Schwarzenegger's Sex Talk

In 1977 interview, actor spoke of orgies, drugs, and homosexuality

AUGUST 27--Arnold Schwarzenegger once told a magazine interviewer about participating in an orgy with other bodybuilders, noting that "everybody jumped on" the woman involved and "took her upstairs where we all got together." The California Republican added that not every muscleman participated in the gang bang, "just the guys who can fuck in front of other guys. Not everybody can do that. Some think that they don't have a big-enough cock, so they can't get a hard-on."

Schwarzenegger's lewd talk appeared in the August 1977 issue of Oui, a now-defunct adult magazine published by Playboy. The six-page Schwarzenegger interview was conducted by author Peter Manso and flagged on the magazine's cover with the headline, "Arnold Schwarzenegger on the Sex Secrets of Bodybuilders."

At the time of the Oui story, Schwarzenegger, then 29, was appearing in "Pumping Iron," a documentary on the bodybuilding circuit. In the Q&A with Manso, today's gubernatorial wannabe spoke about his sex life, drug usage, and belief that men "shouldn't feel like fags just because they want to have nice-looking bodies."

<...>

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/doc_o_day.html

(Mods, even though this cites an OLD article, I thought the subject matter was timely, and the release date on TSG was earlier today.)

DTH

And this matters why?

associate themselves so closely with someone with questionable "moral" values.

No comment one way or the other, I just found it interesting (and hilarious, in parts).

DTH

But an article from a 1977 "Oui" magazine ain't likely to matter much now. Just send in some more clowns, I guess.

Schwarzenegger is a jerk, but we all know that by now.

I just have a different opinion about using the politics of personal destruction since that whole Monica deal. DavidD said it well. It's not a big deal....no, I didn't mean that as a pun. ;-)

It's irrelevant to anything.

These constant personal attacks on Schwarzenegger remind me of . . . of . . . Wait a minute, it's coming to me. Oh, yeah: of the Republicans' personal attacks on Democrats based on private behavior that is not the attackers' business and that has nothing to do with the office-holding abilities of the person being attacked.



http://www.dvorkin.com

"hypocrisy" - the pukes are full of it.

It is time for you to cease being naive and being understanding that we are in for the fight of our lives and of our country.

Do not hesitate to show that they are supporting people that have no more "moral" integrity than those that they are bent on destroying.

To ignore any information (because it is personal and therefore "off limits") is to resign yourself to 4 more years (at least) of rightwing bullshit.

...the use of words like "fag" and flaunting drug abuse is okay for politicians, because it's part of their private life, and therefore irrelevant?

I am sorry, but when someone jokes about a thing like that it should be taken very seriously.

If we go that far, the Dalai Lama couldn't win an election. Oh wait, he's probably got something in his past, too?

I wouldn't want to admit what I was doing in 1977, either.

But you see, he did admit what he was doing in 1977.

So he's a changed man? In that case, should we forgive Bush for his past transgressions too then?

to investigate the Whitewater bullshit that "happened in the 70s"

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/20/whitewater/

Ray: Insufficient evidence to prosecute Clintons in Whitewater probe

September 20, 2000
Web posted at: 4:44 p.m. EDT (2044 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Independent Counsel Robert Ray, in his final report reviewing the 1970s-era Whitewater real estate partnership, said Wednesday that there was insufficient evidence that either President Clinton or first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton had engaged in criminal wrongdoing.

"This office has determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct ... or knew of such conduct," Ray said in a news release issued by the Office of the Independent Counsel after his report on the Whitewater matter went to a federal three- judge panel Wednesday morning.

...more...

(edited to add link and excerpt)

it's just fine with me.

consensual sex and a guy who say it's all for the children gang banging to pump up for a weightlifting event. It goes DIRECTLY to his attitudes towards women and since we are 53% of the population I think it matters.

Damn right it matters!!! Yes, bragging about "banging" women doesn't lend me to believe this guy will take issues regarding women seriously.
And yes, we women do matter. ;) The personal IS political!

Arnie is such a hypocrite.

No evidence of rape, no evidence of coersion; nothing at all to indicate she didn't want this to happen. No indication that it wasn't anything but consensual. They used this to 'pump up', and perhaps Clinton did the same. Who knows? It's not important.

There is a huge following of bodybuilders, mostly in S. Cal, that are the equivalent of buckle bunnies or rock groupies at rock concerts, who actively pursue BBs and look for action like this. That's not an opinion, it's just the way it is in that rather bizarre subculture.

This may or may not have something to do with his attitudes towards women today, but I seriously doubt it.

I never said he raped her. I said he admitted to gang banging her i.e. fucking her along with several men publicly. He admitted this pumped his brain before his competition.

I realize there is a contingent of people who pump up full of steroids and spend large amouts of time and money worshipping themselves regardless of the consequences to everyone else. I wouldn't vote for them as governor either.

In fact, I really hope someone is looking for this woman...that is if she is still alive.

I didn't say you said he raped her, but there seemed to me an emphasis on consensual with the ex President, but not with Arnie.

In fact, I really hope someone is looking for this woman...that is if she is still alive.

Why?

His cavalier attitude toward the gang bang or even any of the sexual exploits he spoke of, concensual or not, is telling me there is a lack of respect for women.

hmmm...
I didn't see a personal attack.
Arnold willingly gave an interview to OUI in 77.

The OUI article was a straight interview. Arnold in his own words, not what somebody else thought those words meant.

The Smoking Gun article was essentially a recap of the OUI article for those too lazy to read it. They didn't judge him, his words, or his deeds. They edited 5 pages to down to 1.

If you think any of his quotes were taken out of context, they weren't.
Read the OUI interview.


While I agree completely that attacking somebody based upon their private life is out of bounds, I don't see this as fitting into that mold at all.

First of all because I don't see it as an attack because neither article contains subjective content.
Second, because any reasonable expectation of privacy on these issues disappeared when he told them to the press.

this is not "personal destruction" - this is the FAMILY VALUE REPUKES TRYING TO STEAL CALIFORNIA'S ELECTORAL VOTES USING A GUY WHO IN HIS *OWN WORDS* TREATS WOMEN LIKE GARBAGE.

IT IS F***ING FAIR GAME.

