Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cathar]

media responded by asking if everyone wanted the captain to resign for setting a bad moral example, and everyone responded with a resounding "meh I don't see what this has to do with their ability to kick footballs." But the fact that the media was reporting on it allowed them to report on the growing media controversy surrounding them, allowing them to force their resignation with stories of "growing media calls for resignation." And that's just for d00d sports lmao, this is easily replicated in politics, where only the most shameless politicians retain their seats when those seats are put under a blacklight.

Then the d00ds are 100% right and the massmedias are 100% wrong. The climate of sexual repression made you lose a good guy for absolutely no reason. It's not the footballers who are to say "banging is okay". They are already fine with the idea. It's the public who is to do that.

[McTraveller]

I think the underlying issue is more one like "Wouldn't it be great if our leaders were above reproach?"

[Loud Whispers]

Then the d00ds are 100% right and the massmedias are 100% wrong. The climate of sexual repression made you lose a good guy for absolutely no reason. It's not the footballers who are to say "banging is okay". They are already fine with the idea. It's the public who is to do that.

Mass media is sexualised as all hell, they think it's ok too. They also understand that sex scandals are the most marketable sexiness, and when in conjunction with politics, it's a neoliberal wet dream. It is not whether media, or people are supportive, indifferent or opposed to the various sexual lives of their leaders, but rather with how shameless the leaders themselves are. Consider how Dominique Strauss-Kahn was ashamed and resigned over his indulgence in sex parties (in liberal France), where Berlusconi's bunga bunga parties were blatant orgies and Italians didn't give a fuck (in Catholic Italy).
There is also another issue in that dirt begets dirt, and a lack of self-control tells powerful people that they only need to get that leader in the right environment, with the right drinks, with the right vices, to incriminate them with something very useful. Usually also how you end up having pedos in power, cos everyone who knows about it would rather have a pawn than try to get them prosecuted

I think the underlying issue is more one like "Wouldn't it be great if our leaders were above reproach?"

Aye, the main battlefield will be taking control of the political party apparatus. Americans will never be able to begin fixing shit politically, politely, for as long as they are only allowed to vote for a selection of corrupt scions of past political houses. Seize the means of selection fams, it is the politest way to begin fixing shit.

[Cathar]

Unfortunately powerful men will continue to bang pretty girls until we give the leadership of our countries to artificial intelligence. We can either come to term with it and adapt our behaviors to reality or we can continue to face morale crisises over morale crisises everytime life happens. I'm just advocating for practicality there

They also understand that sex scandals are the most marketable sexiness

And this is only possible because it shocks people. How it does, I don't know, but it does and here's lies the problem

[Loud Whispers]

Unfortunately powerful men will continue to bang pretty girls until we give the leadership of our countries to artificial intelligence. We can either come to term with it and adapt our behaviors to reality or we can continue to face morale crisises over morale crisises everytime life happens. I'm just advocating for practicality there

That just sounds like you're giving up tbh. Moral regulation of your elites is the most important thing to do lest you end up ruled by complete fucking edgelords. Speaking from the UK perspective, you might not be able to stamp it out entirely, but you can damn well make it clear it's unacceptable and so select for the kinds of leaders who have moral standards, who aren't complete hedonists who view their own pleasure above their duty to their country.

[Cathar]

That just sounds like you're giving up tbh. Moral regulation of your elites is the most important thing to do lest you end up ruled by complete fucking edgelords.

What, no. I just want my medias to do some investigative journalism about what the hell is going on with the steel market price, because US citizen are probably getting swindled from all they have as we speak. A dude bangs a whore should not matter. It objectively doesn't

[Loud Whispers]

What, no. I just want my medias to do some investigative journalism about what the hell is going on with the steel market price, because US citizen are probably getting swindled from all they have as we speak. A dude bangs a whore should not matter. It objectively doesn't

Expecting anything of your media when it's all owned by Disney and Warner's ilk is pointless, while a dude's dirty secrets don't matter until they become President - then they're a matter of national security. Objectively it does matter, hence why this information ends up getting sold to power brokers in the US, and even abroad

