The US election

blackswan · 20-10-08 15:22:28

nihpuad wrote:

I had in mind people who are open about expressions of sexuality in the larger culture (not just porn, but also sexual themes in "straight" art and pop culture), people who are supportive of alternative sexual inclinations and practices (even if they don't participate in them themselves), and people who are unashamed of their own sexual interests (even when they're not perfectly consistent with "normal").

I'm trying to get at the connection between being "sexually liberated", however you define it, and having a good, even great, sex life. How do you get, for example, from being "open about expressions of sexuality in the larger culture" to being a better lover?

nihpuad wrote:

... but the official positions of the Republican party and of a great many Christian groups are clearly not "sexually liberated," and that's what I was getting at. (Mind you, the Dems aren't officially as sexually liberated as I'd like, either... but they're closer.)

My understanding is that both the Republican and Democratic parties only have "official" positions once every four years, when they prepare platforms for the Presidential election. Otherwise, their positions are statistical, not official. In this election year, I don't think either party has any official position on any of the things you mentioned as being sexually liberating.

nihpuad wrote:

JOOC, are you more likely to mention your membership at IFM to your Republican friends, your fellow church members, or (if any) your liberal Democrat friends? I'm jus' sayin...;)

I'm not really aware of the political or religious affiliations of the people I care about, and I don't attend church. I'm no more or less likely to mention my membership at IFM than I am to mention any other part of my sexual life, which is not very. I'm not interested in other people's sex lives; I assume that other people aren't interested in mine.

jwhite · 21-10-08 01:32:05

There is an essential contradiction in claiming lack of interest in other peoples' sex lives on a site devoted to female orgasms. I'm just saying.

blissed · 21-10-08 03:00:32

Hi blackswan, within Republicanism there's a broad spectrum of opinion and behaviour (GO COLIN POWELL!!! :) and thats true of all the Christian groups across the world too.

Welcome to the forum :)

blackswan wrote:

I'm no more or less likely to mention my membership at IFM than I am to mention any other part of my sexual life, which is not very. I'm not interested in other people's sex lives; I assume that other people aren't interested in mine.

Your entitled to be that way, but I think exchanging ideas and advice with other people usually enriches our lives, especially when the subject is so important, That way you learn that as with music, people have different tastes when it comes to sex, with a wonderful variety rather than people worrying that their not normal, thats as ridiculous as saying there's normal music. When something is never talked about because it's kind of taboo, then if you have problems your on your own or your sources of advice are few, when in fact you need a good selection of opinions and a problem can grow and grow when a quick chat with someone around you or online could've probably solved it for you. So to me being sexually liberated is to not have that shame or embarrassment and use the knowledge to be empowered and make genuine sexual choices.

.

blissed · 21-10-08 03:05:47

P.S. when it comes to religion my messiah is Richard Dawkins with Bill Maher a close second :)

.

blackswan · 21-10-08 03:22:07

jwhite wrote:

There is an essential contradiction in claiming lack of interest in other peoples' sex lives on a site devoted to female orgasms. I'm just saying.

I'd make a distinction between between the contributor's public and private sex lives. Their public sex lives are what we see here. I'm not at all interested in their private sex lives.

blackswan · 21-10-08 03:28:02

blissed wrote:

... I think exchanging ideas and advice with other people usually enriches our lives, especially when the subject is so important, That way you learn that as with music, people have different tastes when it comes to sex, with a wonderful variety rather than people worrying that their not normal, thats as ridiculous as saying there's normal music. When something is never talked about because it's kind of taboo, then if you have problems your on your own or your sources of advice are few, when in fact you need a good selection of opinions and a problem can grow and grow when a quick chat with someone around you or online could've probably solved it for you. So to me being sexually liberated is to not have that shame or embarrassment and use the knowledge to be empowered and make genuine sexual choices.

I agree in principle, but I think that if you're trying to make a good sexual relationship, there's no more important person to talk to than your partner.

nihpuad · 21-10-08 04:00:53

blackswan wrote:

How do you get, for example, from being "open about expressions of sexuality in the larger culture" to being a better lover?