That's just code for legally and socially sanctioning treating women like garbage!

;) I guess most of America isn't ready for a 'gang banging' governor. Including this 'liberal'...

the key question, i think, is not how many people were involved, but whether it was consensual.

Tell that to the Right Wingers?

Edited to add snip from original...

"The California Republican added that not every muscleman participated in the gang bang, "just the guys who can fuck in front of other guys."

Sorry man, this is a bit much, even for me. To each his own, but the dude is running for office. "Amerika" is not prepared.

for what is happening right now in the US. The usurpation of the presidency and the trampling of the Constitution by the Bush administration is one sustained gang bang of the American people.

it still shows a total lack of regard for women. I mean, are women just things to bang in front of strangers to prove your manhood?

show a lack of disregard for women?? If this particlular act is not your cup of tea, then don't engage in it.

It doesn't seem to be working here.

?

They engage in it voluntarily, consensually and actively seek out opportunities for it.

Some people think this is somehow, magically, 'degrading'.

Those people are not utilizing logic and/or reason.

Glad I could clear that up.

I have been involved with some creeps in my life and not one of them would be involved in this type of thing. Please stop being so ridiculous as to suggest this is a simple matter of consensual sex.
You can find some sad dumb child to agree to almost anything if her self estime is low enough and she thinks she is going to find love or whatever with one of these clowns. However that doesn't make their behavior okay.... and this is way different than Clinton's affair. This isn't even a sleazy affair, it is mob sexual behavior that borders on gang rape no matter what they girl "wanted".

If either of my sons ever participated in something like this they would have a huge problem with both me and their father.

You might ask yourself if it would be okay with you, if this woman was you mother or daughter, and the huge austrian jerk was bragging about his exploits with her in the media.

It seems to me that a lot of people here think that such brutality against one woman is nothing but "consensual sex". Who knows what kind of shape she was in or even if she consented. If the ratio of males to females were a little more even then, yes, I would be more likely to accept the consenting adult argument. There is a difference between an orgy and a "gang bang", and to me a "gang bang" almost always implies an atmosphere of hostility toward women.

I guess at that particular time he wasn't married but he has had numerous affairs since his wedding vows. "It's all about Character" Have you ever heard that.

or you're just saying it to win the argument?

You either fight or you lose.

It's time to stop losing.

for sure.

I'm liking this guy more and more! The MORE the GOP hates him, the more I gotta cheer for him!

This isn't about sex, it's about a certain behavior
regarding women.

After all, Flynt not only participated, but he made the media!

But it obviously mattered. But when a repug does it, it does not matter.

I think it would be enough to turn off every homosexual, woman, senior citizen, Christian... and who knows how many more people?

What a disgusting slimebag.

On edit: What happened to the "double finger" smily? :eyes:

?????

:shrug:

Didn't the guards at Treblinka, Soribor or Dachau engage in the same activities with an audience of their peers?

They were slaughtered by the likes of Arnold's dad in Treblinka, Auschwitz, Dauchau, etc.

I have 39 Reasons to vote against that worthless steroid addict!

Lets just say my dad single had over 35 confirmed kills in a theater of combat. And lets just say that I was born after he came back home. Since most veterans deal ( I am one of them) with the horrors of war on a daily basis and we never talk about it because it is something that was horrible and we want to much to put it in the past so that we can become good fathers to our children. Would you consider me (since I was not even born yet) responsible for my fathers past transgressions?

Or lets just say that OJ's Kids should be ashamed of their father for not taking responsiblity for what thier father did and they should be persecuted because their dad obviously got away with murder?

Or David Westerfield's son should be thrown in prision and persecuted for his dads sins?

Or Chief Justice Moores kids should be thrown out of school for what thier father did?

You see my point?

There is nobody in this world that is a saint? Ill even bet some people on this web site have been involved in questionable morality situations. The question here is can you handle your personal life being blasted on the 6 pm news.

having his personal life blasted on the news.

It comes down to this question, for me at least, did Arnie's dad raise him? If so, was part of his upbringing based on Nazi thinking? or did his dad come to his senses later in life, change his ways and then teach his son that Nazism is bad?

No, we can't blame the son for the dad's sins, but if the dad influenced the son, I think that the son's true beliefs are suspect.

Know what I'm saying?

because it speaks to the guys character and values which the right wingers put a premium on. Now if they are willing to 'overlook' Arnold's behavior and attitudes, then we know they are hypocrites and maybe they will lose total credibility. I for one, am no longer willing to turn the other cheek. They are the ones who put this type of stuff on the table, so what is fair for us is fair for them.

This is a public, on the record, interview. This is definitely relevant.
Personally, I would find it disgusting if a current athletic star talked like this, someone with no political aspirations but a public persona. I can't imagine anyone voting for this creep. As these kinds of thing keep circulating, I think his numbers will continue to plummet.

Uhhh... what was your first clue? :eyes:

surely they won't minimize the importance of this Clintonian behavior.

Was the woman drugged or drunk? Hard to believe a sober woman consented to sex with a whole bunch of guys. That means it was rape and Arnold seems to be admitting that. It would certainly disqualify a Democrat to have this kind of admission in print.

wake up and smell the coffee. It happens a LOT! if she consented it's her choice and gang bang doesn't mean rape. If it's offensive to you, don't do it for yourself.

I am not saying it can't happen, just unlikely. Asserting that it happens a lot is a male fantasy. More likely to happen in the crowd Arnold was running with in 1977, maybe. But based on the level of discourse he demonstrated in the rest of the interview, I certainly would not take his word for it. Consenting to sex with one guy is not consenting to a gang bang - which is frequently how gang bangs happen, male fantasies not withstanding.

Uh, I don't think so.

If she did try to say no at some point
it is unlikely anything would have
stopped. One woman surrounded with
body builders would have no choice.

The story is incredible to me, that he
did this and bragged about it publicly
shows a kind of character that is
usually more at home in allyways and
dark stripjoints.

Still he is a republican and they own
the media. I don't expect this story
or any other concerning the exploitation
of women by Arnold will be carried
in any meaningful way by the media.
The hammering headlines that destroy
peoples lives are reserved for the
democratic candidates.

so since she didn't say no we'll just assume that she feared and it's rape?
How about women doing threesomes or having sex with dozens of guys in porno? what's that?