Look at it this way, releasing the porn searches of a Presidential candidate might not reveal anything untoward or illegal, but it would nonetheless give leverage to whoever possessed this information

[Cathar]

Expecting anything of your media when it's all owned by Disney and Warner's ilk is pointless, while a dude's dirty secrets don't matter until they become President - then they're a matter of national security. Objectively it does matter, hence why this information ends up getting sold to power brokers in the US, and even abroad

Do we at least agree on the fact the weakness is endogenous and the wound is self-inflicted by the US inability to come to terms with male sexuality in general?

[Loud Whispers]

Do we at least agree on the fact the weakness is endogenous and the wound is self-inflicted by the US inability to come to terms with male sexuality in general?

No, if it wasn't sexuality, it'd be some other dirt. Like drugs, fraud, tax evasion, pokemon go memes e.t.c.

[Cathar]

Aight, so I rest my case

[Dunamisdeos]

I'm a churchgoing Christian (aka the sex police) and I could absolutely not care less about whatever stupid sexual BS the President is into.

Also, my liberal friends talk way, way, way more about sex and how wrong people are for not adopting their views on it than anyone in my church. More so than my church in general, even.

These are mine.

[smjjames]

On sex and yadda yadda: Trump isn't even the first womanizer President we've had, and I mean further back than Bill Clinton, it's just that most of them kept it under wraps (or the press had a gentlemans agreement or somesuch).

The primary difference is that Trump metaphorically hung it all out in the open, it was the worst kept secret in NYC that Trump was that kind of person. Plus the fact that he made a habit out of doing NDAs on women to keep the stuff out of the public. What that adds up to is a willingness to, or even a weakness towards, effectively legally blackmailing people to keep quiet.

LW does have a point in that if it wasn't sex, it would be financial dealings, drugs, things you did in the past that make you embarrassed now but are totally legal, and so on. However, Trump seems to be especially vulnerable to blackmail because he makes a habit out of doing the legal version of it.

[Frumple]

I'm a churchgoing Christian (aka the sex police) and I could absolutely not care less about whatever stupid sexual BS the President is into.

Also, my liberal friends talk way, way, way more about sex and how wrong people are for not adopting their views on it than anyone in my church. More so than my church in general, even.

So serial philandering and violation of marriage vows means sod all to you as a christian, and that sort of thing has no bearing on your view of their fitness as a president, gotcha'.

Have to say that's refreshing, in a sense. Most sort I've met over the years at least draw up a veneer of sanctimonious babble on the subject. If only the rest of christian religious folks would apply that sort of view, maybe we could unwind the several centuries of raw bullshit the religion in general has injected into societal norms regarding sex and relationships, get them out of marriage laws and sex ed, decriminalize prostitution, maybe cut out those exceptions for underage marriages still screwing around mostly because of 'em, who knows what else. Plenty to choose from, really.

There's probably commentary to be made on how much easier to is to be quiet on a subject when you're in the advantageous position and rely quite a bit on ignorance and pointed silence to stay that way, but eh. I'm sure all discussion (or lack thereof) on sex is equally valuable and no positions on it are actually wrong.

[Trekkin]

There's probably commentary to be made on how much easier to is to be quiet on a subject when you're in the advantageous position and rely quite a bit on ignorance and pointed silence to stay that way, but eh. I'm sure all discussion (or lack thereof) on sex is equally valuable and no positions on it are actually wrong.

Well yeah; it's not entirely surprising that a group whose views on sex are in many cases enshrined in law (condom bans, laws against fornication, etc) are less inclined to talk about a subject they consider taboo than a group who aren't happy with how everyone else is less willing to engage in frank discussion about the unacknowledged complexities of human sexuality than they are.

[Cathar]

I tried to talk about male sexuality with feminists once. I mentionned hypergamy and hell got loose.
I love finding unusual and creative waysto get banned from forums to the point it is almost a form of art. I wonder if I have still some sample ofthe insult mails I received from the side of tolerance