I don't.

My point (and I actually never meant for it to be a big serious deal) wasn't ever about the quality of anyone's private sex life; it was about cultural openness about sexuality. In response to someone else's (casually flippant) query as to whether it was possible for Republicans to be IFM fans, I (equally casually and flippantly) opined that it would be problematic, since Republicans (and conservatives generally) are publicly... well, conservative... about sexual matters. It wasn't intended as a critique of your personal sex life; just an observation about differing cultural norms.

I've been told by plenty of conservatives that liberals are too open (the word they usually use is "permissive") about sexuality; my comment was only the corollary to that position. And, I promise, it was intended in good humor.

blackswan wrote:

My understanding is that both the Republican and Democratic parties only have "official" positions once every four years, when they prepare platforms for the Presidential election. Otherwise, their positions are statistical, not official. In this election year, I don't think either party has any official position on any of the things you mentioned as being sexually liberating.

AFAIK, the platforms remain valid until they're replaced at the next convention; the parties never don't have a platform. Of course, nobody pays any attention to the platforms except during the presidential campaigns (really, not except during the conventions), and not much even then.

But aside from the formal platform, do you doubt that the Republican and Democratic parties have differing positions on a range of matters impacting sexuality? Not only abortion and gay marriage, I mean, but also contraception, sex education (including information about masturbation), pornography, and censorship of sexual language and themes in art and mainstream culture (all of which have impact on the things I was calling "sexually liberated")? During the nomination campaign, Republican candidates were going on about things like the length of girls' skirts, fer criminy's sake!

If you claim there are no policy differences between Republicans and Democrats regarding sexuality... well, I think you're just being obtuse.

That said, I've acknowledged all along that I'm saying this in general, rather than particular, terms. I'm sure there are plenty of lusty, zesty Republicans out there, and hot kinky Christians as well. And if you're among them, well, good for you!

hyperballad · 21-10-08 05:50:31

blackswan wrote:

jwhite wrote:
There is an essential contradiction in claiming lack of interest in other peoples' sex lives on a site devoted to female orgasms. I'm just saying.
I'd make a distinction between between the contributor's public and private sex lives. Their public sex lives are what we see here. I'm not at all interested in their private sex lives.

This is my sex life [period]

- there isn't public bit or private bit or any other catergories to it.

I guess thats whats different about this site, the sexual experiences are real, the people are real and this isn't a performance or something I keep seperate from my sexuality.

Sorry to bust anyones bubble but you're walking around in my sex life by watching my videos.

I think you'll find most contributors would feel like filming for us is *a part* of their sex lives...

I know my comment has nothing to do with the US elections or politics, I have been reading this thread with interest but don't really feel qualified to comment.

However the comment about private/public sex lives struck me as a little misguided, so heres my 2 cents.

blissed · 21-10-08 16:10:58

I think we decided a long time ago that the people in the forum are the most important thing about it, so like good conversation the threads can wander where ever our feelings and thoughts take them.

.

blissed · 21-10-08 22:02:54

blackswan wrote:

blissed wrote:
... I think exchanging ideas and advice with other people usually enriches our lives, especially when the subject is so important, That way you learn that as with music, people have different tastes when it comes to sex, with a wonderful variety rather than people worrying that their not normal, thats as ridiculous as saying there's normal music. When something is never talked about because it's kind of taboo, then if you have problems your on your own or your sources of advice are few, when in fact you need a good selection of opinions and a problem can grow and grow when a quick chat with someone around you or online could've probably solved it for you. So to me being sexually liberated is to not have that shame or embarrassment and use the knowledge to be empowered and make genuine sexual choices.
I agree in principle, but I think that if you're trying to make a good sexual relationship, there's no more important person to talk to than your partner.

Of course, but you can help each other only so much, sometimes it's good to be able to ask your mum or dad, but thats only 2 people, getting advice from a range of friends is the best.

