Sex Sex Sex

06-06-06

Wedge issues:

Not about marriage, religion, morals, control, patriarchy, tradition

Not about culture, media, The End Of The World, When-Life-Begins

Not about socioeconomics, political parties, science, legalese

Not about Guilty-Until-Proven-Innocent or Blame-The-Victim

Not about zygotes, stem cells, pre-nups, DNA, CSI, R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Not about It's Not A Choice It's A Child or It's Not A Lifestyle Choice or It's Not Your Choice Unless It Is.........

.........................

We just like talking about our thingies.


:hi:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Weenis

of the new SEXtury

:bounce: :bounce:

:evilgrin:

:hi:

:eyes:

I didn't mean you weren't on to something - it's just the Freudian perspective. I was reading something Freud wrote recently - it reminded me of that. :shrug:

I expect that the Republicans are capitalizing on it - probably intentionally - just like advertisers/marketers.

The Republicans are all about manipulation - and sex is the perfect tool. Lots of people fall for it.

For Republicans - they are selling the myth of pure sex or something. Like Ivory Snow or Joy in a Bottle. Where nobody is ever raped or assaulted or abused. At least nobody who didn't 'deserve' it. To them that would be like strippers or homeless people. In their fantasy - nobody ever needs to get an abortion - nobody who is pure, anyway. etc.

The left has their myths too.

and you are right about Siggie. :hi: Sorry bloom-- I was rolling eyes at myself and all the repetiitve, redundant (is that redundant?) threads and my attempts to wedge the wedge issue crux into DU consciousness yet again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1361684

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1363757

and the realization that maybe connecting the dots ................... isn't the point.........................

People WANNA talk about gay sex and religion and "civil rights" and only go so far. Even benburch's ERA thread, which suggested a connection-- or at least relevance-- between gay rights and womens rights.................. seemed (at the time I checked in) to be offering the notion that the simplicity of the ERA text and concept could apply to gay rights too. Without flipping it around and making the THIS IS ABOUT MAINTAINING RIGID GENDER ROLES connection. This is about keeping women (and hence men) "in their place."

Heard some Congress members on the radio talking about gay "civil rights" and the rhetoric is already in place. Would it be too confusing (or too clarifying?) to include WOMEN'S RIGHTS in the "civil rights" concept du jour?

We could get more done if folks quit runnin in circles but runnin in circles is more ENTERTAINING!!!!!! :yoiks: The issues have always seemed connected to me and it seems short-sighted to pursue gay rights without women's rights (the abolitionists and suffragists joined together) but they're goin for it and more power to em.

I mean what good is sex, if you are too god damned hungry to DO IT?

Edit So hungry because of Bushco inflation that when you think of porking, you think about the breakfast you can't buy your kids anymore!

If Agent Mike is watching and listening in all the time?

I say forget about Sex,,,we need to think about taking our country back from these Nazi neocons,,,FIRST