Christine O'Donnell, a Virgo who claims to be a 'secondary virgin', who believes that masturbation is adultery and that women who are raped should be forced to bear the child of their rapist, won the Republican nomination as a candidate for Senate in Delaware earlier this week. She was featured on the front page of The New York Times on Wednesday. Photo by Eric.
By now we’ve all heard of the billionaire Koch brothers, waging war against “Obama” in the form of climate change denial and the Tea Bag movement. In case you haven’t here is the article from The New Yorker that pulled the curtain back on them.
Let’s take another look at how this kind of thing works. Here’s an article from today’s Times on entrepreneurs who get in on the politics game. The Tea Party is big business.
The Tea Party is a lie from the first word because it purports to be a grassroots movement. In fact, it’s funded by the mega-rich, and organized top-down. It’s as populist as CitiBank. We saw a similar thing in the 1980s and 1990s when a “populist” movement of farmers came out for the “wise use” of pesticides. It was funded by Sun Myung Moon, owner of the Unification Church and great friend of the Bush family.
In the comment below — video well worth a few minutes — we have O’Donnell paying her private rent, food and entertainment from “campaign” donations when she wasn’t even running for office. That is a crime called conversion. Campaign funds and private funds must be kept separate, just like a lawyer’s escrow account and the firms operating funds.
We can expect their position on sexuality to be equally fraudulent. It’s merely there to appeal to a certain base of, well, base voters, who would come to the polls merely to dump a gay marriage proposition or to take a stand on any morality/purity agenda. It has nothing to do with right and wrong, or what is good government or not; what is good policy or what is a reasonable political position or not. It’s all about what sells, what gets donations and what gets votes.
We are so far from that conversation it’s no wonder that our government has nothing to do with the interests of the people who supposedly elected it. We face a issue here, which is that government is boring and hard work. I would challenge anyone to go to a Country Legislature meeting, or a Town Council or Planning Board meeting, and report back with what you learn. For most the only thing that makes it interesting or worthwhile is to exploit it. So it’s going to take a new generation of really special crystal children or indigo kids to get into these positions and do something productive.
(CNN) — A watchdog group says it plans to ask authorities in Delaware to investigate Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell’s finances.
At issue are more than $20,000 of spending in 2009 and 2010 that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington claims was illegal.
“It turns out Miss O’Donnell has treated her campaign funds like they are her very own personal piggy bank. She’s used that money to pay for things like her rent, for gas, meals and even a bowling outing. And that’s just flat-out illegal,” said Melanie Sloan, the group’s executive director.
In an interview on CNN’s “AC360,” Sloan said her organization would be sending letters to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware and the Federal Elections Commission on Monday asking them to investigate.
In a world full of agendas, who needs a brain? Run for the hills…..and Annie get your gun…..is it just me or am I the only one seeing the name Sarah Jane Olsen on the ballot?
The art of bullshit… fruit of thy womb, isn’t it? Actually flew out of my cereal box this morning…..imagine that!!! I swear that little frosted miniwheat said somthing along the lines of….in the name of love or maybe “you are getting very sleepy”….i am not well versed by any stretch….but that fucking little bugger made me feel there is hope….for all the rest of the miniwheats!!
Of note, O’Donnell was doing fine until the Bill Maher rebroadcast her admission on Politically Incorrect (where she made many appearances) that she had a date on a satanic altar — and that for a while she practiced witchcraft but was “not part of a coven.”
Then, she canceled her appearances on the talk shows and beat a retreat. It had nothing to do with sex — supposedly.
Oops, I was going to delete my comment. Oh well.
I thought shebear was talking about a potential teen issue, or maybe one from childhood, and we were guessing at best, as to Christine’s experience.
Christine will be destroyed by the end of the day, thanks to all the ill will of the people, politicians (both parties) and media.
are about one vertebrae short of having vipercated tails to go with their horns.
I don’t think it inherently matters what O’Donnell’s personal sexual needs are. They are no business of the public unless she makes them business of the public by taking part in attempting to use a public forum (a television program, a senate race, the senate itself) to speak about, manipulate or legislate what is supposedly right and wrong for others. That is why we are having this conversation.
Also, we have no way to verify the claims she is making, or has made, in order to get votes, raise money for her church, or whatever her goal is. She can claim to be a “secondary virgin” to not masturbate or to have no “sexually impure” thoughts, and to some these are meaningful statements. However, we can’t verify them, at this point. So she may as well say she walks on water — but only when nobody is looking.
Further, she is theologically off-base. There is no mention of masturbation in the bible. If she is taking a theological position that calls for some support from the bible. There is nothing there. She can stretch all she wants, but that would be like interpreting Kosher law as, “since we can’t eat pork, we can’t eat anything.” Of the two things that Jesus is reputed to have said about sex in his brief teaching years, referenced in the Gospels, one of them involved the lesson: don’t be a hypocrite.
We have seen the damage that the Catholic clergy, which claims to be celibate on the same terms as O’Donnell advocates, has done. Has anyone been watching the uprising in England surrounding the pope’s visit? Anyone been following the decades of outrage — thousands of cases — of sexual abuse of children by supposedly celibate priests — spill out of the rotten core of the church?
I would note that O’Donnell’s position is not new for our era. It’s certainly not new — Christianity has been an “abstinence only until marriage” campaign for centuries. Christian thinking has never, ever missed the chance to make any form of sex it encounters wrong, while using brothels to raise funds for the construction of cathedrals.
But O’Donnell has been unusually articulate about it in an era when many of the questions are resolved by enlightened thinking. There is not a disease called onania, invented in a booklet from ca. 1612 by a “Doctor” John Marten, mysteriously a combined moral and medical blight that needed to be cured by his remedy; there is simply what humans do as part of our normal behavior. We share 98.4% of our DNA with hypersexual bonobos, who masturbate together all day long, particularly the females.
The concept of onania codified the mania with masturbation that peaked in the 19th century. Immanuel Kant thought masturbation was so vile that there shouldn’t be a word for it (happy to footnote that if anyone likes, it’s from UC Berkeley Prof. Thomas Lacquer’s cultural history of masturbation that came out in 2003.)
But in particular, the modern Abstinence Only campaign, dating to the first months of the Reagan administration in the spring of 1981, has been vicious toward masturbation in kids. It adopted the Mormon’s long-held belief that masturbation is the seat of lust and may be a “sin” that is “worse than” sex. Kids in abstinence programs in public schools who ask about masturbation (or homosexuality) are sent for “counseling.”
The sexuality curriculum in schools is not set up to address normal adolescent sexual behavior, and worse, it does not draw a line between normal and not-normal (i.e, what might hurt someone). By pathologizing all sexual feelings, these programs are doing serious damage to children, compounding guilt with ignorance and perpetuating many problems; study after study says that abstinence indoctrination delays sex by a matter of weeks but significantly raises the likelihood of pregnancy and STIs. For this the American people have paid nearly $1 billion.
I would say that if a Mormon or Baptist family wants to raise their children with these values, that’s their business. But keep it out of public schools. Keep it out of public policy. Sure, go on TV but say, “This is my personal belief.”
One last point. I’ve seen O’Donnell say that we can’t tell kids that masturbation is a good way to have sex without taking a disease risk, because it propagates lust. However, unless we go down Big Brother Lane, what people think and feel is no business of the government and other policy makers (plenty of NGOs have been involved in attacking any real sex education here in the states, most of them church groups). But the public interest resides merely in preventing disease and unwanted pregnancy — not determining the appropriate sexual appetite of people.
This whole discussion merely begins to pierce the insanity. Once we settle on what the real issues are, then we can have a real public conversation. But the issues as they are presented trigger a gag reflex, particularly in the American public, that all you basically get is the reek of vomit when the subject comes up. That’s what this is — debating a point that was ridiculous in 1612, that onania is a moral and medical blight that needs to be cured, is psychic vomit from the dark ages; but maybe we need a good purge.