We don't know if she said yes. Arnold doesn't portray it as a threesome or a porno movie so how is that relevant? He does brag about it - that fits into the male fantasy of the hot woman eagerly taking on all comers. Also, Arnold's explanation of why some of the men declined to participate smacks of rationalization - maybe they just didn't think it was the right thing to do and their ethics shamed him - so I would say the available evidence suggests(not proves) rape.

locker-room gossip in a magazine, right? I'm stunned by how easy it is for some people to spew out unsubstantiated allegations of rape whenever they come across sexual preferences they don't share. Making a criminal accusation based on the preconceived idea that a woman would have to be coerced in order to participate in an uncommon sexual act only serves to suppress female sexuality and trivialize violence.

I find Arnold's story despicable, but the only thing it suggests is that he was a childish idiot in 1977. As for the woman's mental capacity, we can only guess.

Gossip is about somebody else. It may be locker room talk - yes. And he may have made the whole thing up. All I was saying that if what he said happened was true his explanation for it smacks of a common male sexual fantasy that is often used to rationalize rape. That is not the same as accusing him of rape. Yes, there are promiscuous females out there but it is a biological fact that men tend to be more promiscuous than women - hence the infamous "double standard". It is also true that a man is way more likely to force sex on a woman than vice versa and that it is not common for a woman to voluntarily have sex with a whole group of men. So we should view claims of a consensual "gang bang" with suspician, particularly if it is a man making those claims.

I welcome such a reasonable point of view. Good post.

In Venice Beach in 1977 there were absolutely no brazen sluts. They didn't exist back then.

There are also absolutely no women on the face of the Earth who engage in consensual group sex or other so-called deviant sex acts due to screwed up childhoods, abusive fathers, or any other reason which may have destroyed their sense of self-worth. This absolutely never, ever happens and if it does, it MUST be rape.

DWS

Oh, boy. Are you going to call Arnold a slut for sticking his dick in any available orafice? I didn't think so. No wonder the sexual double standard lives on. It's okay for him - but women are brazen sluts.

Your commentary on the female gender is as revealing as Arnolds.

We should not call names those who have healthy sex drives. Doesn't bother me how mant sexual partners ANYONE has. It's their life.

I was using the word for effect and I shouldn't have.

I personally see no difference between male and female promiscuity and I'm generally not judgmental about people who choose to be promiscuous, provided they do it reasonably safely. OTOH, using the generally understood definition of the word would make Arnold very much a slut. There, happy?

I still maintain the posters insinuation that any woman who engaged in a so-called gang-bang must have been raped. That's ludicrous. I personally know swingers who engage in such behavior and find that lifestyle quite liberating. The notion that there are no women who would willingly jump in the sack with a handfull of body-builders is just crazy. Check any swingers personals and you'll find plenty.


Edit: I think there are different reasons for extreme promiscuity between women and men but I'm no psychologist. I recall women in college who engaged in gang-bangs (no, not the Frat-House kind). It seemed like it was always with jocks and the women were always the kind who had major emotional problems. I'm not qualified to say exactly why that is, I just know there definitely ARE women like that out there. I think their motivations are different from those of, say, the swinger example I used above.

That's probably a discussion for the psychology board and I'm not qualified to post there.

"absolutely no"; "didn't exist", etc. etc. Lots of logical fallacies here. The fact that something could exist does not make it probable. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I have outlined my thinking in post 95 above. I would say that a man claiming to have engaged in a consensual "gang bang" is an extraordinary claim. You appear to think differently. I would hazard a guess that most people - women AND men - would disagree with you.

not only have you misspelled the word, you've misapplied it as well. Mispronounce it and you'll have a hat-trick.

Address the logic please - You made an inference ("it is absurd to to believe that a woman consenting to gang-banging is a rare event") based on the premise, "some women might consent." The inference does not logically follow the premise. My dictionary says that is a non sequitur.

it.

Hmmm...I'm trying to think of whether or not you have ever said anything the least bit empowering towards women in the entire two years I have read or posted on DU...I can't seem to recall a time...got issues??

no matter how they try to rationalize their pig behavior

It would certainly disqualify a Democrat to have this kind of admission in print.

Disqualify??? Hell, a Dem would be lucky to escape the death penalty!!

C A L I F O R N I A======yep, that's what the map says. That piece hanging onto the west end of da' US of A doesn't say, oh, Alabama or anything like that. Now if Arnold had this behavior and he was running in the Bible Belt, he better pack his bags and leave. But, folks, we are talking California. Doesn't that qualify him to be some guru or something????? I think Dems better stick to programs he will cut and stuff because I don't think behavior rattles even the conservatives out there.

when I travel through the illustrious state of California I have noticed an inordinate number of huge church edifices dotting the landscape.

I'm clearly in the minority here, and I guess you all should be proud for taking the discourse down to the lowest common denominator.

We've already lost if we're going down the road of Ken Starr Lite.

Schwarzenegger has the backing of Warren Buffett, a shitload of Hollywood stars, the rotten media, and GWBush.

We have an article from 'Oui' from 1977. Talk about a weapon of mass distraction. Yeah, that's a winner, alright.

Charge, baby. Good luck, but count me out.

Whatever happened to publicizing real issues? Can't someone ask Schwarzenegger how he intends to deal with a $40 billion state deficit?

If this is to be the strategery of the Democrats in California, we've already lost.

Besides DavidD, I'm the only one here who sees it this way? I am astonished.

And dirt like this (and I make no pretentions as to what it is, dirt) is one tool in our arsenal. It's not one that I would recommend overusing, and it's not one I'd recommend using across a broad audience.

But yeah, I'd sure as hell try to find a way to make sure this gets out to his most conservative voters, ideally in a way that can't be traced back to Bustamante.

It's dirty pool, yes. But WTF do you think Bush is going to do with his $200MM next year, except play dirty?

DTH

Would she do anything differently?

Another Texas DU'er posted awhile back, that Ann ran a clean campaign against Shrub in her re-election bid for governor. She didn't "go dirty"...she held back...you guessed it! Bush did go dirty; and she lost!

