Is it any wonder that the poll numbers for politicians and staffers are hovering around the 2% mark? I think that's only because we aren't allowed to peg negative numbers on the graph.
The Senate escapade certainly adds to the debauched Hunger Games meme visualized by the White House Nutcracker routine. I’m a lesbian from a different age and, so, am put off, but not surprised, by this brazen act of self-absorbed exhibitionism pretending to be boldly transgressive, and I’ll have no problem saying so.
Normalizing deviance gets more deviance. It is the plan. Normals are being persecuted as domestic terrorists to protect the deviants. Normals need to escape from hell.
It could be about normalizing not deviance but generally obscenity. Deviance is chosen because there are specific taboos against attacking it which are not protecting heterosexual obscenity. (Any sex becoming obscene through the inappropriate setting not being obscene in itself.)
I've been happily married to an actual XX/vagina woman for more than forty years, so I'm not sure why I received this message. That being said, when I was a very young man in the 1970s I shared an 1890 flat in San Francisco with three gay men, and I also knew all of their gay friends. They were all serious people, and would never have approved of such irresponsible behavior. Such a stupid act certainly does paint the entire gay population with a wide brush in the minds of many people. It's important to convey the message that not all gay people are sex-obsessed idiots.
I don't know what you mean by "why I received this message." Are you not subscribed here? Or, did you get an alert by Substack Notes?
Do you believe, Mr Cotterman, that I *personally* picked you, ran your demographics, and marketed to you as Cary Cotterman? Do you believe I have that power?
I have at least one older person in my life who misunderstands how social media works, and seems to think that every Facebook post he sees is addressed personally to him. Maybe there’s a similar misapprehension here.
I’m a straight woman, and was a bit of an exhibitionist in the very distant past. I am horrified at porn being filmed in a hallowed space like that, but also I’m 54, I have to ask: how is he kneeling on a desk? My knees would be killing me.
Funny, except my knees don't think it's funny! Not so sure about "hallowed space." In 1856 democrat pro-slavery senator Preston Brooks attacked republican abolitionist senator Charles Sumner with a cane on the senate floor from behind. He was applauded by his fellow democrats. Sumner had given a speech endorsing the Nebraska Act, passage of which had the effect of repealing the Missouri compromise.
Brooks contended Sumner wasn't a gentlemen, so a duel was unnecessary. Sumner ultimately succumbed to his injuries 18 years later.
So the capitol building has long been the site of depraved acts performed by representatives and senators. And for the AI surveillance apparatus that will no doubt misinterpret my comment someday, I'm not "anti" government.
All I can say is, thank God that we got rid of the bad orange man who lacked any respect for norms and was constantly violating the sacredness of our beloved institutions. Imagine how bad it would be if we hadn't!
Just like Clinton and Lewinski with a cigar in the oval office, this is a fuck you to the ideal of this country, this nation - the concept of morals and values that are just and possible and accessible to everyone, rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight, ad nauseum.
JFK was a louse, but the press covered it up because the majority of the people of this nation would have been appalled, traumatized even, by the knight of Camelot being a man slut. Don't get me started on the absolute scum that was LBJ.
Fast forward 30ish years and you get people excusing Clinton's behavior, defending it even, as "not a big deal", "nobody's business", "who cares", "grow up". I was floored at the time by the conversations - excuses - that swirled around that entire affair - and that still do. Clinton himself in a later interview said he started the affair "to manage my anxieties as president", *snort*; and people pat him on the back and say, "there, there". MeToo didn't touch him. “I like the MeToo movement; it’s way overdue.” Yes, yes he did. It's bizarre. Disgusting. Grotesque.
Are we surprised that 30ish years later this is where we are? I'm not. Sad. Horrified. But surprised? The decline is real. One need only know history to understand, and see, how civilizations decline and empires fall.
Earlier this year, in my country, a female teacher filmed herself 'performing a solo sex act' in an empty classroom in 2 separate primary schools. There were no students around, but in one of the films the door was wide open to the corridor. In another two videos, she filmed herself using a vibrator in the school toilets with the sounds of children clearly audible in the background.