Christian based society has many historical benefits (the birth of Socialism and universal free schooling etc.) but one of the drawbacks is that Christianity says lust is a sin and inherent in lust is a disrespect for the person you desire, but I think if you respect other people (and that includes not lying to them or being predatory but having the self confidence to be attractive to someone else) lust isn't a sin but a joy, and a really healthy positive part of life, without it there wouldn't be any life.
.

gala · 22-10-08 01:14:31

I've ignored this thread because it's called 'The US election', which is a subject that gives me shivers and I just try to avoid altogether. I voted because someone said to me that they feel that the international community should be allowed to vote in US elections because they're the most affected by them. I thought that was a good point, so I did the responsible thing, but that doesn't really change my feelings about the (in)effectiveness of the system or my general distaste for US politics. But meh.

But then you started talking about sex - now I can hear you. I do agree that blackswan seems to be missing nihpaud's point about the general cultural attitude towards sex, which is affected by things like electoral politics. As nihpaud has acknowledged, there are lots of people subverting the sexual status quo in the privacy of their own bedrooms, and what you're called on your voter registration card in no way restricts your personal ability to do that. So Republico-Christians out there need not take offence.

What is most interesting to me about where this thread has turned is this:

blackswan wrote:

I'd make a distinction between between the contributor's public and private sex lives. Their public sex lives are what we see here. I'm not at all interested in their private sex lives.

I would also make this distinction, though it might come as a disappointment to those who depend upon the belief that the distinction is smashed to bits by websites like IFM or even www.beautifulagony.com. Those websites have gone to some length to try to close the distance between those two things, but can they ever really present them as one and the same?

Later this week at the Berlin Porn Film Festival there is a lecture about this very subject which I'm very sad to miss. Here's the description, which explains a bit of where the speaker is coming from: http://www.pornfilmfestivalberlin.de/08 … rivat.html (it's at the top of the page next to the rather attractive bald man). He's going to be speaking in conjunction with a screening of a film that first appeared on www.beautifulagony.com. For those who are very passionate about what IFM says about itself and who live that as a personal truth, what the speaker is saying might be somewhat abrasive - I can just imagine hyperballad standing up at the Q&A afterwards and giving him a what-for - because I think you can believe that if it's been your personal experience. I wonder, though, how Wolf would go if he had access to IFM (or Beautiful Agony) contributors as part of his research on this topic.

blissed · 22-10-08 02:50:41

The Berlin film festival blurb wrote:

to the online excrescences of sites like "Beautiful Agony"
http://www.pornfilmfestivalberlin.de/08 … rivat.html

excrescences!!? :)

Well if you were going it would be interesting to see peoples reactions and comments to the trip up the hill film from Beautiful agony.

blackswan wrote:

I'd make a distinction between between the contributor's public and private sex lives. Their public sex lives are what we see here. I'm not at all interested in their private sex lives.

I'm interested in peoples sex lives if they want to to tell me about them (as with the interviews). but if they don't want to share thats fine.

I don't know if in some way thats what you meant too?

.

Soberman · 22-10-08 04:08:54

Obama is an empty canvas and McCain is a finished painting. There's little or no imagination that is evoked by the latter and only anticipation evoked by the former. I'm old enough (yet astute enough [hence my presence at IFM]) to vividly remember the hope, enthusiasm and eagerness for change engendered by the Carter Administration. Within months Carter was embroiled in a scandal and he left office an embarassing chapter in US history. For most Americans (at least until Bush) he's been viewed as a failed presidency. My overwhelming fear about Obama is that he is beholden to many constituencies to whom he has promised much and can't possibly deliver yet being infected with the fatal disease of Democrats that they've never seen a dollar they couldn't spend or an element they couldn't tax. As I've previously written, I hope he turns out to be every bit as incredible as his devoted, uquestioning followers believe he will because America will then return to greatness. I'm taking bets.