Arnold wasn't 'outed' with these facts; he freely admitted to his transgressions. To me, that's open season for the Democrats. He hasn't offered ANYTHING but 'fluff' for a platform. He even insulted Cruz Bustamante,..."moustache and receeding hairline."

And, yes, we have to utilize every trick in the book next year to expose Junior for what he truly is...AWOL's "military career", Halliburton, LIHOP, etc.! (Not to mention the loss of jobs, healthcare, prescription drugs, failed schools, etc., etc.!!!)

:dem:

This story is plastered as his main headline. :D

DTH

You said that we took the discourse down.

The right wingers took it down. We can either fight them at their level or lose.

Being nice is a losing strategy in politics today.

....swinging 70's

2003.....26 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As someone else pointed out, some of you people seem pretty intolerant of someone else's lifestyle.

But I guess that since Arnold is straight, any sexual adventures on his part are immediately suspect.

If he was gay, i'm pretty sure that we would hear talk about 'transgressing' the boundries of sexuality!

posted on this thread. Which Republican posted this crap?

I'm pretty sure that DoveTurnedHawk is not a Republican. DTH has been here a long time, and we agree most of the time. I've no axe to grind, I just think this is at best unproductive, and at worst shooting us in the foot.

It is Ken Starr Lite, and we will lose.

Imagine hoardes of Democrats, taking to the streets with their pitchforks and burning copies of 1977 'Oui' magazines, taking on the masses and winning hearts and minds because Schwarzenegger bragged about an orgy that happened more than a quarter-century ago.

Yeah, that's a winner, you bet.

It's not about being nice, it's about being real.

This war about sex and elected officials didn't start on this thread. The Republicans made it a huge issue the entire time that Clinton was president.

Now you're saying we shouldn't point out the hypocrisy of their eight years of attacks?

You will never convince many Democrats that they should allow Republicans to brutally attack our leaders and then not return fire when they suddenly change their story.

We are not going win unless we learn to fight fire with fire.

And the Republicans started it, would you please inform us how we win? Is the winner the one who digs up the most salacious details about their opponents sex lives?

You rightly point out that it is hypocrisy. Why is it not hypocrisy for us to do the same?

The argument that "they started it...wah!" will play great in the right-wing media.

The brutal attack from Democrats, if I understand correctly what you are suggesting, is that we should take an eye for an eye on every possible sexual issue we can find. In the meantime, our state and federal treasuries are being robbed, the economy is in the toilet, public education is under attack, and environmental standards are being rolled back.

Yet, where Arnold Schwarzenegger's penis was in 1977 is what we're going to fight with?

Fighting fire with fire just assures that both side get burned. Right now, someone is trying to dig up dirt on Howard Dean, and John Kerry, and Dennis Kucinich, and Al Sharpton, and Dick Gephardt, hell ANY Democrat. Are all you personal destructors here prepared for what may happen to our own? Are you all sure you and your favorite candidates are squeaky-clean?

Someone please let me know how we outdirt the dirtiest party in history.

Sadly, I don't.

To quote a post from further up this thread, we are in for the fight of our lives and of our country. We ignore this at our peril. We've tried for years to be better/nicer/more noble than they are - and look where it's gotten us. Screw that.

I would never vote for him ever. The fact is AS bragged about this in public and that is why it is an issue. If it was his private sex life then I would say it is none of our business but it's not.


If you don't think it matters thats fine. It does not really matter to me either BUT, it certainly will matter to others and that is the reality we face. Others have a right to consider this when they judge AS's ability to be the gov.

Hell, I like Flint but fact is his past is a factor, just like AS.

Republicans who will impeach a president for a blowjob and elevate someone who bragged about being part of a gang bang.

Most of the political sex scandals out there involve two individuals relating to one another. The relationship may be adulterous or even kinky, but at least each of the participants is aware they're dealing with another human being.

In this episode, by Arnold's own description, the woman was a total non-person. All that really mattered was a bunch of guys showing off their prowess in front of other guys -- or perhaps confessing their inability to get it up in front of other guys. The woman is anonymous and effectively invisible, lost under a pile of behemoths.

The very words Arnold uses show that to him the woman was just an object, something to be "jumped on" and taken upstairs. Not sweet-talked into going upstairs. Not even paid to go upstairs. But tackled by the equivalent of a football squad and carried off willy-nilly. Even if she had technically consented beforehand, the act was carried out with all the trappings of coercion and assault.

Should a demonstrated readiness to treat one's fellow-humans as though they were inanimate objects to be brutalized at will disqualify someone from holding political office? From making decisions that affect other people's lives? From getting anywhere near anything of value? Absolutely, it should.


On edit: Moreover, since Arnold refuses to run on the issues, what is there left but for him to be judged on character?

Color me a strange sort of fellow, but it has never appealed to even my prurient interests. It really has nothing to do with sensuality, sexuality, or (cough!) love. It's neurotic and somewhat sadistic, IMHO, and quite predatory.

You summed up the issue perfectly, and yes if Arnold can avoid talking about the "real issues" so can his detractors.

I don't think this is at all relevant to whether he can govern (he's pretty much shown he's not qualified regardless of this).

This does speak to his character at 29, though, and it's pretty creepy. I imagine he's changed a lot, but still. Eww. I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole, and Maria Shriver married him.

I feel really bad for his children, though. Particularly his daughters.

like people with histories like his....

Seems like I heard Maria was against it?

he was slime then, and he's slime now. slime.

"I don't see nothing wrong with a little bump and grind baby"

How about a little gang rape, "baby"? That's what he's describing.

The phrase gang bang just means one gal having sex with more than two guys, as far as I know.

I don't know that they forced her, or that that was implied.

determine what they think the phrase "gang bang" means.

Add on edit: and the phrase "everybody jumped on".

Heck even a Porn queen that resides in California holds the Title for most men in a gang bang.

know the difference between a gang bang and rape, perhaps you should not be voting at all...

I was about to write:

If you don't see a difference between a gang bang and rape, perhaps you should not be voting at all.

One is CONSENSUAL, the other is not.

Again I say: let's publicize this all over the great state of California, and let the voters decide whether they think the two are the same or different.

Glad you explained it slowly. Hope it helped you!

You seem to be the one having the problem.