My question that I have is “what does a full non-degenerate gay relationship even look like?”
We have repeatedly done social experiments that keep coming back negative:
- Very few homosexuals have chosen gay marriage
- Those that did advanced the surrogacy industry, which is the buying and selling of children.
- Even within those relations, in order to emulate natural growth for children require ridiculous feats of money, such as buying industrial size freezers full of breast milk for babies.
- Outside of gay marriage, you still have overt and large sexual events that are the main vector for mutating and spreading STDs.
- Gay Marriage without kids seems pointless except as an invention of the tax system.
The only organized non-degenerate gay relationship to my mind is becoming an eunuch. But I am more than happy to submit to a properly defined and robust model of a non-degenerate Gay relations. I just feel it isn’t happening, which is a shame.
It's the culture that has to change. We live in a hyper-sexualized, lust-based culture, where promiscuity amongst both homo- and heterosexuals are promoted. Of course, not everyone turns to this lifestyle, and those who do not should be lauded.
I would imagine "non-degenerate" means--I don't know--a monogamous relationship between two people who care for one another through thick-and-thin, regardless of their sex?
I would take non-degenerate to mean "life-giving", whereas heterosexual relations (absent forever birth control or an unlucky draw) are defaulted to be 'life-giving', homosexual ones are not.
I am, of course, not so vain, as to suggest that the only 'life-giving' activity is pregnancy; To manifest great "works" as a master artisan must be seen as 'life-giving', for example.
The issue is that a gay society (a society that is happy for it's end) will no doubt correlate homosexual men, men who can be seen as cutting their own lineage, with that very gayness. The gay culture promotes the very half-lust; at least true lust may result in life by accident.
Well, a "gay society" isn't even feasible, as over 95% of both men and women alike are heterosexual by default. Besides, not all heterosexuals have children (even before "DINKS"), but society hasn't ended.
But this brings me to my question I pose to many--if we are to say marriage is between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is frowned upon--then what do you suggest the homosexuals do? Force themselves to be "straight"? Be celibate?
Let me fix up my terms real quick. I do not use gay and homosexual interchangeably. Gay means to be 'Happy at the End'. A child burning down a village to feel it's warmth is gay. Homosexual is 'man-to-man love', whereas lesbian is 'woman-to-woman love'.
As far as I have stated, I suggested that homosexuals produce relations around the production of great 'works' or be celibate. I would say that those who face immense guilt at ending their lineage can also accept that suffering and force themselves through it. Also, I am not an unbeliever that changes in diet and health can dramatically change sexual attraction; I don't believe it is universal, but I recommend it.
Outside suffering fakeness, none of these options are marriage, but they are 'life-giving' or at least not 'anti-life'.
I see. I'm the kind of person that uses "homosexual" for both "lesbian" and "gay" people (i.e., anyone who is same-sex attracted).
In addition, I'm glad you provided an answer! You're one of the only people who ever has. I actually agree with you, relationships should have the aim to produce something, be it works or children (otherwise, we're all just wasting time).
Though I wouldn't know about how healthy it is for a homosexual to enter a "straight" (also called a "mixed-orientation") marriage. And by health, I mean in terms of mental wellbeing. However, the data on that is a bit murky, and seems to be a case-by-case basis.
This is the first time I've heard about changes in diet and health and their impact on sexual attraction. I know some foods are theorized to increase sexual desire and the hormones associated with it (e.g., testosterone), but it would be curious if dietary changes could drastically change sexual attraction.
I personally am just tired of the on-again and off-again relations that dissident types can have about homosexuality. There is clearly something evil and satanic in the distorted rainbow flag, but at the same time, there exists many formative thinkers who are homosexuals. It is in good charity to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I saw a statement allegedly made by the staffer that is a perfect DARVO. Of course it is.
Who is he working for?
WAS working for Senator Ben Cardin
Is it any wonder that the poll numbers for politicians and staffers are hovering around the 2% mark? I think that's only because we aren't allowed to peg negative numbers on the graph.
Pegging is clearly permitted, that’s the whole context.
Hollywood audition, perhaps?
Audition for role of President.