Isn’t making assumptions about what she “needs” sexually, and then forcing it on her, the same as what she’s trying to do? Isn’t that called rape?
I don’t see many people speaking up about the (what seem to me) sexually violent comments in this thread, and I don’t know whether that’s because it’s just me who feels that way, or because this can be an intimidating environment, either way, that’s how I feel after reading it from beginning.
—————————————————-
@Tracy: It’s funny how folk separate the sexual appetite from all other forms of hunger, isn’t it?
We aren’t talking about violation here. Would you deny that a hardcore anorexic needs to eat? Is a clinician ‘oppressing’ her when taking measures to hit home with the point?
There is less controversy around any other appetite and self-regulation or shared expression than that of sex.
Some of the extremes of porn, for example, that can become extremely distasteful, if not disturbing, are a response to much that is suppressed within our experience. Although porn can be without soul, it is a drama about something – the question is what?
It’s not surprising that there will be exploitation in an area where there is so much confusion, so much lack of clarity with self and one’s own body. Porn will continue to exist within a sexually repressed ‘civilisation’, as its alter ego.
There is ‘violation’ everywhere, all the time. It’s not this social fact and the hint of its presence that should be shocking, it’s that we have not yet learned how to disarm it as mature, willing, thinking and feeling adults, in possession of all our faculties.
As long as people keep crying ‘violation’ at the first hint of honest expression we will be keeping a lid on the discussion and miss the core transformational point – raw honesty.
Of course, people will feel discomfort in such discussions, Tracy.
Of course, as lissam has pointed out, women need to protect themselves from men with mere rapacious intent.
Of course, the language and imagery we use is involved in our co-creation of shared reality.
Of course, you have your right to your sensitivities and concerns and that should be respected.
Please remember however, the context here at PW. Articles are posted, not strictly around astrology, but in respect of how astrology can enter into dialogue with the broader cultural scene. Why? Because if astrology has any merit at all, it has it in so far as it is relevant to what humans do on the planet and how we can understand and shape those things more productively – developmentally you might say.
When a political movement creates/promotes/exploits unhealthy modes of being, in order to rob people of their quality of life – all for personal gain – we have a responsibility to call people out and point out and discourse what is so very wrong about that.
There are vulnerable folk, who lack awareness, who get sucked into trends unthinkingly. An honest debate that GETS TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER is an urgent requirement – that is as far from violence as I think it is possible to get.
Tracy, I agree.
Isn’t making assumptions about what she “needs” sexually, and then forcing it on her, the same as what she’s trying to do? Isn’t that called rape?
I don’t see many people speaking up about the (what seem to me) sexually violent comments in this thread, and I don’t know whether that’s because it’s just me who feels that way, or because this can be an intimidating environment, either way, that’s how I feel after reading it from beginning.
Sorry to interrupt, but this is too rich not to share:
“Bearing Witness” to Midget Porn: It was a Hand-Job
*Warning: What you are about to bear witness to is an abomination of Buddhism, to blogging and to any sense of decency or self respect. You have been warned!
Thanks to the folks over at the ID Project, and their courageous action to bear witness to the 9/11 rallies, my group, ‘The Order of the Zen Masturbators’ took a page from them, and determined to bear witness to the first midget double penetration scene ever filmed.
This past Saturday was the ninth anniversary of the first midget double penetration scene ever filmed. The debate around allowing the first midget double penetration scene ever filmed had been particularly caustic, with such intense claims from the opposing group that “all midgets are terrorists”; and statements coming from the group who supported the first midget double penetration scene ever filmed, that all who oppose DP scenes in midget porn must be “tall” or “anti-little people”. The more subtle issues of freedom to practice double penetration and the unavoidable relations with oneself that would ensue seemed to be secondary to personal attacks.
…….
Etc. With pictures
Thoughts re: loss of control.
Yes, I agree with the idea that often people fear orgasm because it represents loss of control. Yet, many of these same people (personally known) will willingly lose “control” of the self in other ways, perhaps most easily in alcohol. So it is not necessarily a desire to not lose control.
So why not, then, to orgasm?
I contend, that one purpose to NOT orgasm during sexual intercourse offers the non-orgasmer an opportunity to control the other person. Not ‘giving sex’ at all is one control tactic, but not completing the act, as it were, is another tactic from same game. (Seen it.)
And, of course, there is the situation wherein (a woman) choses not orgasm during intercourse – or fakes it – because the orgasm gives up a piece of herself (that she can still hold on to). This would most likely be within an abusive situation.
Not sarcastic, liminal, but maybe too cheeky. There is so much violence in the language. Screams of pleasure are nice; nice to specify the type of screams, for sure. Cheers to all women’s pleasure and Mrs O’Donnell’s orgasms.
wow — lots to catch up on in this thread. but this caught my eye as i scrolled down:
Proposed protest sign for the Jon Stewart “Take Our Sanity Back” rally on 10/30/10:
I MASTURBATE AND I VOTE.
yesssssssssssss! thanks, fe!
so… who’s leading the official PW delegation to the rally?
lissam:
Sarcasm is a mask for pain. “oh well, that’s nice” No, orgasms are nice, repression is not.
I apologize for not prefacing my post with a trigger warning.
“Hold her down” appears to be one of your triggers, one I think other PW readers may share.
I doubt Christine would consent to what she/all of us needs, that’s the point. Having an orgasm can scare the shit out of people who have been repressed, even the idea of an orgasm freaks out some people. Whether the repression comes from the Church, the state, and/or one’s family of origin, it often manifests as a fear of loss of control.
De Witte smiles at the female proponent of anti-violence. She who believes that hidden abuse is wrong, a veritable scandal and so highly damaging to womankind.
Sigmund Freud would turn in his grave.. 😉
@half:
the best feminist project i can think of for redeeming sex from religion, etc… is having sex, mmm, good sex, often. but not with you, my dear. i’m just not that into you.
@lissam: Thanks for the care and nurture.
You seem to be quite focused upon sexual violence.
This was not really the thread topic – which could be hijacked with such a shift!
radical feminism historically postulated that ‘the penis is the problem’. Penis as ‘weapon’ in porn. Radicals suggested lesbianism as a lifestyle necessity, political and a must.
The penis is NOT the problem. Men are not the problem. Women are NOT the victims. We all suffer together, in many ways.
When moralists suggest that some fixed ethics is the way forward they block the debate between flesh and blood people. People need to work it out together, between the sheets as well as beyond them..
The problem comes when folk get conditioned into arbitrary constructs that become moralist myths like ‘porn is evil’.
Let me tell you: Lots of porn is more honest than the sanitized and sexless mythology of much contemporary thinking. Am I advocating some of the depravity within porn? NO! But a lot of people would communicate a lot better if they just fucked viscerally rather than having civilized encounters, where everyone gets a chance to be ‘nice’ to one another while leading mendacious lives outside the bedroom.
So lissam, can you produce or at least articulate a constructive feminist project for redeeming sex from the grip of religion?
@ liminal:
Ohh you meant ‘screams’ of pleasure! oh, well, that’s nice! i’m sure you meant ‘hold her down’ ‘with her consent’, too.?
control [too much control] is definitely many women’s achilles heel. it’s the way, way downside of pussy power. it’s a patriarchal construct, a very necessary defense strategy, it saves face, it’s slimming, it comes in handy with child-rearing, it’s very attractive overall and for goddess-sake expected of us at every turn.
but see i think she’s probably a tiger in the sack. canopy bed. we may never know.
anyone have a visual for the husband? (i may regret asking that..)