I assume you're voting for Ahhnold then.

plus his consensual sex history has nothing to do with my voting for him one way or another. It's a non-factor.

and sexual diseases I think gang banging and the behavior that leads to it is a public health issue.

What would you propose, mandatory sterilization or maybe you should simply get to decide what sexual activities adults can engage in.

Just how big is your umbrella of "public health issue". Are you going to tell me what I can smoke?...oops already doing that....what I can eat?...oops trying to do that. Where does it stop shy of a totalitarian state?

Get out of my house, out of my kitchen and the hell out of my bedroom.

DO what you want but don't expect me to elect you or hold you out as an example of behavior to emulate.

they want choice and equal rights for women but when the NOW crew thinks something is bad for women they clamp down.

I bet that if they found the woman who agreed to sex with multiple guys they'll convince her that she was raped. They'll convince her that she feared or was pressured psychologically, the truth doesn't matter.

Mind your own business and if it bothers you don't do it!

should claim she was..if not SHUT THE FUCK UP

Seems like you want to believe certain things about women.....It's really HARD when women stand up and demand to be treated as people and not stereotypes, huh?

What's the NOW crew anyways? :eyes: I wonder what they are thinking, I bet you know?

mind your own business and let women decide their own life.

she is a sister. Whether you like it or not, some of uswill stick up for each other against men who think like you. I know what exploitation is about and how some women become victims when they seem to be willing. I understnd the social dynamics. You clearly do not and no matter how petulantly you stamp your feet I will continue to what is right for women like this. Arnold is a pig.

you don't even realize it. I would say you are feeling threatened in some way. What is the problem kiddo?

are you using the same psychic powers that you used to figure out that she was gang raped?

You rather overestimate the interest in your house, your kitchen, or your bedroom. What was so scary about this poster's thinking?

Please read what the poster is saying, not what you wish them to say so you can go to "battle" with them.

:-)

I don't listen to R Kelly so I would not know if he performed it or not. But I am 90 percent sure it was LL Cool J.

this was an interview in man's magazine. it just might have been an orgy with the boys and he embellished the gang bang for his image and to let every reader know he was big enough.

his behavior is the same now as then. What do you mean
1977 makes it different. He's a dick. He grabs at women
now and treats them like trash. Women are 51% of the
population and we DESERVE better than this. Time going
by doesn't change ANYTHING. He's still grabbing boobs,
acting like a pig.

He's a scumbag running as a moral man, fronting for a
party that pretends to be moral -making that a cornerstone
of their party and its attitudes- all the while being
pigs.

Its relevent. Look at your wives, sisters, mothers and
daughters and tell me it isn't.

Many here fail to distinguish sex from sexism and violence toward women. I wonder how many of you are subconsciously trying to justify your own behavior.

You'll see another huge thread were we are told it's not nice to associate Arnie with nazi, regardless of the fact that he continued his father's associations.

This time we are Ken starr if we touch base Arnie's life style (meme here: country is tired of this kind of thing - move away from our boy).
Well, your boy just pontificated on who is allowed to get married and who isn't (in a very imbecilic way I might add). So, I guess banging is A-OK as long as marriage doesn't follow.
Also, I unrepentantly post for your rebuttal a delightful collection of quotes from the Daily News:
"
"Neither my mother nor Maria is allowed to go out with me in pants."

Playboy, 1988
"I don't worry about it because I never took an overdosage."

Playboy, 1987, when asked about steroid use
"I knew I was a winner. I knew I was destined for great things. People
will say that kind of thinking is totally immodest. I agree.
'Modesty' is not a word that applies to me in any way."

'Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder,'
1977 autobiography
"As we were rehearsing, I saw this toilet bowl. How many times do you
get away with this - to take a woman, grab her upside down and bury her
face in a toilet bowl? I wanted to have something floating in there."

Entertainment Weekly, 2003,
about a scene in 'Terminator 3'
P.S. I understand how important Arnie is for some of you, but I will spread any damaging fact that comes my way and make no excuse for it.
Here's an article that explains why:

http://tvnewslies.org/html/just_say_no.html

PSST... JUST SAY “NO!”
A TVNL Survival Tactic for the Left

have gone AWOL, or have DUI's or have gotten their girlfriend an abortion. All of those things are "fair game" to bring out about Smirk. However, when it comes to group sex (possibly rape) let's give Arnold a break.

There should be NO BREAKS for the Republican Party that has a platform outlining the MORAL code and FAMILY VALUES they are supposed to embrace.

Personally, I don't care about this particular behavior other than it seems to fit into a pattern of Arnold abusing women. The only people who seem to deny that must have a personal problem. Why do they give Arnold the benefit of the doubt (hey, love the one you're with honey) when his own mouth says things that are demeaning, degrading and insulting to women? Add in the harrassment stories and this misogynistic interview and wow, adds up to Prince Charming.

He's pro-choice and anti-gun, he's for medical doobies and same-sex partnerships. Oh, by the way, he claims to be a Repuke. Does anyone really think the hard reich-wing con-jobs are going to vote for him?

and had sex in 1977. I do care that he regards women as inferior objects who are merely vessels for his lust. His attitude hasn't changed much since then. The degrading way he spoke of us in that interview says much about who he his.

What I find disturbing is that so many DU'ers are willing to ignore and excuse his attitude about women.

How awful! And smoked POT???? WOW.

That's amazing. We should run him out of town on a rail!

And gee, wasn't that like 20 years ago?

HAH HAH!

I LOVE the GOP, and I MEAN GOP attempt to tear down AS. He's a definite threat to them, that's for sure.

getting in a position where he decides who can get narried and who cannot. How consensual does this sound to ya:

'Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder,'
1977 autobiography
"As we were rehearsing, I saw this toilet bowl. How many times do you
get away with this - to take a woman, grab her upside down and bury her
face in a toilet bowl? I wanted to have something floating in there."
You don't really think that good ol' Arnie is out there fighting the GOP , non?
That from someone having a GOP mayor (Bloomberg) whom people -even here called "practically a dem". Bow, good old "Practically a dem" doesn't believe the EPA-9.11 air story and "supports the preznit". Try putting your boy Arnie in his shoes and tell me, what would he say?