Last edited by Soberman (22-10-08 04:10:14)

blissed · 22-10-08 19:13:53

Soberman, didn't Bill clinton reduce the US deficit to zero and leave Bush with a small surplus? Though I'm English so thats just my view from the outside. Anyway, now that ACORN has registered me I'm off to the US embassy to vote for Obama :)

I nearly decided to vote for McCain though after watching this. It's a short video clip but the main part is from 1 minute 50 secs in, where the woman (in 2000) asks McCain "aren't we getting closer to socialism?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY

Better not tell Joe the plumber about this :)

.

momentextase · 22-10-08 22:17:04

What was missing in the last 8 years under Bush was competence.

Cabinet positions were filled with ideologues.
Agency chiefs were replaced with political cronies often with no subject or area expertise.
Worse, they seemed proud of this....
Robert Muller Director of the FBI, in an interview with Lisa Meyers of NBC once said:
"At my level, subject expertise is not necessary."
-this was Muller's response when asked if he knew what the difference was between Sunni and Shia....!!!!!!! Scary.

Professionals at every level of government left, this is a new phenom that is something that who ever is elected will be handicapped by until they can bring qualified professionals back into government.

My criteria are:
1) The next President has to have the ability to see the "big picture."
2) They have to be able to perform under pressure.
3) They have to be able to learn, and bring in competent people.

Of course, to do that they will have to both appreciate competence and be able to recognize competence. (This Bush totally lacked on both counts)

Based on that, there is really only one choice -Obama. Not a perfect choice, no messiah. But folks, things are so screwed up now that even marginal advantages loom large.

And I say that despite the fact there are things I admire about McCain, I am originally from Arizona and have followed his career closely.

I am baffled at McCain's recent choices, disappointed at how he has performed under pressure. Non-plused and appalled at who he has advising him and his choice of VP.

David Letterman is right, they must be putting something in his Metamucil.

On taxes:
To preface, I am actually rather fiscally conservative, a business owner, etc.

One thing to remember -you don't pay taxes if you don't make money.

The top 1% of the population in the USA control 90% of the nations wealth and pay about 1.2 Trillion in taxes a year. The remaining 99% of the population which controls 10% of the nations wealth pays 900 billion in taxes. That is screwed up.

The real question is not how much tax you pay, it is how much you have left over after tax's and after all your fixed expenses.

For the well to do (like me) there is plenty left over, even in a 60% tax bracket. For the middle class, there is nearly zero left over.
And at todays cost of living, the poor are drowning, taxed or not.

I am with Warren Buffet on this, "The lady that takes out the trash in my office pays more tax than I do.."

The Government provides the game board upon which we all play. Ours (USA) has provided a game board rich with protections, opportunities and services that are absolutely unknown in other countries like... Chad or the Ukraine or even Japan.

I have no problem paying dues to the government for all that, even when I am paying proportionally higher dues than many... because I have used and benefited from the protections, opportunities and services provided by my Government proportionally more than many.

On good and bad government:
I am always amused by those that assert that -"Government always does a poor job at everything it does" -and that then vote and refuse to contribute in such a way that their assertions manifest and their actions do indeed insure bad government and inevitable failure. No where is this self-defeating belief written in stone.

On Democrats and Republicans:

As much as this once Republican hates to admit it, Republicans are bad for business:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets … demsvreps/
http://personal.anderson.ucla.edu/pedro … litics.pdf

Last edited by momentextase (23-10-08 01:25:32)

blackswan · 23-10-08 04:20:50

nihpuad wrote:

It wasn't intended as a critique of your personal sex life; just an observation about differing cultural norms.
I've been told by plenty of conservatives that liberals are too open (the word they usually use is "permissive") about sexuality; my comment was only the corollary to that position. And, I promise, it was intended in good humor.

I didn't take it as a critique of my personal sex life, and I don't doubt your good humor. My point is that, as far as I know, there is no connection between sexual liberation, broadly defined, and being a good a lover.

nihpuad wrote:

If you claim there are no policy differences between Republicans and Democrats regarding sexuality... well, I think you're just being obtuse.