@ half:
it seems you are addressing the politics of power, consent, control, etc. within a straight, intimate encounter. i’m not sure where this came from, honestly. i do hear victimization, hurt and betrayal in it…. most certainly any use of power can result in abuse of power.
you are kidding yourself if you can’t see that women and girls bear the brunt of sexual violence, wounded though you may be. that’s not radical feminism, btw.
you will no doubt find other men who feel your pain. and it is other men who will probably be of the most help in terms of healing that sexual wound. who can say. i’m gauging that from male friends who’ve had very positive experiences.
I would be interested in who you think the shadow government is.
lissam:
I was pretty sure someone would react to that part of the quote in the way that you just did. Your choice. I think Christine needs LOTS of screaming orgasms. I know I do.
I think O’Donnell controls herself to the point of never losing control. Her choice, but the problem is she wants EVERYONE to make the same choice.
Patty:
That was not apparent to me in first reading your comment, so thanks for clearing that up!
I think its US who need the prayers to find the sanity in this place called the US. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have the best thing going: “Rally to Restore Sanity” in DC.
I wish I could go.
..there is rape in this world, there is circle jerking going around… Are we good? Can we chat?
..This political/sexual tension has been going on far too long. (I should know, I’m ‘venter’ extraordinare!)
..I just can’t let someone define my reality of sexuality for me,.. I am the Creator. (And I aint talkin’ Greek,.. not my era)
..But, I am using the words available to me to convey what I’m experiencing..
..And, I think I’m pretty Valid.
Love All..,
Jere
@lissam: I simply called the ball foul.
——————————————–
‘Simply’ is the conspicuous word here! You made a judgment when you described a mainstream response. Sorry, it’s not as simple as that.
Christine O’Donnell is not my enemy – I don’t even know her. She represents something. She articulates an ideology with strong moral conviction. We may wish to challenge her views on this site as a construct born of sexual suppression.
I’ve encountered several women who felt it more appropriate to attempt to control an intimate encounter than to express their desires mutually. Now here is the crux, whether you like it or not..
People do things to other people as well as with them. There is regularly consensus in various forms of intercourse. Sometimes one party imposes their will to some degree upon the other. It is not simply men who do the latter to women..
Neither, when a man blurs that boundary is it necessarily oppressive if there is honesty between the pair.
Too often, however, people just crack on with the sex and discover the frustrating politics as they go along. Whether it is suppression or a control drama it stems the flow of exchange.
There is gender and sexual politics in the mix so many times. Just because I experience this on occasion does not mean you can relegate this to ‘my issue’
I choose to speak openly and without reservation and you feel it appropriate to put that in some ‘typical boys’ box.
That is a shame. You may benefit from tempering your radical feminism with a more diverse exposure – perhaps womanism?
If you believe that feminism of any stripe has the capacity to heal our collective sexual wounds, I’d be interested to hear your constructive contribution in that regard.
An interview of Arianna Huffington by Jay Leno. Wonderful on all levels.
When I see Christine O’Donnell she makes me think of what a friend said about Condoleezza Rice, “She looks like she needs someone to hold her down and eat her pussy til she screams”
Who wants to join me in the Million Masturbators March?
huh? am i flaming? like a phoenix? like a vulva gone wild?
you call it an honest and visceral (brotherly?) brokerage… i call [it] a circle jerk. no harm done. it’s a normal day on planet earth. there’s a common enemy. today it’s christine o’donnell, and she’s got your panties in a bunch. you’ll work it out. your language will reveal you as you do.. but you’ll work it out eventually.
– – “As a woman who asserts such a position, do you believe that any adult withholding from another because of a powerplay, or a fear, or whatever, is actually healthy?” – –
you sound a little victimized, here. ‘withholding’ what? who is withholding from you half? unhealthy for whom?
i simply called the ball foul.
Fe I didn’t say she wasn’t crazy or right thinking.
Eric, Frank’s article is very interesting – a nice piece of journalism. Cogently written etc. I am obviously no expert on the U.S. scene; coming from the U.K. my own domestic scene is easier to access and grasp.
Nevertheless, I feel there is a factor which shouldn’t be lost sight of:
Murdoch, Koch and Koch are extremely wealthy individuals with a lot of clout and a comprehensive, self-interested agenda. (They forget they live on the same planet as the rest of us)
However, although their interests are aligned with conservatism and the jingoism it promulgates, they are not the same as the shadow government. They have clout but they are not the bankers. These characters wield overt political influence by funding their party of choice but they don’t control the overall economy.
My feeling is that the NYT is quite happy to see these three openly ‘exposed’. It makes the article look like credible journalism because it points something factual out about power plays ‘behind the scenes’ . As a propaganda tactic it is well suited to decoying the readership about who the real, shadowy ‘baddies’ are.
The problem of course is not who controls the superficial political scene (weighty funding or not) but who controls the economy – and that ain’t Messrs Koch, Koch and Murdoch.
These women are all (odonnell, palin etc) in the process of showing daddy that they are good little girls.
Rape or no – just that desire (to prove goodness to daddy) – or even actual need – at this stage of their lives is a form of rape, that is A taking violently from them their true woman-hood.
But they do not see that at this stage of the game it is not being taken; that they are giving it away.
@lissam: i dare say there’s a little bit of rape in this thread…. see? how quickly the dialogue deteriorates into a straight boy circle jerk. you’re more mainstream than you think.
——————————————
Are you flaming?
If you aren’t: You can pretend all day that there is no such thing as sexual politics or that if there is it is only men who ‘overpower’ through sex.
The only way to address the downside of sexual manipulations/exploitation is to get get adults of both sexes talking honestly together as adults – for your information that does NOT involve denying one’s drives, desires, fantasies, will, voice, full spectrum sensuality etc.
We are on difficult ground are we not when we suggest that articulation of desire and some raunchiness and play/talk is tantamount to rape. As a woman who asserts such a position, do you believe that any adult withholding from another because of a powerplay, or a fear, or whatever, is actually healthy?
Anyone who wishes to get real and talk about sex in a real way and who happens to me male is one short step from violating the other?
I think perhaps you may be more mainstream than those expressions reflected in the honest and visceral brokerage, exhibited thus far on this thread.
Has anyone read through the Frank Rich article? I would love to hear from you about your response to what he said. Thanks.
cheers @ shebear.
i dare say there’s a little bit of rape in this thread…. see? how quickly the dialogue deteriorates into a straight boy circle jerk. you’re more mainstream than you think.
Here’s an article by Frank Rich on the very corporations that are bankrolling the Tea Party.
They have no interest in what the Obama Administration is trying to do, or about climate change. You might say, we have found here the original Satanic twins: the Koch Brothers.
Get these guys out of our politics. They are destroying the world.
Patty:
Here we agree to disagree. I have big objections to O’Donnell’s view because of how deeply she wants to control the personal lives of others. And always always ALWAYS, its women who pay the price through the loss of their individuation.
This is the hypocrisy of the Teabagger Party wrapping themselves up in the Constitution. To them, its a product, like a cereal box. They recognize the brand but lost track of its meaning.
O’Donnell in and of herself is not dangerous. Its the corporations who have funded the TeaBaggers who are. She is a perfect tool for them. And there will be many more tools up for office now and in the future. If there’s anything to pray for, its for those corporations to be expelled from the US and its politics.
Patty, PWaves is an inclusive community. Therefore, a ‘Christian’ view of prayer is not something that all (or even most) may share. My viewpoint on prayer is that it may have some benefit if a person sees themselves as ‘flowing intention’ toward something. If you choose to believe that a God in the sky is going to act on some request then that is your choice. For me, Immanuel Kant was spot on when he exposed the core psychology of prayer as an ego state. You are only praying to yourself but objectifying your own ego in the process – which for me is a recipe for delusion at best and megalomania at worst.
But hey, that’s just my opinion.
Shebear, I relate to your remarks in every way.
I wish everyone would stop slamming the woman and start sending some much needed prayers.