If Ahnold would cheat on his wife, his mosted trusted companion, would he cheat on California? Would you trust him? Apparently his life companion can't.

This stuff in Arnold's past is not relevant to the CA Gov. recall race because he is running as a Republican. If he were a Democrat it would be topic number one in the coproate media, but he isn't so its not.

Whether or not it should be relevant is another question that might only apply on a perfect world.

Austrian/German and I can tell you that they are very open and casual about sex, nudity, bathroom habits. They talk about sex as if it were the weather. So...there may be a lot of "dirty" talk in Arnold's past. I wouldn't hold it against him...but if the fundies do...oh well.

are not:
"'Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder,'
1977 autobiography
"As we were rehearsing, I saw this toilet bowl. How many times do you
get away with this - to take a woman, grab her upside down and bury her
face in a toilet bowl? I wanted to have something floating in there."

The quote is from a 2003 Entertainment Weekly article about a scene in Terminator 3 (that was never actually shot) where he fights he "female" terminator. It is NOT from 1977. The PREVIOUS quote in the Daily News article that you cut & paste from is from 1977. It goes on:

"The thing is, you can do it," Schwarzenegger added, "because in the end, I didn't do it to a woman -- she's a machine! We could get away with it without being crucified by who-knows-what group."

I guess not.

I repeat. Arnold DID NOT go around sticking women's heads in toilet bowls, in 1977 or otherwise.

"I did not..have..swirly relations with that woman!"

I like my info as accuate as possible. I am afraid if people repeat bad info often enough, in this case it was already three, AND take it out of context...it will become fact.

Thanks for putting it in context.

I see you embraced yet another lost cause! Bad liberals trying to ambush poor baby Arnuld who just wanted to have fun! I guess I'll have to settle with this smoking gun interview then.

Did you purposely misrepresent Arnold's statement as part of the "take no prisoners" ideology that you and others have espoused on DU, or were you just careless, causing you to screw up?

I guess we'll each just have to draw our own conclusions about RV's little slip-up.

...SICK!

for driving DemDave's point home.

"Gangbangs" are not demeaning to women IF THEY ARE CONSENSUAL. Gangbangs are NOT rape IF THEY ARE CONSENSUAL. Group sex is not demeaning AS LONG AS IT IS CONSENSUAL. It's a LIFESTYLE CHOICE, and for Democrats to use this against Ahnold (as much as I dislike the guy) should be an insult to every gay, lesbian, transgendered, and bisexual Californian. It is the ultimate in hipocrisy for DEMOCRATS to try and use someones sexual proclivities against them.

I am a married bisexual male. I have sex with my wife and other men (yes, sometimes at the same time). My wife is a bisexual female, she has sex with me and other women (also sometimes at the same time). Believe it or not, the things we have done together (and with other people) make Arnies little gangbang seem tame. If the Democrats start attacking people because "they don't have sex like normal people", I may have to re-evaluate my alliegences. This entire thread is an insult to every "non-whitebread straight" California Democrat! :grr: :mad: :mad:

You are right.

Just as it was wrong to go after Clinton for his sex practices, it is wrong to go after Schwarzenegger for it.

I am getting to know the members, but who is the presedent?

you can't see the difference between Clinton and Arnold and their behavior? Really?

I'm not trying to make a point about anything Schwarzenegger and Clinton may have done (or not.) Nowhere in this thread did I make that claim.

The point I've been trying to make, that most seem to get but only a few agree with, is that going after Republicans on their sexual behavior just because they did it to Clinton doesn't make it right. We all screamed like hell when they did, but I don't think we should do the same, because it's wrong. My moral compass is in a different place.

I'm not some towering, incandescent moralist, nor am I a woman-hater or in favor of rape or boorish behavior, as some (not you, Cheswick) have implied in this thread.

I'm saying that the best tactic is to hit Schwarzenegger on issues of how he would govern and what he is in favor of. The right wing already is, if the same pressure is applied from the left, it hurts his chances.

That said, Schwarzenegger appears to have a problem with his view of women. I concede that point, but I don't support using an issue of a porno mag from 1977 to make the point. It just looks ridiculous and vindictive. I've already heard Repubs comment that the Dems are desperate, and you know what, if this is all we have, they are right!

Thanks for the rational question, and even though you don't agree with my opinion, I respect yours as well.

I do think it is fair to fight fire with fire. We have to stop allowing them to write the rule book. They are saying the behavior of the two is the same and to me it is not the same at all. We can't be afraid of backlash everytime we open our mouths to speak about right and wrong.

On the topic of AS behavior. I find it so offensive and the scenario so ripe with mysogeny, the ability for any man to either understand or not understand that is a line in the sand between men I respect and men I may like, but dismiss as having anything valid to say on the subject. (<----- hey, how's that for a run on sentence? )

Thank you for having the character to speak up. The hypocrisy displayed by many of the people posting in this thread is palpable.

The same people who twist themselves into logical pretzels to attack Arnold for behavior from more than a quarter-century ago (rather than addressing legitimate concerns regarding policy, experience, etc.) have defended Clinton for far more recent and, some would say, far more inappropriate behavior and condemn anyone who brings up Senator Byrd's truly vile past (as an adult) because it was "so long ago."

If you're going to base your consideration of a candidate on their sexual practices, decades-old use of recreational drugs or what organizations their parents belonged to, then you may truly get the government that you deserve (and then god help us all).

I don't care what kind of sex people engage in as long as it's by consenting adults.
I have no problem with threesomes, orgies, gangbangs, etc. Enjoy your sexual journey on this planet and I will too. More power to you.

But for me this about HYPOCRISY. The GOP put themselves up on this moral pedestal and consistently attempt to manipulate the public by painting Democrats as morally inferior.......all to gain power.

The Republicans MADE sex an issue in politics but we can't hold them to it?

The Republicans tried to destroy a twice elected president over a sex scandal and we can't point out the hypocrisy here?

They act like puritans when it comes to Democrats but if it's a Republican we shouldn't mention it?

BULLSHIT.

If this was ANY Democrat seeking office right now he/she would be DESTROYED in the media.

THAT is what pisses me off. I don't give a damn about anyone's sexual highjinx.

This is hypocrisy of the highest order and at the very least we have a right to point that out.