I don't claim that.

blackswan · 23-10-08 04:29:14

hyperballad wrote:

I think you'll find most contributors would feel like filming for us is *a part* of their sex lives...

I have no opinion about whether or not any of the contributors would make the same distinction I do.

blackswan · 23-10-08 04:44:00

gala wrote:

. What is most interesting to me about where this thread has turned is this:
blackswan wrote:
I'd make a distinction between between the contributor's public and private sex lives. Their public sex lives are what we see here. I'm not at all interested in their private sex lives.
I would also make this distinction, though it might come as a disappointment to those who depend upon the belief that the distinction is smashed to bits by websites like IFM or even www.beautifulagony.com. Those websites have gone to some length to try to close the distance between those two things, but can they ever really present them as one and the same?

I don't think so. For one thing, I can't imagine that any of IFM's contributors, however they might feel about individual sexual acts, would want all of their sexual behavior made available for public consumption. Also, I agree with those who think that the act of observation changes that which is being observed.

blackswan · 23-10-08 04:51:02

blissed wrote:

Christian based society has many historical benefits (the birth of Socialism and universal free schooling etc.) but one of the drawbacks is that Christianity says lust is a sin and inherent in lust is a disrespect for the person you desire, but I think if you respect other people (and that includes not lying to them or being predatory but having the self confidence to be attractive to someone else) lust isn't a sin but a joy, and a really healthy positive part of life, without it there wouldn't be any life.

I'd make another distinction here, between "Christianity" and the teachings of Christ. They are most often not the same.

The entire wisdom of the New Testament can be reduced to these three words: "Love one another."

nihpuad · 23-10-08 08:14:19

blackswan wrote:

My point is that, as far as I know, there is no connection between sexual liberation, broadly defined, and being a good a lover.

I don't necessarily disagree with that... but then I don't necessarily agree, either: I don't have any data on the point, and haven't thought very hard about it. I guess my intuition would say that a certain degree of openmindedness about sexual matters would tend to make you a better lover, and conversely that having internalized the norms of a sexually repressed culture would tend to make you a less good lover. But as I say, it's just a guess; I have no data.

What still puzzles me, though, is why you think anything I said previously in this thread had anything to do with what makes people good lovers in any case? That was just never the door I meant to be knocking on.

nihpuad · 23-10-08 08:20:09

momentextase wrote:

On good and bad government:
I am always amused by those that assert that -"Government always does a poor job at everything it does" -and that then vote and refuse to contribute in such a way that their assertions manifest and their actions do indeed insure bad government and inevitable failure.

Al Franken (who, if there's any justice, will soon hold Paul Wellstone's former seat in the U.S. Senate) has a great line: He says Republicans always campaign on the idea that government is incompetent, and then when they get elected they prove it.

It's a joke when Franken says it, but it's also the (dead serious) argument of a new book I'm in the middle of reading, The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank (also the author of What's the Matter With Kansas?).

blissed · 23-10-08 16:04:24

nihpuad wrote:

Al Franken (who, if there's any justice, will soon hold Paul Wellstone's former seat in the U.S. Senate) has a great line: He says Republicans always campaign on the idea that government is incompetent, and then when they get elected they prove it.

Ha ha, thats now proven beyond any doubt :)

.

blissed · 23-10-08 16:30:08

blackswan wrote:

blissed wrote:
Christian based society has many historical benefits (the birth of Socialism and universal free schooling etc.) but one of the drawbacks is that Christianity says lust is a sin and inherent in lust is a disrespect for the person you desire, but I think if you respect other people (and that includes not lying to them or being predatory but having the self confidence to be attractive to someone else) lust isn't a sin but a joy, and a really healthy positive part of life, without it there wouldn't be any life.
I'd make another distinction here, between "Christianity" and the teachings of Christ. They are most often not the same.
The entire wisdom of the New Testament can be reduced to these three words: "Love one another."