Proposed protest sign for the Jon Stewart “Take Our Sanity Back” rally on 10/30/10:
I MASTURBATE AND I VOTE.
Take an Irish-American father and an Italian-American mother, toss in some negative virgo tendencies towards judging, criticizing, a dash of self aggrandizing and mix it all up with a 100% belief in the warped and literal beliefs of your faith (in this case the Roman Catholic Church, which really is cult thinking at its best/worst and you have someone like a Christine O’Donnell) and I’ll bet you she had a really negative experience in her teens like a rape, that wounded her really badly and stunted her emotional growth, turning her into the raving fundamentalist she is today. Believe it or not, I can relate on several levels to her I’m sad to say, because a lot of what shaped her shaped me. Thankfully though I learned to emancipate myself bit by bit from all that crazy thinking with solid hard work and because I sought it; but it’s not easy.
The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for.
Two words – I’m using them for the second time in as many months to describe a political figure:
michele,
Like you, i endeavor to try other people’s ideas on for size but this is beyond a stretch. It’s even difficult to conceive of except as some sick humor.
Eric,
Excellent point that this …”is not about her – it’s about us.”. She is indeed giving voice to our avoidance and denial. Do we really want that part of our selves represented as the law of the land?
Up next, Witch Burnings.
Have you noticed that even American “fashion” has gotten more of a puritanical look? Covered, but “frilly”. The message is that a “decent woman” wears her necklines high enough, her hemlines low enough etc to maintain her morality while still being “feminine” enough to find a man.
(But nothing sexy in sight (except for our teenage daughters who simultaniously bring it on and fight it off in a balancing act like smiley mirus i mean Miley Cirus.)
Well I guess there’s a need to be “attractive and stupid enough” to have a basis for more than one bout with virginity.
All political action is ideologically driven – and therefore carries the seeds of potential oppression. The whole concept of Protestantism (notwithstanding the religious connotations) implies reactions of ‘new’ or freeing ideas against ideas perceived to be traditional and entrenched (Foucault’s ‘hegemony’) and thus incarcerating.
Actually, such processes can be viewed as authentically Hegelian (in terms of real progress coming through the dialectic of idealistic struggle) or authentically Marxist (in terms of progress through real world or materialist struggle) in terms of having evolutionary benefit and a credible vision for social change.
However, the postmodern critique has clearly demonstrated that once one hegemony is demolished, another one – purportedly new and improved (cue the marketing strategists to ‘package’ that) springs up to replace it. All protest movements, no matter how well meaning, carry the (reactionary) seeds of totalitarianism (they object to).
Of course, the Tour de Force routinely wins the day (regardless of the merit of the value-base lying at any movement’s core).
Honest politics (oxymoron?) only works to any effective degree in the locality – that is the place folk should deploy their efforts. Grand schemes just get people mired in confusion and red herring debates. If you’re into politics, don’t think about the big picture so much as invest your energy in the local scene. THAT is where the clout will be best felt – the more local the better.
Anyone who believes meaningful movements can come out of the mainstream probably need to up their drug dosage.
Here is the trailer for Fire in the Heartland. Have a look and decide for yourself…
All Hot And Highly Bothered
David Kurtz | September 17, 2010, 1:09PM
As has been observed by others before me, there is a strange brew of the sexual and the political in conservatives’ admiration for the hyper-femininity and sustained outrage of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and the leggy Fox anchors.
Now it culminates in a new film from the Citizens United crew (makers of Hillary: The Movie and America At Risk).
This one is called Fire From The Heartland, and it argues that everything that makes women strong is “their femininity and their morality,” as Coulter puts it in her narration.
OK, everyone, it looks as though everyone is getting in on the political fray:
She’s the female equivalent of a gay-bashing closeted gay man. She embodies self-hatred and has “come out” on the topic that everyone is afraid to condemn: masturbation. She openly advocates dividing people from themselves.
“When a silly teenage decides that she doesn’t want to have sex anymore till marriage, but she can’t call her self a virgin since shes already had sex.
Sally got screwed by a pickup artist and now shes turning into a secondary virgin so she doesn’t get hurt again.”
Half, I’d take the voyeur position in that one if the Soul would open up a little bit.. enough to see some realization show through the skin-body network. ..but yes, how does that awakening work again? ;P
I read somewhere that she also believes abortion should only be allowed if the mother’s life is at risk BUT, get this, the FAMILY should get to decide who is saved.
Disgusting! I am not an incubator!
Someone pleez get this lady a vibrator.
All great comments.
Eris, thanks for pointing out that the AMA and APA are in bed w/Big Pharma.
Well, it really is a great day when you start by chuckling to the comments hare at PW! Seems odd that I have actually been pondering in my own mind regarding sexual repression and its effects on the human race. With years of observation under my belt, I find that alot, (if not all) untoward behaviors can be traced back to this…. And for the most part, people don’t even know it….can’t quite put their finger on it, but with todays headlines talking about putting children on resperidol for mania associated with a depressive disorder, makes you wonder why the AMA the APA and all the rest of the A’s haven’t atleast made a comment about it, at least not a loud one anyway, why what would they do with all those prescription pads?
Peace and Love and happy screaming to all!
Yup, the key point Eric. It’s not being done ‘to me’ but I *welcome* it. So many folk I know are scared of mirror play. sacrilege..
But hey, maybe Christine should then get proactive with some reverse cowgirl ass moves so that she becomes the more active party – stripping even more layers of guilt and shame away!
Keep begging all you want, Christine. That’s just lovely. But look in the mirror. Open your eyes…say it again…
..it’s no surprise that the most repressed can become among the dirtiest.. they have lots of contrast to go on.. I see her being humped by some hung porn stud actually, Jere. The fantasy that really gets you off is the visual of her drooling and begging for more.. you know, as she screams out “..and now my ass” 😉
..I’m with ya man,.. it’s all tongue in cheek right now. Some cats are beyond my capacity..
..but as I said, good luck with that one!
Jere
..I found it (not the site, the description),.. it’s the false skin swaggering around on the reptilian bird-like structures.. Yup, that’s some scary shit!
It doesn’t start with the sex, Jere. It starts with the quest for authentic experience. If we look at the posting higher up, where Eric has the Reich quote, we notice how the libidinal/curiosity suppression manufactures the conformist (with guilt for the Chastity Belt).
You can’t sell sex unless you discredit religion (or become a hooker)..
..well, you boys are on the conversion process ’cause that one just freaks me out (not in the good way). Both her and Palin look like ducks to me.. maybe they eat a lot of fowl?.
Good luck, it’s been a pleasure knowin’ ya,..
(..I’ll try to find her bukake site..)
I like to think that I can put myself in other people’s mind-space, imagine where they might be coming from etc. This one is a mighty big stretch for me. I get a psychopath more easily than I can get this woman. Meh. Too early in the morning. I suppose I live in denial: sex = fear = bad control over people. Such a disapointing state of affairs. We could all set a time and day and stage a mass-masturbation protest. Yep. Too early in the morning.
“Narrow is the road” that leads to self-honesty, but hopefully more and more people will find it.
Except that this is not about her — it’s about us. She represents everything that people don’t want to deal with.
her rise will bring a great fall…
she will be exposed in the spot light and quickly
disregarded *coughRandPaulcough*
De Witte, Great minds think in the same gutter.
I’d bet she’d be a screamer should someone convert her out of religion..
By now we’ve all heard of the billionaire Koch brothers, waging war against “Obama” in the form of climate change denial and the Tea Bag movement. In case you haven’t here is the article from The New Yorker that pulled the curtain back on them.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
Let’s take another look at how this kind of thing works. Here’s an article from today’s Times on entrepreneurs who get in on the politics game. The Tea Party is big business.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/us/politics/19russo.html?ref=todayspaper
The Tea Party is a lie from the first word because it purports to be a grassroots movement. In fact, it’s funded by the mega-rich, and organized top-down. It’s as populist as CitiBank. We saw a similar thing in the 1980s and 1990s when a “populist” movement of farmers came out for the “wise use” of pesticides. It was funded by Sun Myung Moon, owner of the Unification Church and great friend of the Bush family.
