does not see women as equal to men (i.e the word "submissive" implies something much different then "respect" IMHO - respecting your spouse means honoring their beliefs even if different from yours, whereas submitting means doing what they say even if it is against your wishes). While that's all fine and dandy in her personal life since it doesn't effect me, but in public (i.e. presidental) life she has the opportunity to make public policy that may/will effect all of us. Will she keep her personal believes out of her public policy making? I'm doubtful. To me it is the same as a white supremacist saying that blacks should be submissive to whites. They have every right to believe that in their own lives, but I wouldn't want to see someone who holds that kind of view as my president no matter how great their politics were in other areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
:laff: +1.0Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
I see what you're saying Spartana, and it makes sense. Hopefully Mrs. Bachmann's true views, whatever they are, will become apparent as the campaign goes on. With the level of media scrutiny placed on the candidates she won't have much opportunity to say anything off the record so we should be able to get a handle on what she really believes.
I just wish that Ron Paul wasn't getting too sucked in by the wackos in the Republican Party. He seems to be the only one saying the freedom includes bringing our troops home and keeping out of other countries business.
While I am at it I am sick to death of "liberal" California taking away my ability to enjoy being nude on a small portion of state beach without fear of being issued a citation.
Come on people freedom is at stake here!
What makes anyone think her true views haven't already been made known?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
Watch out for the "Freedom Riders In The Sand" the new right will not tolerate such activities!Quote:
Originally Posted by San Onofre Guy
Vote for Paul - Legalize Weed!!
Peace
You are correct Alan. I should have said Ms. Bachmann's views are not known to me. I suspect a lot of other folks aren't sure about her for the same reason. That reason is that I have only taken the chance to listen to sound bites so far. Those may or may not give an accurate representation of Michelle Bachmann, I don't know yet. I do not fault the candidate for that. Over the course of the next several months I expect the sound bites to accumulate in such a way as to provide a clearer picture (for me) of what Ms. Bachmann stands for. It may not be an ideal or completely accurate method, but is a product of my own apathy brought on by the knowledge that I am about to be bombarded with campaign rhetoric, commercials and completely inane commentary from the media for more than a year to come.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
Barack Obama has "unusual religious views?" Could you expand on that? He seems pretty mainstream middle of the road Christian to me.
In this strange country of ours, no one who espouses an even mildly off-center spiritual path can get nominated to high office, let alone elected.
Here's what Taranto said:Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
"Where the parallels get interesting, though, is in considering why her detractors regard Bachmann as "crazy." Much of it comes down to religion. "Bachmann belongs to a generation of Christian conservatives whose views have been shaped by institutions, tracts, and leaders not commonly known to secular Americans, or even to most Christians," writes Ryan Lizza in The New Yorker. Lizza attributes to Bachmann "a set of beliefs more extreme than those of any American politician of her stature."
He does not mention that the man she seeks to challenge had a "spiritual mentor" who described AIDS as a racist U.S. government plot, said of 9/11 that "America's chickens are coming home to roost," published Hamas propaganda in the church newsletter, and thundered from the pulpit: "God damn America!" Obama's mentor's beliefs might have seemed normal in the faculty lounge or the offices of The New Yorker, but they were not commonly known to Christians, or even most secular Americans."