The Senate escapade certainly adds to the debauched Hunger Games meme visualized by the White House Nutcracker routine. I’m a lesbian from a different age and, so, am put off, but not surprised, by this brazen act of self-absorbed exhibitionism pretending to be boldly transgressive, and I’ll have no problem saying so.
Thank you, Leslie.
Normalizing deviance gets more deviance. It is the plan. Normals are being persecuted as domestic terrorists to protect the deviants. Normals need to escape from hell.
It could be about normalizing not deviance but generally obscenity. Deviance is chosen because there are specific taboos against attacking it which are not protecting heterosexual obscenity. (Any sex becoming obscene through the inappropriate setting not being obscene in itself.)
Dropped a serious truth bomb here; mad respect 🫡
I've been happily married to an actual XX/vagina woman for more than forty years, so I'm not sure why I received this message. That being said, when I was a very young man in the 1970s I shared an 1890 flat in San Francisco with three gay men, and I also knew all of their gay friends. They were all serious people, and would never have approved of such irresponsible behavior. Such a stupid act certainly does paint the entire gay population with a wide brush in the minds of many people. It's important to convey the message that not all gay people are sex-obsessed idiots.
I don't know what you mean by "why I received this message." Are you not subscribed here? Or, did you get an alert by Substack Notes?
Do you believe, Mr Cotterman, that I *personally* picked you, ran your demographics, and marketed to you as Cary Cotterman? Do you believe I have that power?
I have at least one older person in my life who misunderstands how social media works, and seems to think that every Facebook post he sees is addressed personally to him. Maybe there’s a similar misapprehension here.
I’m a straight woman, and was a bit of an exhibitionist in the very distant past. I am horrified at porn being filmed in a hallowed space like that, but also I’m 54, I have to ask: how is he kneeling on a desk? My knees would be killing me.
Imagine how his asshole must feel!
Funny, except my knees don't think it's funny! Not so sure about "hallowed space." In 1856 democrat pro-slavery senator Preston Brooks attacked republican abolitionist senator Charles Sumner with a cane on the senate floor from behind. He was applauded by his fellow democrats. Sumner had given a speech endorsing the Nebraska Act, passage of which had the effect of repealing the Missouri compromise.
Brooks contended Sumner wasn't a gentlemen, so a duel was unnecessary. Sumner ultimately succumbed to his injuries 18 years later.
So the capitol building has long been the site of depraved acts performed by representatives and senators. And for the AI surveillance apparatus that will no doubt misinterpret my comment someday, I'm not "anti" government.
Calluses.
All I can say is, thank God that we got rid of the bad orange man who lacked any respect for norms and was constantly violating the sacredness of our beloved institutions. Imagine how bad it would be if we hadn't!
Oh damn. You win. Kudos.
As usual, you win the thread, Holly. Mad props for your ability to consistently nail it to the wall. 👏
Perspective is everything! You just proved that once again.
Yeah, the adult films are back in the room 😀
Vagina Woman. LOLcatz. :)
Just like Clinton and Lewinski with a cigar in the oval office, this is a fuck you to the ideal of this country, this nation - the concept of morals and values that are just and possible and accessible to everyone, rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight, ad nauseum.
JFK was a louse, but the press covered it up because the majority of the people of this nation would have been appalled, traumatized even, by the knight of Camelot being a man slut. Don't get me started on the absolute scum that was LBJ.
Fast forward 30ish years and you get people excusing Clinton's behavior, defending it even, as "not a big deal", "nobody's business", "who cares", "grow up". I was floored at the time by the conversations - excuses - that swirled around that entire affair - and that still do. Clinton himself in a later interview said he started the affair "to manage my anxieties as president", *snort*; and people pat him on the back and say, "there, there". MeToo didn't touch him. “I like the MeToo movement; it’s way overdue.” Yes, yes he did. It's bizarre. Disgusting. Grotesque.
Are we surprised that 30ish years later this is where we are? I'm not. Sad. Horrified. But surprised? The decline is real. One need only know history to understand, and see, how civilizations decline and empires fall.
Damn good message Josh, thank you.
If there is no God, all things are permissible.
Except heckin' racism and transphobia!