In the comment below — video well worth a few minutes — we have O’Donnell paying her private rent, food and entertainment from “campaign” donations when she wasn’t even running for office. That is a crime called conversion. Campaign funds and private funds must be kept separate, just like a lawyer’s escrow account and the firms operating funds.
We can expect their position on sexuality to be equally fraudulent. It’s merely there to appeal to a certain base of, well, base voters, who would come to the polls merely to dump a gay marriage proposition or to take a stand on any morality/purity agenda. It has nothing to do with right and wrong, or what is good government or not; what is good policy or what is a reasonable political position or not. It’s all about what sells, what gets donations and what gets votes.
We are so far from that conversation it’s no wonder that our government has nothing to do with the interests of the people who supposedly elected it. We face a issue here, which is that government is boring and hard work. I would challenge anyone to go to a Country Legislature meeting, or a Town Council or Planning Board meeting, and report back with what you learn. For most the only thing that makes it interesting or worthwhile is to exploit it. So it’s going to take a new generation of really special crystal children or indigo kids to get into these positions and do something productive.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/18/odonnell.ethics/index.html?hpt=C2
(CNN) — A watchdog group says it plans to ask authorities in Delaware to investigate Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell’s finances.
At issue are more than $20,000 of spending in 2009 and 2010 that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington claims was illegal.
“It turns out Miss O’Donnell has treated her campaign funds like they are her very own personal piggy bank. She’s used that money to pay for things like her rent, for gas, meals and even a bowling outing. And that’s just flat-out illegal,” said Melanie Sloan, the group’s executive director.
In an interview on CNN’s “AC360,” Sloan said her organization would be sending letters to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware and the Federal Elections Commission on Monday asking them to investigate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
In a world full of agendas, who needs a brain? Run for the hills…..and Annie get your gun…..is it just me or am I the only one seeing the name Sarah Jane Olsen on the ballot?
The art of bullshit… fruit of thy womb, isn’t it? Actually flew out of my cereal box this morning…..imagine that!!! I swear that little frosted miniwheat said somthing along the lines of….in the name of love or maybe “you are getting very sleepy”….i am not well versed by any stretch….but that fucking little bugger made me feel there is hope….for all the rest of the miniwheats!!
Peace and Love
Patricia
This article from a Planet Waves series in 2008 covers the history of masturbation and its association with the 12th house.
Of note, O’Donnell was doing fine until the Bill Maher rebroadcast her admission on Politically Incorrect (where she made many appearances) that she had a date on a satanic altar — and that for a while she practiced witchcraft but was “not part of a coven.”
Then, she canceled her appearances on the talk shows and beat a retreat. It had nothing to do with sex — supposedly.
Oops, I was going to delete my comment. Oh well.
I thought shebear was talking about a potential teen issue, or maybe one from childhood, and we were guessing at best, as to Christine’s experience.
Christine will be destroyed by the end of the day, thanks to all the ill will of the people, politicians (both parties) and media.
are about one vertebrae short of having vipercated tails to go with their horns.
I don’t think it inherently matters what O’Donnell’s personal sexual needs are. They are no business of the public unless she makes them business of the public by taking part in attempting to use a public forum (a television program, a senate race, the senate itself) to speak about, manipulate or legislate what is supposedly right and wrong for others. That is why we are having this conversation.
Also, we have no way to verify the claims she is making, or has made, in order to get votes, raise money for her church, or whatever her goal is. She can claim to be a “secondary virgin” to not masturbate or to have no “sexually impure” thoughts, and to some these are meaningful statements. However, we can’t verify them, at this point. So she may as well say she walks on water — but only when nobody is looking.
Further, she is theologically off-base. There is no mention of masturbation in the bible. If she is taking a theological position that calls for some support from the bible. There is nothing there. She can stretch all she wants, but that would be like interpreting Kosher law as, “since we can’t eat pork, we can’t eat anything.” Of the two things that Jesus is reputed to have said about sex in his brief teaching years, referenced in the Gospels, one of them involved the lesson: don’t be a hypocrite.
We have seen the damage that the Catholic clergy, which claims to be celibate on the same terms as O’Donnell advocates, has done. Has anyone been watching the uprising in England surrounding the pope’s visit? Anyone been following the decades of outrage — thousands of cases — of sexual abuse of children by supposedly celibate priests — spill out of the rotten core of the church?
I would note that O’Donnell’s position is not new for our era. It’s certainly not new — Christianity has been an “abstinence only until marriage” campaign for centuries. Christian thinking has never, ever missed the chance to make any form of sex it encounters wrong, while using brothels to raise funds for the construction of cathedrals.
But O’Donnell has been unusually articulate about it in an era when many of the questions are resolved by enlightened thinking. There is not a disease called onania, invented in a booklet from ca. 1612 by a “Doctor” John Marten, mysteriously a combined moral and medical blight that needed to be cured by his remedy; there is simply what humans do as part of our normal behavior. We share 98.4% of our DNA with hypersexual bonobos, who masturbate together all day long, particularly the females.
The concept of onania codified the mania with masturbation that peaked in the 19th century. Immanuel Kant thought masturbation was so vile that there shouldn’t be a word for it (happy to footnote that if anyone likes, it’s from UC Berkeley Prof. Thomas Lacquer’s cultural history of masturbation that came out in 2003.)
But in particular, the modern Abstinence Only campaign, dating to the first months of the Reagan administration in the spring of 1981, has been vicious toward masturbation in kids. It adopted the Mormon’s long-held belief that masturbation is the seat of lust and may be a “sin” that is “worse than” sex. Kids in abstinence programs in public schools who ask about masturbation (or homosexuality) are sent for “counseling.”
The sexuality curriculum in schools is not set up to address normal adolescent sexual behavior, and worse, it does not draw a line between normal and not-normal (i.e, what might hurt someone). By pathologizing all sexual feelings, these programs are doing serious damage to children, compounding guilt with ignorance and perpetuating many problems; study after study says that abstinence indoctrination delays sex by a matter of weeks but significantly raises the likelihood of pregnancy and STIs. For this the American people have paid nearly $1 billion.
I would say that if a Mormon or Baptist family wants to raise their children with these values, that’s their business. But keep it out of public schools. Keep it out of public policy. Sure, go on TV but say, “This is my personal belief.”
One last point. I’ve seen O’Donnell say that we can’t tell kids that masturbation is a good way to have sex without taking a disease risk, because it propagates lust. However, unless we go down Big Brother Lane, what people think and feel is no business of the government and other policy makers (plenty of NGOs have been involved in attacking any real sex education here in the states, most of them church groups). But the public interest resides merely in preventing disease and unwanted pregnancy — not determining the appropriate sexual appetite of people.
This whole discussion merely begins to pierce the insanity. Once we settle on what the real issues are, then we can have a real public conversation. But the issues as they are presented trigger a gag reflex, particularly in the American public, that all you basically get is the reek of vomit when the subject comes up. That’s what this is — debating a point that was ridiculous in 1612, that onania is a moral and medical blight that needs to be cured, is psychic vomit from the dark ages; but maybe we need a good purge.
Isn’t making assumptions about what she “needs” sexually, and then forcing it on her, the same as what she’s trying to do? Isn’t that called rape?
I don’t see many people speaking up about the (what seem to me) sexually violent comments in this thread, and I don’t know whether that’s because it’s just me who feels that way, or because this can be an intimidating environment, either way, that’s how I feel after reading it from beginning.