Let's not make the sex the issue, just the phony DOUBLE STANDARD.


See posts 6, 19, and 40 as well.

Since this is merely a lifestyle choice, just another menu selection in the sexuality smorgasbord, Aahnold should have no problem explaining it to open-minded California voters. The hypocrisy is the real issue.

2)what you do with a small group of people is real different from what Ah-nohld is bragging about in a magazine.

1) It is not demeaning to do the things which make you happy. My wife has had sex with multiple men (a "gangbang" if you will) because SHE wanted to and because SHE enjoyed it. It was her sexual choice. Things you do of your own free will to feel pleasure aren't demeaning.

2) Ahnold is bragging about a small group of guys having consentual, simultaneous intercourse with a single woman. That is EXACTLY what I am talking about here. While it may have been in bad taste to brag about it, the act itself is identical.

what's demeaning to you is fun to another so let everyone make their own choice.

and it's the same, in both cases as far as we know all parties agreed to it.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, Private.

same difference. Sorry to threaten your little male fantasy that someday you might have a chance to participate in something "fun" as long as us pain in the ass feminazis don't ruin the "fun".

...if a woman consents to being f*cked by 20 guys...no harm done.

We should not go after Arnie...or anyone because of their consentual sexual practices. But...if the right goes after them...so be it. We have bigger things to worry about than trying to protect a repub. If Arnie wants our protection, then he can change parties and I'll fight for him.

It's fine you do that stuff but could you please keep that shit to yourself or just make a home video for people who actually are interested in that kind of thing. Holy crap.

"Marriage must be between a man & a woman." Such a guardian of traditional morals.

It's the HYPOCRISY!

Personally, I don't care what he does in private. That's wifie's problem. However, boasting about the incident as he did makes him sound like a pig.

we heard All Condit All the Time....

Now its All Arnold All the Time....

Turn about is Fair Play....

Sex matters to many people. The RW is trying to portray Dems as a party of moral deparvity in order to win votes. Why not make this issue a MAD one (Mutually Assured Destruction) and maybe we'll all get off the subject?

you are right. But the freeper contingent is crying because their guy is getting it this time.......bbbbb-but it was WRONG when "they" did it to Clinton

I am part of a freeper contingent because you disagree with me?

Schwarzenegger is not my "boy" or "guy", I can't stand the man. And yes, it was wrong when they did it to Clinton.

Your comment is really uncalled for.

Mr protests too much?

What exactly did you mean by this post? Did you read my earlier response to you and choose to not answer?

some times a question is the best answer

did I misinterpret something you posted? Sorry, but your other posts speak for you too so there you are.

Two questions:

1) Are you accusing those of us who disagree with you of being members of a "freeper contingent" because you disagree with us?

2) Why are you avoiding the answer?

You're giving yourself far too much credit in the seeking attention department. Look in the mirror.

A straight answer would be appreciated.

yup and the best way not to "feel like a fag" might be to "jump On a woman, take her upstairs and fuck her in front of each other"

Why did they have to take her upstairs? Why not just fuck her right there in the living room? Afraid someone might get the idea she was actually being abused?

Arnold Schwarzenegger today tried to brush off damaging gang-bang sex revelations that emerged as he campaigns to become California's next Governor.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13344714_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-ARNIE%2D%2DI%2DLOVED%2DGANG%2DBANGING%2DGROUPIE-name_page.html

"I can look at a chick who's a little out of shape and if she turns me on, I won't hesitate to date her," he revealed. "If she's a good f***, she can weigh 150 pounds, I don't care."

By this logic, he would bed whoever turned him on, then, depending on how it goes, weigh her after the sex?

Sounds complicated.

really interessting.

It doesn't matter what actually happened in 1977 or how the woman might have perceived it. What matters is how Arnold experienced it and the language he used to describe it. That language has a flavor of rape and coercion about it -- as well as a flavor of boys showing off in front of other boys just how naughty they can be.

In the same way what matters about the toilet bowl quote is the flavor of Arnold's language -- not the fact that it wasn't a real event. His language suggests pleasure in even imagining abusing a woman -- "to take a woman, grab her upside down and bury her face in a toilet bowl" -- together with an active delight in "getting away with" something: "How many times do you get away with this," "The thing is, you can do it," and "We could get away with it."

Arnold comes across as just as much a sadist as Bush -- somebody who takes sexual pleasure in abusing and coercing others, intensified by the prospect of doing it in public and getting away with it. That combination of sadism and exhibitionism is also the pattern of most of his recent groping incidents.

What's particularly disturbing is that Arnold may have picked up this pattern from his Nazi father -- wouldn't a major appeal of belonging to the SA have been the ability to behave badly and get away with it? -- because if he did, it becomes even more sinister in its implications. If Arnold was an all-round nice guy and sweet fellow, no one would hold his father's past against him for a moment. It's the Nazi-like aspects of Arnold's own behavior that make his parentage an issue.

...to determine that some 'lefties' don't seem to care much about how RWingers use sexual McCarthyism on Democrats...but give RWingers a free pass on the same issues.

- This type of bullshit is degrading to women...not that some of you seem to care. This wouldn't be tolerated in a Democratic candidate running for ANY office.

- Could it be any more obvious that the GOP's 'family values' campaigns were all lies?

especially the ones when they are dozens of guys waiting their turn? Should we ban it Mr Ashcroft?

between the far left and the far right.

This thread proves that point beyond any doubt.

While I would not TELL a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body, I certainly have NEVER read a PROGANGBANGING article in a more moderate publication.

Further, one has to be thinking with mini-me to even IMAGINE that a woman who would fuck multiple men at once with multiple people watching has ZERO issues or is sober.

Please cite me a mainstream reference (moderate/centrist) in defense of gangbanging....I can't wait to read it.

Clockwork Orgies? Just Kidding!

Funny

Perhaps "awholebunchofstuffshocksme" would be more appropriate. You could even add "butthatstuffisonlydonebystonedpeoplewithissues" Or would that be too unweildy?

Really, what's the major operative difference between your moralistic, judgmental assertions and somebody who says "further, one has to be thinking with mini-me to even IMAGINE that a woman who would fuck another woman has ZERO issues or is sober."