I agree with that, it's the part of Christianity I like, but it's a philosophical observation of something thats existed in humans and is observed in some animals (i.e. elephants exhibit compassion) long before Christianity was invented. It's great that Christianity has been a social catalyst to release that, but then the hippy movement in the 60's was as well.

.

jwhite · 24-10-08 03:06:27

Al Franken exaggerates to make his point. No question about the current administration. For all the personal affection Reagan attracts, his administration subverted the constitution and ran up record deficits- a bit of a stretch for a small government advocate. H. W. was extremely competent, if dull and colorless; Nixon, a fine administrator when the moon was not full; and Eisenhower- well, the historical reevaluation lifts him into the first rank. Dems can fail, too (cf. Carter, Wilson)- incompetence knows no ideological boundaries. Interesting, though, that the most ideological administrations seek the office they so despise, and then execute it so abysmally.

NightDragon · 24-10-08 03:09:19

blissed wrote:

Soberman, didn't Bill clinton reduce the US deficit to zero and leave Bush with a small surplus? Though I'm English so thats just my view from the outside. Anyway, now that ACORN has registered me I'm off to the US embassy to vote for Obama
.

Sadly no thats not the truth, the national debt stopped and for a fiscal year the US government actually had money at the end of the year instead of having a debt. Also they were paying the debt off. What people fail to understand was the problems we have today started during the clinton administration but were made far worse. The 9/11 attacks followed by the war on terror drove the spending up and coupled with tax cuts the debt began to grow again, the mortgage crisis and the current economic crisis just made the problems worse. People in this nation turn away from problems until they are to big to ignore, or the problem threatens the economy or their own lifestyle, thats why when it comes to oil and alternate energy this nation hasn't hit the panic button and will continue too until there isn't a drop of oil left and we have no choice but to change our habits. Mr. Greenspan was on the hill today testifying that he dropped the ball on the economy, because the problems started happening on his watch. I am not knocking on Clinton I think he was a fantastic president did a lot for our nation and he started to reduce the debt.

I feel bad for Obama though because if he is voted for president people have this belief that if he gets elected that magically Iraq will vanish and our debt will start to decrease again. Neither of which will happen, it will take a minimum of 5 years to fix the damage that has been done, and it might take his entire term to pull out of Iraq successfully and that is if we're not pulled into another war front or god forbid another terrorist attack.

To the subject of sex: in this nation where people are working more, loving less, and moving at the speed of light (I live in NYC where a second is an eternity) sex has lost its taboo, its something casual easy to discuss and with so many websites out there, casual sex is quite common these days for no reason than to enjoy it. That deal where its a sin, to lust, etc has lost its muster for the most part.

#26 20-10-08 15:22:28

Re: The US election

#27 21-10-08 01:32:05

Re: The US election

#28 21-10-08 03:00:32

Re: The US election

#29 21-10-08 03:05:47

Re: The US election

#30 21-10-08 03:22:07

Re: The US election

#31 21-10-08 03:28:02

Re: The US election

#32 21-10-08 04:00:53

Re: The US election

#33 21-10-08 05:50:31

Re: The US election

#34 21-10-08 16:10:58

Re: The US election

#35 21-10-08 22:02:54

Re: The US election

#36 22-10-08 01:14:31

Re: The US election

#37 22-10-08 02:50:41

Re: The US election

#38 22-10-08 04:08:54

Re: The US election

#39 22-10-08 19:13:53

Re: The US election

#40 22-10-08 22:17:04

Re: The US election

#41 23-10-08 04:20:50

Re: The US election

#42 23-10-08 04:29:14

Re: The US election

#43 23-10-08 04:44:00

Re: The US election

#44 23-10-08 04:51:02

Re: The US election

#45 23-10-08 08:14:19

Re: The US election

#46 23-10-08 08:20:09

Re: The US election

#47 23-10-08 16:04:24

Re: The US election

#48 23-10-08 16:30:08

Re: The US election

#49 24-10-08 03:06:27

Re: The US election

#50 24-10-08 03:09:19

Re: The US election

Board footer