—————————————————-
@Tracy: It’s funny how folk separate the sexual appetite from all other forms of hunger, isn’t it?
We aren’t talking about violation here. Would you deny that a hardcore anorexic needs to eat? Is a clinician ‘oppressing’ her when taking measures to hit home with the point?
There is less controversy around any other appetite and self-regulation or shared expression than that of sex.
Some of the extremes of porn, for example, that can become extremely distasteful, if not disturbing, are a response to much that is suppressed within our experience. Although porn can be without soul, it is a drama about something – the question is what?
It’s not surprising that there will be exploitation in an area where there is so much confusion, so much lack of clarity with self and one’s own body. Porn will continue to exist within a sexually repressed ‘civilisation’, as its alter ego.
There is ‘violation’ everywhere, all the time. It’s not this social fact and the hint of its presence that should be shocking, it’s that we have not yet learned how to disarm it as mature, willing, thinking and feeling adults, in possession of all our faculties.
As long as people keep crying ‘violation’ at the first hint of honest expression we will be keeping a lid on the discussion and miss the core transformational point – raw honesty.
Of course, people will feel discomfort in such discussions, Tracy.
Of course, as lissam has pointed out, women need to protect themselves from men with mere rapacious intent.
Of course, the language and imagery we use is involved in our co-creation of shared reality.
Of course, you have your right to your sensitivities and concerns and that should be respected.
Please remember however, the context here at PW. Articles are posted, not strictly around astrology, but in respect of how astrology can enter into dialogue with the broader cultural scene. Why? Because if astrology has any merit at all, it has it in so far as it is relevant to what humans do on the planet and how we can understand and shape those things more productively – developmentally you might say.
When a political movement creates/promotes/exploits unhealthy modes of being, in order to rob people of their quality of life – all for personal gain – we have a responsibility to call people out and point out and discourse what is so very wrong about that.
There are vulnerable folk, who lack awareness, who get sucked into trends unthinkingly. An honest debate that GETS TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER is an urgent requirement – that is as far from violence as I think it is possible to get.
Tracy, I agree.
Isn’t making assumptions about what she “needs” sexually, and then forcing it on her, the same as what she’s trying to do? Isn’t that called rape?
I don’t see many people speaking up about the (what seem to me) sexually violent comments in this thread, and I don’t know whether that’s because it’s just me who feels that way, or because this can be an intimidating environment, either way, that’s how I feel after reading it from beginning.
Sorry to interrupt, but this is too rich not to share:
http://www.thereformedbuddhist.com/
September 18, 2010
“Bearing Witness” to Midget Porn: It was a Hand-Job
*Warning: What you are about to bear witness to is an abomination of Buddhism, to blogging and to any sense of decency or self respect. You have been warned!
Thanks to the folks over at the ID Project, and their courageous action to bear witness to the 9/11 rallies, my group, ‘The Order of the Zen Masturbators’ took a page from them, and determined to bear witness to the first midget double penetration scene ever filmed.
This past Saturday was the ninth anniversary of the first midget double penetration scene ever filmed. The debate around allowing the first midget double penetration scene ever filmed had been particularly caustic, with such intense claims from the opposing group that “all midgets are terrorists”; and statements coming from the group who supported the first midget double penetration scene ever filmed, that all who oppose DP scenes in midget porn must be “tall” or “anti-little people”. The more subtle issues of freedom to practice double penetration and the unavoidable relations with oneself that would ensue seemed to be secondary to personal attacks.
…….
Etc. With pictures
Thoughts re: loss of control.
Yes, I agree with the idea that often people fear orgasm because it represents loss of control. Yet, many of these same people (personally known) will willingly lose “control” of the self in other ways, perhaps most easily in alcohol. So it is not necessarily a desire to not lose control.
So why not, then, to orgasm?
I contend, that one purpose to NOT orgasm during sexual intercourse offers the non-orgasmer an opportunity to control the other person. Not ‘giving sex’ at all is one control tactic, but not completing the act, as it were, is another tactic from same game. (Seen it.)
And, of course, there is the situation wherein (a woman) choses not orgasm during intercourse – or fakes it – because the orgasm gives up a piece of herself (that she can still hold on to). This would most likely be within an abusive situation.
Not sarcastic, liminal, but maybe too cheeky. There is so much violence in the language. Screams of pleasure are nice; nice to specify the type of screams, for sure. Cheers to all women’s pleasure and Mrs O’Donnell’s orgasms.
wow — lots to catch up on in this thread. but this caught my eye as i scrolled down:
Proposed protest sign for the Jon Stewart “Take Our Sanity Back” rally on 10/30/10:
I MASTURBATE AND I VOTE.
yesssssssssssss! thanks, fe!
so… who’s leading the official PW delegation to the rally?
lissam:
Sarcasm is a mask for pain. “oh well, that’s nice” No, orgasms are nice, repression is not.
I apologize for not prefacing my post with a trigger warning.
“Hold her down” appears to be one of your triggers, one I think other PW readers may share.
I doubt Christine would consent to what she/all of us needs, that’s the point. Having an orgasm can scare the shit out of people who have been repressed, even the idea of an orgasm freaks out some people. Whether the repression comes from the Church, the state, and/or one’s family of origin, it often manifests as a fear of loss of control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2Mi995ggFU
Buzzcocks’ Orgasm Addict
Thought you might like this link to a new campaign button…..
http://internetlurker.blogspot.com/2010/09/lurker-wants-this-button.html
…. like a pig on a spit, i hope he’s flaming !
De Witte smiles at the female proponent of anti-violence. She who believes that hidden abuse is wrong, a veritable scandal and so highly damaging to womankind.
Sigmund Freud would turn in his grave.. 😉
@half:
the best feminist project i can think of for redeeming sex from religion, etc… is having sex, mmm, good sex, often. but not with you, my dear. i’m just not that into you.
@lissam: Thanks for the care and nurture.
You seem to be quite focused upon sexual violence.
This was not really the thread topic – which could be hijacked with such a shift!
radical feminism historically postulated that ‘the penis is the problem’. Penis as ‘weapon’ in porn. Radicals suggested lesbianism as a lifestyle necessity, political and a must.
The penis is NOT the problem. Men are not the problem. Women are NOT the victims. We all suffer together, in many ways.
When moralists suggest that some fixed ethics is the way forward they block the debate between flesh and blood people. People need to work it out together, between the sheets as well as beyond them..
The problem comes when folk get conditioned into arbitrary constructs that become moralist myths like ‘porn is evil’.
Let me tell you: Lots of porn is more honest than the sanitized and sexless mythology of much contemporary thinking. Am I advocating some of the depravity within porn? NO! But a lot of people would communicate a lot better if they just fucked viscerally rather than having civilized encounters, where everyone gets a chance to be ‘nice’ to one another while leading mendacious lives outside the bedroom.
So lissam, can you produce or at least articulate a constructive feminist project for redeeming sex from the grip of religion?
@ liminal:
Ohh you meant ‘screams’ of pleasure! oh, well, that’s nice! i’m sure you meant ‘hold her down’ ‘with her consent’, too.?
control [too much control] is definitely many women’s achilles heel. it’s the way, way downside of pussy power. it’s a patriarchal construct, a very necessary defense strategy, it saves face, it’s slimming, it comes in handy with child-rearing, it’s very attractive overall and for goddess-sake expected of us at every turn.
but see i think she’s probably a tiger in the sack. canopy bed. we may never know.
anyone have a visual for the husband? (i may regret asking that..)