Outside of your personal lifestyle prejudices and apparent anti-male sexism, that is (since the reference to "mini-me" shows that you expect that women would naturally agree with you)?

How nice to see that you and Reverend Falwell and his ilk have found some common ground.

The behavior doesn't shock me, that's your interpretation. Comparing someone who makes common sense evaluations with Jerry Falwell is quite entertaining and calling someone sexist for the challenging the sexist defense of gangbanging is better than Orwell..Thanks for the laugh.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

from someone who knows better. If you don't have the facts or the means to engage in real discussion, sling mud.

Ugly and pathetic.

Let me and a few of my friends gang bang her. I promise it will be uplifting and empowering for her.

:eyes:

Sounds like a bunch of bible belters are replying to this. I thought us liberals were supposed to be tolerant of what consenting adults did to have fun in their spare time. Most of these arguments read like arguments against homosexuality.

</sarcasm>

Girls who do this are just having "fun", in some sick fantasy perhaps.

telling women what kind of sex to have in their time so they aren't abused. We should even pass it as a law so the next time a couple willingly decides to bringing another guy or girl in their bedroom the woman has a legal recourse against this abuse if she regrets it 20 years after. Or if she gives her husband or boyfriend oral, it's abusive and degrades women.

You go girl, stand up for sisters being abused by evil men! Tell women what's acceptable, and what's not!

What is this regret for something consensual 20 years later nonsense??

Why would any male or female consider legal recourse 20 years later for this "willing" sexual fantasy you have suggested? Do any of the scenarios you suggest in this thread have any basis in personal experience or are you making them up based upon some previously considered attitude about women in general?

Your comments in your tenure with DU seem to suggest a preference for a nefarious posture from women in general. Is there a reason for this? Were you abused or otherwise mistreated by your mother or another significant female in your formative years? I'm really trying to understand why someone would be so hostile to the idea that women can be and are exploited. Why is that notion so abrasive to you???

rape charges or changing the facts to claim a woman was raped after the fact...you can't.

they want women to be able to "decide what to do with their body" when it comes to abort a baby but not what to do with her vagina. To each his own doesn't apply to them. Maybe we should pass sodomy style laws, cops should come in and check if women are being degraded while having sex. Woman might not be that strong willed to resist the man's humiliating demands so we should protect them. Ban the Budweiser girls too....

The ignore feature works though, nothing you can say will change a few ultra feminists' mind.

No one said we should tell another woman what to do with her vagina....we simply don't regard men who speak degradingly of women as the ultimate arbiters either...gee.....I wonder why???

  http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/29/1417241
Friday, August 29th, 2003
The Terminator As Predator? A Look at Arnold on Sex, Abuse, Drugs, &
Women

See how his wife thinks that if she gets raped, she'd be damaged goods, so he'd leave her. Read what the attitude towards women this guy has. Am I wron, or when he gropes an interviewer on the set it's no longer a private thingy?

Its one thing to have consensual sex, but ongoing flagrant abuse of women is another. He is a pig and it has been condoned for years just because of who he is.

more on the DemocracyNow interview:

This is not just ancient history. According to the story that he grabbed the breast of three different talk show hosts while he was in London at the end of - around Christmas, 2000. These kind of things continued and continued.

When he worked on "Terminator 2" there's a story in this article about a crew member who was wearing a silk blouse and he went and grabbed her breast and pulled it out in public. This woman was devastated and Arnold and his clones were laughing and the woman who ran to shelter in a nearby trailer she was hysterical, but refused to press charges because she didn't want to lose her job. People said it was disgusting what happened. I mean, if you live in Los Angeles and work in the Hollywood industry, these stories abound.

My sister attended a conference a couple of years ago and one of the speakers at the conference, it was a conference on women and film and the obstacles that you face. One of the women who spoke who works in production and film and who is now fairly high up in this movie studio system recounted a story of a star of a film throwing her up against a bathroom wall when she rebuffed him. And she said, well, when people asked who it was she said, well I guess it's common knowledge that it was Arnold Schwarzenegger.

So it's not just- we're not talking about somebody who is an adulterer. Were not just talking about someone with infidelities. We're talking about sexual harassment. That's sexual battery when you throw someone up against a wall.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/29/1417241#transcript

and I doubt most of us would do what he did.
The main issue that some people are saying that he raped her and that group sex /gang bangs are bad because the women are demeaned. Using the retarded logic all the right wing has to say that male on male sex demeans men and they can agree with the feminists here.

Consenting adults should be able to have whatever sex they please. If it offends you, it's simple: don't enagage in that type of sex.

But his track record indicates questionable behaviour, and I think that's what a lot of people here are disturbed about.

and realize that there is experience here that you lack you might actually get a grip on this issue.

Instead you cling to the idea that some women just naturally like being grabbed, taken upstairs and gang banged by a bunch of sick fucks showing off for each other. I wonder if any of these men including arnold the pig knew what that young black girls name was.

Yes at the time she might have thought it was fun or exciting, but I would be that she regrets it like hell now, or will someday. Even if not, any man who participates in such a public act, gang rape or simulation of gang rape is lacking in morals or respect for women.

Please don't drag the guy with his wife and a 2nd women into this argument, that is a whole different situation. So is gay sex. What's your next lame defense for your juvenile fantasies going to be?

I don't care what he does in his private life, but for him to tell a reporter that he has no memory of the article, is a full blown lie.
He's a whore and a liar and Mr Recall cannot recall a thing. CNN had a clip of him denying the article and then they had the writer, Peter Manso say that he recalled it very well what was said.
It is such a good thing that do-gooders have selective recall. It is very easy to forget details of gang bangs. Typical Republican.

He lied. So What!! And now we have this degenerate wanting to buddy buddy with junior and go on to higher
aspirations.

Let show this schmuck where the dog pound is located in Cuba.

http://www.icgf.org/news/press_rebuttle_premiere.htm


By Schwarzenegger's own admission, he has not eben a choir boy throughout his life. However, with respect to Mr. Connolly's allegations, read both before you draw any conclusions.

if he wanted to protect Hillary he would've never cheated on her.

then I will argue to the death that it should be off-limits. Until that time, we need to use every weapon against them that they do not hesitate to use against us.