Earlier this year, in my country, a female teacher filmed herself 'performing a solo sex act' in an empty classroom in 2 separate primary schools. There were no students around, but in one of the films the door was wide open to the corridor. In another two videos, she filmed herself using a vibrator in the school toilets with the sounds of children clearly audible in the background.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/teacher-filmed-herself-performing-sex-26726579
#notallwomen
😳😳😳
My question that I have is “what does a full non-degenerate gay relationship even look like?”
We have repeatedly done social experiments that keep coming back negative:
- Very few homosexuals have chosen gay marriage
- Those that did advanced the surrogacy industry, which is the buying and selling of children.
- Even within those relations, in order to emulate natural growth for children require ridiculous feats of money, such as buying industrial size freezers full of breast milk for babies.
- Outside of gay marriage, you still have overt and large sexual events that are the main vector for mutating and spreading STDs.
- Gay Marriage without kids seems pointless except as an invention of the tax system.
The only organized non-degenerate gay relationship to my mind is becoming an eunuch. But I am more than happy to submit to a properly defined and robust model of a non-degenerate Gay relations. I just feel it isn’t happening, which is a shame.
It's the culture that has to change. We live in a hyper-sexualized, lust-based culture, where promiscuity amongst both homo- and heterosexuals are promoted. Of course, not everyone turns to this lifestyle, and those who do not should be lauded.
I would imagine "non-degenerate" means--I don't know--a monogamous relationship between two people who care for one another through thick-and-thin, regardless of their sex?
I would take non-degenerate to mean "life-giving", whereas heterosexual relations (absent forever birth control or an unlucky draw) are defaulted to be 'life-giving', homosexual ones are not.
I am, of course, not so vain, as to suggest that the only 'life-giving' activity is pregnancy; To manifest great "works" as a master artisan must be seen as 'life-giving', for example.
The issue is that a gay society (a society that is happy for it's end) will no doubt correlate homosexual men, men who can be seen as cutting their own lineage, with that very gayness. The gay culture promotes the very half-lust; at least true lust may result in life by accident.
Well, a "gay society" isn't even feasible, as over 95% of both men and women alike are heterosexual by default. Besides, not all heterosexuals have children (even before "DINKS"), but society hasn't ended.
But this brings me to my question I pose to many--if we are to say marriage is between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is frowned upon--then what do you suggest the homosexuals do? Force themselves to be "straight"? Be celibate?
Let me fix up my terms real quick. I do not use gay and homosexual interchangeably. Gay means to be 'Happy at the End'. A child burning down a village to feel it's warmth is gay. Homosexual is 'man-to-man love', whereas lesbian is 'woman-to-woman love'.
As far as I have stated, I suggested that homosexuals produce relations around the production of great 'works' or be celibate. I would say that those who face immense guilt at ending their lineage can also accept that suffering and force themselves through it. Also, I am not an unbeliever that changes in diet and health can dramatically change sexual attraction; I don't believe it is universal, but I recommend it.
Outside suffering fakeness, none of these options are marriage, but they are 'life-giving' or at least not 'anti-life'.
I see. I'm the kind of person that uses "homosexual" for both "lesbian" and "gay" people (i.e., anyone who is same-sex attracted).
In addition, I'm glad you provided an answer! You're one of the only people who ever has. I actually agree with you, relationships should have the aim to produce something, be it works or children (otherwise, we're all just wasting time).
Though I wouldn't know about how healthy it is for a homosexual to enter a "straight" (also called a "mixed-orientation") marriage. And by health, I mean in terms of mental wellbeing. However, the data on that is a bit murky, and seems to be a case-by-case basis.
This is the first time I've heard about changes in diet and health and their impact on sexual attraction. I know some foods are theorized to increase sexual desire and the hormones associated with it (e.g., testosterone), but it would be curious if dietary changes could drastically change sexual attraction.
I personally am just tired of the on-again and off-again relations that dissident types can have about homosexuality. There is clearly something evil and satanic in the distorted rainbow flag, but at the same time, there exists many formative thinkers who are homosexuals. It is in good charity to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Anyone else remember the joke about bending over the pages?