@ half:
it seems you are addressing the politics of power, consent, control, etc. within a straight, intimate encounter. i’m not sure where this came from, honestly. i do hear victimization, hurt and betrayal in it…. most certainly any use of power can result in abuse of power.
you are kidding yourself if you can’t see that women and girls bear the brunt of sexual violence, wounded though you may be. that’s not radical feminism, btw.
you will no doubt find other men who feel your pain. and it is other men who will probably be of the most help in terms of healing that sexual wound. who can say. i’m gauging that from male friends who’ve had very positive experiences.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#
Hope this helps, Fe.
half:
I would be interested in who you think the shadow government is.
lissam:
I was pretty sure someone would react to that part of the quote in the way that you just did. Your choice. I think Christine needs LOTS of screaming orgasms. I know I do.
I think O’Donnell controls herself to the point of never losing control. Her choice, but the problem is she wants EVERYONE to make the same choice.
Patty:
That was not apparent to me in first reading your comment, so thanks for clearing that up!
I think its US who need the prayers to find the sanity in this place called the US. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have the best thing going: “Rally to Restore Sanity” in DC.
I wish I could go.
..there is rape in this world, there is circle jerking going around… Are we good? Can we chat?
..This political/sexual tension has been going on far too long. (I should know, I’m ‘venter’ extraordinare!)
..I just can’t let someone define my reality of sexuality for me,.. I am the Creator. (And I aint talkin’ Greek,.. not my era)
..But, I am using the words available to me to convey what I’m experiencing..
..And, I think I’m pretty Valid.
Love All..,
Jere
@lissam: I simply called the ball foul.
——————————————–
‘Simply’ is the conspicuous word here! You made a judgment when you described a mainstream response. Sorry, it’s not as simple as that.
Christine O’Donnell is not my enemy – I don’t even know her. She represents something. She articulates an ideology with strong moral conviction. We may wish to challenge her views on this site as a construct born of sexual suppression.
I’ve encountered several women who felt it more appropriate to attempt to control an intimate encounter than to express their desires mutually. Now here is the crux, whether you like it or not..
People do things to other people as well as with them. There is regularly consensus in various forms of intercourse. Sometimes one party imposes their will to some degree upon the other. It is not simply men who do the latter to women..
Neither, when a man blurs that boundary is it necessarily oppressive if there is honesty between the pair.
Too often, however, people just crack on with the sex and discover the frustrating politics as they go along. Whether it is suppression or a control drama it stems the flow of exchange.
There is gender and sexual politics in the mix so many times. Just because I experience this on occasion does not mean you can relegate this to ‘my issue’
I choose to speak openly and without reservation and you feel it appropriate to put that in some ‘typical boys’ box.
That is a shame. You may benefit from tempering your radical feminism with a more diverse exposure – perhaps womanism?
If you believe that feminism of any stripe has the capacity to heal our collective sexual wounds, I’d be interested to hear your constructive contribution in that regard.
@ liminali
i think ‘holding her down’ reveals you
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-tv/arianna-leno-tonight-show-third-world-america_b_721853.html
An interview of Arianna Huffington by Jay Leno. Wonderful on all levels.
When I see Christine O’Donnell she makes me think of what a friend said about Condoleezza Rice, “She looks like she needs someone to hold her down and eat her pussy til she screams”
Who wants to join me in the Million Masturbators March?
http://www.borowitzreport.com/
p.s. nice sign, Fe!
@ half:
huh? am i flaming? like a phoenix? like a vulva gone wild?
you call it an honest and visceral (brotherly?) brokerage… i call [it] a circle jerk. no harm done. it’s a normal day on planet earth. there’s a common enemy. today it’s christine o’donnell, and she’s got your panties in a bunch. you’ll work it out. your language will reveal you as you do.. but you’ll work it out eventually.
– – “As a woman who asserts such a position, do you believe that any adult withholding from another because of a powerplay, or a fear, or whatever, is actually healthy?” – –
you sound a little victimized, here. ‘withholding’ what? who is withholding from you half? unhealthy for whom?
i simply called the ball foul.
Fe I didn’t say she wasn’t crazy or right thinking.
Eric, Frank’s article is very interesting – a nice piece of journalism. Cogently written etc. I am obviously no expert on the U.S. scene; coming from the U.K. my own domestic scene is easier to access and grasp.
Nevertheless, I feel there is a factor which shouldn’t be lost sight of:
Murdoch, Koch and Koch are extremely wealthy individuals with a lot of clout and a comprehensive, self-interested agenda. (They forget they live on the same planet as the rest of us)
However, although their interests are aligned with conservatism and the jingoism it promulgates, they are not the same as the shadow government. They have clout but they are not the bankers. These characters wield overt political influence by funding their party of choice but they don’t control the overall economy.
My feeling is that the NYT is quite happy to see these three openly ‘exposed’. It makes the article look like credible journalism because it points something factual out about power plays ‘behind the scenes’ . As a propaganda tactic it is well suited to decoying the readership about who the real, shadowy ‘baddies’ are.
The problem of course is not who controls the superficial political scene (weighty funding or not) but who controls the economy – and that ain’t Messrs Koch, Koch and Murdoch.
These women are all (odonnell, palin etc) in the process of showing daddy that they are good little girls.
Rape or no – just that desire (to prove goodness to daddy) – or even actual need – at this stage of their lives is a form of rape, that is A taking violently from them their true woman-hood.
But they do not see that at this stage of the game it is not being taken; that they are giving it away.
@lissam: i dare say there’s a little bit of rape in this thread…. see? how quickly the dialogue deteriorates into a straight boy circle jerk. you’re more mainstream than you think.
——————————————
Are you flaming?
If you aren’t: You can pretend all day that there is no such thing as sexual politics or that if there is it is only men who ‘overpower’ through sex.
The only way to address the downside of sexual manipulations/exploitation is to get get adults of both sexes talking honestly together as adults – for your information that does NOT involve denying one’s drives, desires, fantasies, will, voice, full spectrum sensuality etc.
We are on difficult ground are we not when we suggest that articulation of desire and some raunchiness and play/talk is tantamount to rape. As a woman who asserts such a position, do you believe that any adult withholding from another because of a powerplay, or a fear, or whatever, is actually healthy?
Anyone who wishes to get real and talk about sex in a real way and who happens to me male is one short step from violating the other?
I think perhaps you may be more mainstream than those expressions reflected in the honest and visceral brokerage, exhibited thus far on this thread.
Has anyone read through the Frank Rich article? I would love to hear from you about your response to what he said. Thanks.
cheers @ shebear.
i dare say there’s a little bit of rape in this thread…. see? how quickly the dialogue deteriorates into a straight boy circle jerk. you’re more mainstream than you think.
Here’s an article by Frank Rich on the very corporations that are bankrolling the Tea Party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html
They have no interest in what the Obama Administration is trying to do, or about climate change. You might say, we have found here the original Satanic twins: the Koch Brothers.
Get these guys out of our politics. They are destroying the world.
Patty:
Here we agree to disagree. I have big objections to O’Donnell’s view because of how deeply she wants to control the personal lives of others. And always always ALWAYS, its women who pay the price through the loss of their individuation.
This is the hypocrisy of the Teabagger Party wrapping themselves up in the Constitution. To them, its a product, like a cereal box. They recognize the brand but lost track of its meaning.
O’Donnell in and of herself is not dangerous. Its the corporations who have funded the TeaBaggers who are. She is a perfect tool for them. And there will be many more tools up for office now and in the future. If there’s anything to pray for, its for those corporations to be expelled from the US and its politics.
Patty, PWaves is an inclusive community. Therefore, a ‘Christian’ view of prayer is not something that all (or even most) may share. My viewpoint on prayer is that it may have some benefit if a person sees themselves as ‘flowing intention’ toward something. If you choose to believe that a God in the sky is going to act on some request then that is your choice. For me, Immanuel Kant was spot on when he exposed the core psychology of prayer as an ego state. You are only praying to yourself but objectifying your own ego in the process – which for me is a recipe for delusion at best and megalomania at worst.
But hey, that’s just my opinion.
Shebear, I relate to your remarks in every way.
I wish everyone would stop slamming the woman and start sending some much needed prayers.
Proposed protest sign for the Jon Stewart “Take Our Sanity Back” rally on 10/30/10:
Take an Irish-American father and an Italian-American mother, toss in some negative virgo tendencies towards judging, criticizing, a dash of self aggrandizing and mix it all up with a 100% belief in the warped and literal beliefs of your faith (in this case the Roman Catholic Church, which really is cult thinking at its best/worst and you have someone like a Christine O’Donnell) and I’ll bet you she had a really negative experience in her teens like a rape, that wounded her really badly and stunted her emotional growth, turning her into the raving fundamentalist she is today. Believe it or not, I can relate on several levels to her I’m sad to say, because a lot of what shaped her shaped me. Thankfully though I learned to emancipate myself bit by bit from all that crazy thinking with solid hard work and because I sought it; but it’s not easy.
The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for.
Two words – I’m using them for the second time in as many months to describe a political figure:
Reaction Formation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation
michele,
Like you, i endeavor to try other people’s ideas on for size but this is beyond a stretch. It’s even difficult to conceive of except as some sick humor.
Eric,
Excellent point that this …”is not about her – it’s about us.”. She is indeed giving voice to our avoidance and denial. Do we really want that part of our selves represented as the law of the land?
Up next, Witch Burnings.
Have you noticed that even American “fashion” has gotten more of a puritanical look? Covered, but “frilly”. The message is that a “decent woman” wears her necklines high enough, her hemlines low enough etc to maintain her morality while still being “feminine” enough to find a man.
(But nothing sexy in sight (except for our teenage daughters who simultaniously bring it on and fight it off in a balancing act like smiley mirus i mean Miley Cirus.)
Well I guess there’s a need to be “attractive and stupid enough” to have a basis for more than one bout with virginity.
All political action is ideologically driven – and therefore carries the seeds of potential oppression. The whole concept of Protestantism (notwithstanding the religious connotations) implies reactions of ‘new’ or freeing ideas against ideas perceived to be traditional and entrenched (Foucault’s ‘hegemony’) and thus incarcerating.
Actually, such processes can be viewed as authentically Hegelian (in terms of real progress coming through the dialectic of idealistic struggle) or authentically Marxist (in terms of progress through real world or materialist struggle) in terms of having evolutionary benefit and a credible vision for social change.
However, the postmodern critique has clearly demonstrated that once one hegemony is demolished, another one – purportedly new and improved (cue the marketing strategists to ‘package’ that) springs up to replace it. All protest movements, no matter how well meaning, carry the (reactionary) seeds of totalitarianism (they object to).
Of course, the Tour de Force routinely wins the day (regardless of the merit of the value-base lying at any movement’s core).
Honest politics (oxymoron?) only works to any effective degree in the locality – that is the place folk should deploy their efforts. Grand schemes just get people mired in confusion and red herring debates. If you’re into politics, don’t think about the big picture so much as invest your energy in the local scene. THAT is where the clout will be best felt – the more local the better.
Anyone who believes meaningful movements can come out of the mainstream probably need to up their drug dosage.
Here is the trailer for Fire in the Heartland. Have a look and decide for yourself…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDH5ZWtGwVw
This is from Talking Points Memo:
All Hot And Highly Bothered
David Kurtz | September 17, 2010, 1:09PM
As has been observed by others before me, there is a strange brew of the sexual and the political in conservatives’ admiration for the hyper-femininity and sustained outrage of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and the leggy Fox anchors.
Now it culminates in a new film from the Citizens United crew (makers of Hillary: The Movie and America At Risk).
This one is called Fire From The Heartland, and it argues that everything that makes women strong is “their femininity and their morality,” as Coulter puts it in her narration.
OK, everyone, it looks as though everyone is getting in on the political fray:
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert will host competing rallies in DC under the Washington Monument
She’s the female equivalent of a gay-bashing closeted gay man. She embodies self-hatred and has “come out” on the topic that everyone is afraid to condemn: masturbation. She openly advocates dividing people from themselves.
Keeps getting freakier.
Two more on O’Donnell from Fe:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/16/902515/-DE-SEN-ODonnell-said-Women-Cripple-the-Readiness-of-Our-Military
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201009160007
Urban Dictionary: Secondary Virgin
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=secondary%20virgin
“When a silly teenage decides that she doesn’t want to have sex anymore till marriage, but she can’t call her self a virgin since shes already had sex.
Sally got screwed by a pickup artist and now shes turning into a secondary virgin so she doesn’t get hurt again.”
Half, I’d take the voyeur position in that one if the Soul would open up a little bit.. enough to see some realization show through the skin-body network. ..but yes, how does that awakening work again? ;P
I read somewhere that she also believes abortion should only be allowed if the mother’s life is at risk BUT, get this, the FAMILY should get to decide who is saved.
Disgusting! I am not an incubator!
Someone pleez get this lady a vibrator.
All great comments.
Eris, thanks for pointing out that the AMA and APA are in bed w/Big Pharma.
Well, it really is a great day when you start by chuckling to the comments hare at PW! Seems odd that I have actually been pondering in my own mind regarding sexual repression and its effects on the human race. With years of observation under my belt, I find that alot, (if not all) untoward behaviors can be traced back to this…. And for the most part, people don’t even know it….can’t quite put their finger on it, but with todays headlines talking about putting children on resperidol for mania associated with a depressive disorder, makes you wonder why the AMA the APA and all the rest of the A’s haven’t atleast made a comment about it, at least not a loud one anyway, why what would they do with all those prescription pads?
Peace and Love and happy screaming to all!
Yup, the key point Eric. It’s not being done ‘to me’ but I *welcome* it. So many folk I know are scared of mirror play. sacrilege..
But hey, maybe Christine should then get proactive with some reverse cowgirl ass moves so that she becomes the more active party – stripping even more layers of guilt and shame away!
Keep begging all you want, Christine. That’s just lovely. But look in the mirror. Open your eyes…say it again…
..it’s no surprise that the most repressed can become among the dirtiest.. they have lots of contrast to go on.. I see her being humped by some hung porn stud actually, Jere. The fantasy that really gets you off is the visual of her drooling and begging for more.. you know, as she screams out “..and now my ass” 😉
..I’m with ya man,.. it’s all tongue in cheek right now. Some cats are beyond my capacity..
..but as I said, good luck with that one!
Jere
..I found it (not the site, the description),.. it’s the false skin swaggering around on the reptilian bird-like structures.. Yup, that’s some scary shit!
It doesn’t start with the sex, Jere. It starts with the quest for authentic experience. If we look at the posting higher up, where Eric has the Reich quote, we notice how the libidinal/curiosity suppression manufactures the conformist (with guilt for the Chastity Belt).
You can’t sell sex unless you discredit religion (or become a hooker)..
..well, you boys are on the conversion process ’cause that one just freaks me out (not in the good way). Both her and Palin look like ducks to me.. maybe they eat a lot of fowl?.
Good luck, it’s been a pleasure knowin’ ya,..
(..I’ll try to find her bukake site..)
I like to think that I can put myself in other people’s mind-space, imagine where they might be coming from etc. This one is a mighty big stretch for me. I get a psychopath more easily than I can get this woman. Meh. Too early in the morning. I suppose I live in denial: sex = fear = bad control over people. Such a disapointing state of affairs. We could all set a time and day and stage a mass-masturbation protest. Yep. Too early in the morning.
“Narrow is the road” that leads to self-honesty, but hopefully more and more people will find it.
Except that this is not about her — it’s about us. She represents everything that people don’t want to deal with.
her rise will bring a great fall…
she will be exposed in the spot light and quickly
disregarded *coughRandPaulcough*
De Witte, Great minds think in the same gutter.
I’d bet she’d be a screamer should someone convert her out of religion..